Allowed

Jayansinh Sayarsinh Mavi v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC28 Dec 2018SCR.A/11474/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Special Criminal Application seeking release of a vehicle seized for carrying liquor without permit. Relying on Article 226, 227 of the Constitution and referencing Supreme Court precedents regarding vehicle management, the Court ordered the release of the vehicle subject to a security bond, an undertaking not to alienate it, and an undertaking to produce it for trial. Man

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized TOOFAN TURBO CAR (GJ-31-A-6449) subject to a security bond of Rs. 3,00,000, an undertaking against alienation, and an undertaking to produce the vehicle for trial.

Jayansinh Sayarsinh Mavi Vs State of Gujarat — Cheque Dishonour | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 11474 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

JAYANSINH SAYARSINH MAVI

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR MANAN MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

¶13

Date : 28/12/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.The petitioner has preferred this

¶16

petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and
supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India so also inherent powers of

¶17

this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶18

2.This application is preferred seeking
release of vehicle being TOOFAN TURBO CAR bearing
registration No.GJ-31-A-6449.

¶19

Page 1 of 10

¶20

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶21

3.It is the case of the petitioner that he
is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and it is
duly registered with the transport department of
the Government. He is, therefore, before this
Court.

¶22

4.The case of the prosecution is that on
17.10.2017, while the police personnels were on
patrolling, they received a secret information of
the vehicle in question carrying liquor and when

¶23

police authorities intercepted the same near
Prahalad Residency, on carrying out the search of
the said vehicle, liquor was found carrying
without any pass or permit. Therefore, an FIR
being III-C.R.No.5218 of 2017 came to be lodged
with Krishnanagar Police Station under Sections
66(1)B, 65 A E, 116-B, 81 and 98(2) of the
Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶24

5.This Court had issued Rule, making the
same returnable in the month of December, 2018.

¶25

Today, learned Advocate appearing for the

¶26

Page 2 of 10

¶27

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶28

petitioner is heard at length.

¶29

6.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has
urged that this Court has wide powers, while
exercising such powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It can also take into account the
ratio laid down in the case of ‘SUNDERBHAI
AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’, AIR 2003 SC

¶30

638, wherein, the Apex Court lamented the
scenario of number of vehicles having been kept
un-attended and becoming junk within the police
station premises.

¶31

7.This Court has also heard the learned
APP and he has urged this Court that the
appropriate conditions be imposed, while ordering
the release of the vehicle. He further pointed
out that this Court (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
in the case of ‘ANILKUMAR RAMLAL @ RAMANLALJI
MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’ in Special Criminal
Application No. 2185 of 2018, Dated: 05.04.2018,
and in the earlier decision in ‘PARESHKUMAR

¶32

Page 3 of 10

¶33

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶34

JAYKARBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’ in
Special Criminal Application No. 8521 of 2017 and
the allied matters decided on 15.12.2017 has held

¶35

that the powers of the Magistrate to order
interim release of the seized vehicle under
Section 98(2) of the said Act has been curtailed,
and therefore, the Courts below have been held to
have no jurisdiction to order interim release of

¶36

the vehicle, pending trial, where, the vehicle is
seized in connection with the offence under the
Prohibition Act and the quantity of the liquor
seized exceeds 10 liters. He, further, urged
that, of course, powers of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution to order release

¶37

of the vehicle can be exercised at any time,
whenever the Court deems it appropriate. He also
pointed out that the recent decision of this
Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of
2018, where, this Court, in exercise of the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, has

¶38

ordered the release of the vehicle, pending
trial. He has also pointed out the order passed

¶39

Page 4 of 10

¶40

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶41

by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.

¶42

1126 of 2018, Dated: 21.06.2018, in case of
‘GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH
DEPOT MANAGER, MORBI, VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’.

¶43

8.On thus hearing both the sides, without
determining the other issues raised by the
petitioner, in reference to Sections 98 and 99
and other provisions of the said Act and
reserving that to be determined in future, in an
appropriate proceedings being a contentious
issue, this Court choses not to enter into that
arena in the present matter and instead exercise
the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution.

¶44

9.This Court (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
however in the case of in ‘ANILKUMAR RAMLAL @
RAMANLALJI MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’ (Supra) in
Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018,
Dated: 05.04.2018, has also returned the vehicle
recently under Articles 226 and 227 of the

¶45

Page 5 of 10

¶46

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶47

Constitution, exercising its powers to do that
even at an initial stage.

¶48

9.1It would be worthwhile to refer
profitably at this stage to the observations made
by the Apex Court in ‘SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI
VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’ (Supra), which read as

¶49

under:

¶50

“15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

¶51

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter

¶52

Page 6 of 10

¶53

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶54

of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

¶55

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

¶56

9.2The Apex Court has, thus, directed that

¶57

within a period of six months from the date of
production of the vehicle before the Court

¶58

concerned, needful be done. It even went to the
extent of directing that where the vehicle is not
claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance
company or by third person, then such vehicle may
be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the
said vehicle is insured with the insurance
company then insurance company be informed by the
Court to take possession of the vehicle which is
not claimed by the owner or a third person. If

¶59

Page 7 of 10

¶60

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶61

Insurance company fails to take possession, the
vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the
Court. The Court would pass such order within a
period of six months from the date of production
of the said vehicle before the Court. It also

¶62

directed that before handing over possession of
such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the
said vehicle should be taken and a detailed
panchnama should also be prepared. The Apex Court

¶63

also held and specifically directed that
concerned Magistrate would take immediate action
for seeing that powers under Section 451 of the
Code are properly and promptly exercised and
articles are not kept for a long time at the
police station, in any case, for not more than
fifteen days to one month. It, therefore,
directed that this object can also be achieved if
there is proper supervision by the Registry of
the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules
framed by the High Court with regard to such
articles are implemented properly.

¶64

Page 8 of 10

¶65

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶66

10.Resultantly,thisapplicationis

¶67

ALLOWED. The authority concerned is directed to
RELEASE the vehicle of the petitioner, being
TOOFAN TURBO CAR bearing registration No.GJ-31-A-
6449, on the terms and conditions that the
petitioner:

¶68

(i) shall furnish, by way of security,
bond of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh Only) and solvent surety of the
equivalent amount;

¶69

(ii) shall file an undertaking before
the trial Court that prior to
alienation or transfer in any mode or
manner, prior permission of the
concerned Court shall be taken till
conclusion of the trial;

¶70

(iii)shall also file an undertaking
to produce the vehicle as and when
directed by the trial Court;

¶71

(iv) in the event of any subsequent
offence, the vehicle shall stand
CONFISCATED.

¶72

Page 9 of 10

¶73

R/SCR.A/11474/2018 ORDER

¶74

10.1 Before handing over the possession of

¶75

the vehicle to the petitioner, necessary
photographs shall be taken and a detailed
panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn,
shall also be drawn for the purpose of trial.

¶76

VIDEOGRAPHY of the vehicle also shall be done.
Expenses towards the photographs and the
videography shall be BORNE by the petitioner.

¶77

Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

¶78

Direct service is permitted.

¶79

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J)

¶80

M.M.MIRZA

¶81

Page 10 of 10

Jayansinh Sayarsinh Mavi v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayansinh Sayarsinh Mavi v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Narsinh Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Vishalkumar Vinodchandra Jarivala Vs State of Gujarat

Jagdishbhai Rameshbhai Gohel Vs State of Gujarat

Damor Sarlaben Arjunbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Shravan S/O. Janu Mandal Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipbhai Narshibhai Sarvaiya Vs State of Gujarat