IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7564 of 2021 ==========================================================

AKHTARHUSSAIN AHMEDKHAN KHAN Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR S D MANSURI (7509) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 01/09/2021

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authority to release the muddamal vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-02-CE-4786, which has been seized in connection with the First Information Report being FIR No.11191011200180 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City under Sections 406, 409, 420, 114 and 120B of IPC and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 (for short, “the GPID Act”) as also Sections 4, 5 & 6 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

2. Learned advocate Mr. S.D. Mansuri for the petitioner submitted that a major portion of the amount involved in the case has already been recovered and that only an amount to the tune of Rs.15.00 Lacs (approximately) is yet to be recovered. He submitted that as against the alleged un-recovered amount of Rs.15.00 Lacs, a Car (Make : Kia) bearing registration No. MP-17-CC-7650 worth Rs.17.00 Lacs (rounded off) has already been seized under the provisions of the GPID Act. He, therefore, submitted that the shortfall in the amount to be recovered has already been secured by way of seizing the Car worth Rs.17.00 Lacs. Further, the muddamal Car in question bearing Registration No. RJ-02- CE-4786 has not been seized under the provisions of the GPID Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the muddamal vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mansuri appearing for the petitioner. The Court below rejected the application preferred by the petitioner seeking release of the muddamal vehicle mainly on the ground that the report submitted by the Investigating Officer revealed that an amount of Rs.15.00 Lacs was yet to be recovered in the case and that if there is any shortfall in the amount to be recovered after the disposal of the Car (Make : Kia) bearing Registration No. MP-17-CC-7650, which has been seized in connection with the impugned complaint, the recovery could be set right by disposing the muddamal vehicle in question. The property, which has already been seized under the provisions of the GPID Act, for the recovery of Rs.15.00 Lacs is a four-wheeler Car, the value of which, according to the petitioner himself, is about Rs.17.00 Lacs. The value of motor vehicles depreciate every passing day. Therefore, it would not be possible, at this stage, to presume that the seizure of the Car (Make : Kia) under the provisions of the GPID Act, would be sufficient to set right the amount to be recovered in the case.

4. The GPID Act has been enacted with the intent to protect the interest of depositors of Financial Establishments. Under the Act, “Financial Establishment” is defined as any person or group of individuals accepting deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner but does not include a Corporation owned or controlled by any State Government or the Central Government or a banking Company as defined under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 4 of the GPID Act empowers the State Government to pass an order for attaching money, property or assets belonging to or believed to have been acquired by such Financial Establishment either in its own name or in the name of any other person from out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment or if it transpires that such moneys, properties or assets, is not available for attachment or not sufficient for rep