Gujarat High Court
Maulik Hasmukhbhai Vyas vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3812/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF
MUDDAMAL) NO. 3812 of 2025
=========================================
MAULIK HASMUKHBHAI VYAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MS SHWETA S LODHA(10592) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
APP MR ROHAN H RAVAL for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent.
2. By this petition under Articles 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash and set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No. 82 of 2024 as well as the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot.
3. The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the vehicle Ashok Leyland Tanker Truck bearing registration No. GJ-12- AT-9949 along with fuel oil therein. The said vehicle was seized by the police in connection with the FIR being CR No. 11208055230231 of 2023 registered with D.C.B Police Station, District Rajkot for the offences punishable under Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3812/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined Sections 285, 286, 120B, 114, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3, 7, 8, 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as well as under section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884.
4. The petitioner preferred an application in the Court of the learned Magistrate for releasing of the muddamal under Section 451 of the Code. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate.
5. Being dissatisfied the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court which also came to be rejected.
6. Being dissatisfied the petitioner has come up with this petition. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, I am of the view that pending the criminal proceedings the vehicle should have been ordered to be released, subject to certain terms and conditions so as to protect the interest of both, the petitioner as well as the prosecution.
7. I am conscious of the fact that both the Courts below have thought it fit not to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Ordinarily, when there are concurrent findings of fact, the Court should interfere only in rarest of the rare case in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, taking into consideration the fact that if the vehicle is allowed to remain in custody at the police station, then by passage of time the vehicle will get damaged and deteriorated. No useful purpose would be served to allow the vehicle remain at the police Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3812/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined station.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1168 of 2012 decided on 11 th October 2012 had the occasion to consider almost an identical issue with regard to release of the vehicle. In the said case, the vehicle was seized in connection with the offence under IPC and Essential Commodities Act. The Court made the following observations :
"10. In any view of the matter, we are not going into the merit of the question as to whether the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, for which a show cause notice has already been issued and the proceedings will take its own course. We are only concerned with the limited question as to whether the vehicle should be ordered to be released by imposing suitable terms and conditions pending the confiscation proceedings.
11. We find substance in the submission of Ms. Shah that by keeping the vehicle open to sky for a long period of time will reduce the vehicle to a scrap. The object of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 is analogous to Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An identical question fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638. The Supreme Court was primarily dealing with the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code. While quoting the aforesaid two provisions of the Act in the judgment, it was observed in para 7 as under:-
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
1) owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2) court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3) if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail:
and
4) this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly, so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles."
12. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, in that case Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3812/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined the Supreme Court directed that following measures should be adopted giving instances contained in para 12 reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:
(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security."
13. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by the police either in commission of various offences or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during investigation of complaint of thefts, the court observed as under:-
"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.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a 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 the 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 the 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. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."
9. Considering the fact that, as the goods loaded in the muddamal tanker does not fall in the category of Bio Diesel and is a petroleum product (DOM), present petition is allowed. The Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3812/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined impugned orders are hereby quashed. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Ashok Leyland Tanker Truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-AT-9949 along with fuel oil therein on the petitioner's furnishing an undertaking of the nature as referred to hereinafter:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond within a period of one week from today, for the production of the vehicle so released, if and when required before the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any such illegal activity.
(iii) The petitioner shall furnish solvent surety of the value of 1.5 times of the actual value of the muddamal vehicle and the goods therein;
(iv) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in any manner, pending the criminal case and shall produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer as and when call upon to produce the same for the purpose of further proceedings.
10. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking on oath on the above terms, and on filing such an undertaking before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer shall immediately release the vehicle and hand over the same to the petitioner.
11. If the vehicle as on today is in custody of the other respondent, then in view of the order passed today, the same shall Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/3812/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined be handed over to the petitioner, subject to the above terms.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) Kaushal Rathod Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:53 IST 2025