Allowed

Arvindkumar Maheshbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC2 Nov 2020SCR.A/5332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court allowed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to release a seized vehicle. The Court directed the release subject to conditions including furnishing surety, undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, prohibiting future use for liquor transport, and ensuring photographs and a detailed panchnama are prepared.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Car Eeco (Reg. No. GJ-16-BN-2804) on conditions: solvent surety equivalent to value, undertaking not to alienate without court permission, undertaking to produce if directed, pro

Arvindkumar Maheshbhai Vasava Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5332 of 2020

¶4

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

¶5

ARVINDKUMAR MAHESHBHAI VASAVA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MS POOJA D BASWAL(9601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RB RAVAL APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 02/11/2020

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the release of the muddamal vehicle i.e. Car – Eeco bearing Registration No.GJ-16-BN2804.

¶16

2.It is the case of the petitioner that on
registrationoftheFIRbeingC.R.
No.11199004200851/2020 registered with Anklewshwar
City Police Station, Bharuch for the offences
under the provision of the Gujarat Prohibition
Act, the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized
as muddamal in connection with the aforesaid
offence, however, the said vehicle is duly
registered with the transport department of the
Government and in support of it, RC Book is placed
on record at Page No.15 of the compilation. He
further submitted that till date, no one has

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶19

claimed for the interim custody of the muddamal
vehicle and if the interim custody of the said
vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he will
abide by the conditions that may be imposed by
this Court while handing over the vehicle. He,
therefore, urged that this petition may be allowed
on suitable conditions.

¶20

3.Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that
this Court has wide powers, while exercising such
powers under Article 226of the Constitution. It
can also take into account the ratio laid down in
the case of 'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF
GUJARAT', reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein,
the Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of
vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming
junk within the police station premises.

¶21

4.Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly
objected the submissions made by learned advocate
for the petitioner and submitted that the vehicle
in question was used for transporting liquor by
the accused and if this motor vehicle would be
released, it will be used for transporting liquor
by the petitioner. However after referring to the
documents produced on record with regard
registration of certification and Identity Card,
it is submitted that the petitioner is the owner
of the vehicle.

¶22

5. Learned APP for the respondent-State 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

¶23

Page 2 of 7

¶24

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶25

GUJARAT' in Special Criminal Application No. 2185
of 2018, Dated: 05.04.2018, and in the earlier
decision in 'PARESHKUMAR 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 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 the vehicle, pending trial,
where, the vehicle is seized in connection with
the offence under the Prohibition Actand the
quantity of the liquor seized exceeds 10 liters.
He, further, urged that, of course, powers of this
Court under Article 226of the Constitution to
order release 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 ordered the release of the vehicle, pending
trial. He has also pointed out the order passed by
this Court in Special Criminal Application No.
1126 of 2018, Dated: 21.06.2018, in case of
'GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH
DEPOT MANAGER, MORBI, VS. STATE OF GUJARAT'.

¶26

6. 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

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

7.1It 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 under:

¶32

"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.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶36

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."

¶37

7.2 The Apex Court has, thus, directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of the vehicle before the Court 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 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 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 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

¶38

Page 5 of 7

¶39

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶40

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.

¶41

8.Resultantly, this application is ALLOWED. The
authority concerned is directed to RELEASE the
vehicle of the petitioner, muddamal vehicle i.e.
Car – Eeco bearing Registration No.GJ-16-BN-2804,
on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:

¶42

(i) furnish a solvent surety of the amount
equivalent to the value of the vehicle in
question as per the value disclosed in
the seizure memo or panchnama;

¶43

(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;

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(v)shall not use this vehicle in
transporting liquor in future.

¶47

(vi)Before handing over the possession of 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

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

R/SCR.A/5332/2020 ORDER

¶50

purpose of trial.

¶51

(vii)If, the IO finds it necessary,
VIDEOGRAPHY of the vehicle also shall be
done. Expenses towards the photographs
and the videography shall be BORNE by the
petitioner.

¶52

9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/ authority forthwith.

¶53

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

¶54

SRILATHA

¶55

Page 7 of 7

Arvindkumar Maheshbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvindkumar Maheshbhai Vasava 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

Bharatbhai Jerabhai Khant Vs State of Gujarat

Ajaysinh Pravinsinh Solanki Vs State of Gujarat

Ranchhodbhai Dineshbhai Chavda Vs State of Gujarat

Nirmal Hansrajbhai Manek Vs State of Gujarat

Bachubhai Nolkabhai Vasava Vs State of Gujarat

Ramdevsinh @ Rambha @ Nanbha Surubha Vaghela Thro Hareshbhai Prakashbhai Vasfoda (Solanki) Vs State of Gujarat