State Of Gujarat vs Ishwar Singh Hameer Singh Nain
2021 Latest Caselaw 6524 Guj

     R/SCR.A/8793/2017                               ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8793 of 2017

================================================================
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
                                      Versus
                         ISHWAR SINGH HAMEER SINGH NAIN
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MAITHILI MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                 Date : 21/06/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta for the applicants-State and learned Advocate Shri Sanjay Prajapati for the respondent no.1.

2. By way of this application, the applicant-State has challenged the order passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 2017, whereby the order dated 17.06.2017 passed by the learned 5 th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Gandhinagar, was set aside further directing the release of muddamal vehicle.

3. It appears that a criminal complaint has been

R/SCR.A/8793/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

lodged against five accused before Chiloda Police station, Gandhinagar, registered as Prohibition C.R No. 168 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 66(b), 65(A)(E), 116(B), 81, 83 and 98(d) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

2. The respondent herein, who was the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-060GA-1607, which has been detained in connection with the aforementioned complaint, had filed the application before the learned 5th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar, being Muddamal Application No. 5 of 2017, praying for release of truck in question. Vide order dated 17.06.2017, the learned Magistrate, interalia, on the ground that the said vehicle might be used to commit further such offences had refused to grant the application.

3. The respondent herein, being aggrieved by the said order has challenged the same by preferring Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Court, Gandhinagar and whereas vide order dated 17.07.2017, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar has been pleased to set aside the order passed by learned 5 th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar in Muddamal application no. 5/2017

R/SCR.A/8793/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

and the custody of the vehicle in question was directed to be handed over to the respondent subject to certain terms and conditions. The said order of release of muddamal has been challenged by the applicant-State before this Court.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court which is impugned before this Court, reveals that the learned Sessions Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in A.I.R. 2018 (638) and was pleased to allow this Revision Application. That this Court relying upon the very same judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court had noted that allowing the vehicle to remain seized would not serve any purpose and whereas by the time the trial ends the vehicle might be reduced to scrap had observed that in such circumstances, the release of vehicles subject to certain conditions would be expedient and would serve the interest of justice. Relying upon the said decision of the Supreme Court this Court has in number of cases directed the release of vehicles which were seized in connection with the offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Considering the same, more particularly having appreciated the

R/SCR.A/8793/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

reasons stated by learned Sessions Court and considering the fact that the judgment relied upon by Sessions Court has been relied by this Court by directing the release of vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no substantial ground raised by the State, while challenging the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court and, hence, no case is made out for interference. The present application stands disposed of as rejected. Rule is discharged.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) MARY VADAKKAN