Pravinbhai Veriyabhai Rathva vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3066 Guj

       R/SCR.A/346/2021                                 JUDGMENT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 346 of 2021


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
==========================================================
1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed             No
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                      No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy            No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question            No
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                     PRAVINBHAI VERIYABHAI RATHVA
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. CHETANKUMAR V DARJI(9309) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                            Date : 23/02/2021

                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly supervisory jurisdiction and under the provisions of Sections 451, read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, and also order dated 25.11.2020

R/SCR.A/346/2021 JUDGMENT

passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Panchmahals at Halol in Criminal Revision Application No. 61/2020 and to release the muddamal vehicle - Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Maxi Pickup Truck, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-17-UU-4859 in connection with the FIR No. 11207050200414 of 2020, registered before the Pavagadh Police Station, District - Panchmahals for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 6(b)(1)(2)(3), 8, 10 and 11(1)e of the Gujarat Animal Protection (Amended) Act, 2017 and Sections 11(1)(j), 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and Sections 5(C), 6(A)(1)(2)(3), 8, 10, 11E,L,D of Gujarat Animal Protection (Amended) Act, 2017 and under Section 119 of the G.P. Act.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chetankumar Darji for the petitioner and learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta on behalf of the respondent - State video conference.

Factual Matrix of the case:

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the muddamal Truck in question. It is further the case of the petitioner that the learned Courts below have rejected the release of muddamal applications and if the muddamal vehicle would lie at the police station for more time, there will be physical damage to it and therefore, interference of this Hon'ble Court is required in the interest of justice as there is no prima facie case against the petitioner.

3.1 It is contended that the muddamal Truck in question was seized by the police authorities as at the relevant time, 2 bullock were being transported in the said Truck in cruel manner, without any facility and hence, the offence, as aforesaid, came to be registered.

R/SCR.A/346/2021 JUDGMENT

3.2 It is also contended that the petitioner has purchased the muddamal Truck in question with aforesaid registration number. That, at present the said vehicle is lying at the police station in abandoned condition. It is also contended that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, had rejected the muddamal application and thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge, Panchmahals at Halol also confirmed the said order and therefore, the present petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the orders passed by the learned Courts below and also prayed for releasing the aforesaid muddamal vehicle.

3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner time and again vehemently submitted that the Coordinate Bench passed the order in favour of the petitioner in identical cases. Further learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench (1) in case of Anash Hasan Suthiya Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 8728 of 2018 dated 12.02.2019 and also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638.

4. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the State has vehemently argued that there are all chances of committing the same offence in future. Therefore, learned Courts below have rightly disallowed the muddamal application. Further, learned APP has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlaji Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018 dated 05.04.2018. It is also contended that learned Courts below have rightly disallowed the muddamal applications by

R/SCR.A/346/2021 JUDGMENT

invoking Section 6A of the Gujarat Animal Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2017 and the Courts below have no jurisdiction to pass order for interim release of muddamal vehicle when trial is pending.

5. Having heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, it appears that this Court, in the case of Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlaji Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018, by order dated 05.04.2018, has also released the muddamal vehicle under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by exercising its powers even at initial stage.

6. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court that within a period of six months from the date of production of the vehicle before concerned Court, needful be done. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court also 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 the Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicle 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 such vehicle before the Court. It is also directed that before handing over possession of such vehicle, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held and specifically directed that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing

R/SCR.A/346/2021 JUDGMENT

that powers under Section 451 of the Code are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for 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.

6.1 Further, it is nobody's case that same vehicle is used in all earlier offences and therefore, the petitioner cannot deny the interim possession of vehicle to the petitioner and on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), this Court is inclined to exercise extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), as under:

"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.

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.

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

R/SCR.A/346/2021 JUDGMENT

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."

6.2 This Court has assistance of orders passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Anash Hasan Suthiya Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 8728 of 2018 dated 12.02.2019 and also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, muddamal vehicle was released by this Court at many occasions.

7. Resultantly, in-fleri the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 03.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, and also the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Panchmahals at Halol in Criminal Revision Application No. 61/2020, are hereby set aside. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of petitioner being Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Maxi Pickup Truck, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-17-UU-4859 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:

a) shall furnish, by way of security, bond as per valued cited in Panchnama or seizure memo and solvent surety of the equivalent amount;

b) 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;

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

R/SCR.A/346/2021 JUDGMENT

d) If the IO finds use of vehicle in any illegal activity by the present petitioner then this order shall stand cancelled and the vehicle will be seized.

e) the trial court shall verify the ownership of the vehicle before releasing the same.

7.1 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 purpose of trial.

7.2 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.

8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax / e-mail to the concerned Court and police station.

(A. C. JOSHI,J) prk