Jigarbhai Vijaybhai Tuli vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 16886 Guj

      R/SCR.A/10481/2021                                     ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10481 of 2021

==========================================================
                                JIGARBHAI VIJAYBHAI TULI
                                         Versus
                                   STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BAKUL S PANCHAL(3676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. SS PATHAK, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                                    Date : 27/10/2021

                                     ORAL ORDER

[1] Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent - State.

[2] By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Ld. 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, in Criminal Revision Application No.79 of 2021 confirming the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad Rural and also prayed to release the muddamal vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-24-K-9930, which was seized in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11191039201772 of 2020 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B & 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on suitable terms and conditions.

[3] Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that

R/SCR.A/10481/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

the muddamal vehicle has been detained in connection with the alleged offence mentioned in the FIR and that if the interim custody of the vehicle is not given, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as the muddamal vehicle would get substantially damaged by the time the trial gets concluded and probably, by that time, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also become 'Nil' as the vehicle is lying under the open sky in different climatic conditions. It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may direct release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on suitable terms and conditions.

[4] The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court ordered release of muddamal vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act while lamenting the scenario of a number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming scrap within the police station premises or at any other designated places.

[5] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of section 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, wherein it has been held that the

R/SCR.A/10481/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

[6] Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. In the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017, [2018 (1) GLH 558], it has been held by the coordinate Bench of this Court that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under section 98 of the Act. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlalji Mehta v. State of Gujarat passed in Special Criminal Application No.2185 of 2018 decided on 05.04.2018, the coordinate Bench has ordered the release of muddamal vehicle pending trial in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

[7] Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the relevant

R/SCR.A/10481/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

portion of which reads thus;

"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 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 application for return of such vehicles."

[8] Considering the factual aspects of the case and the principle rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody of the vehicle, if granted in favour of the applicant on stringent terms and conditions, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution. Further, in the decisions referred to herein above, the coordinate Benches have ordered release of the muddamal vehicles on suitable conditions. Except the fact that in view of the embargo provided in section 98 of the Act, nothing adverse has been pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for not exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, this Court has ordered release of

R/SCR.A/10481/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

muddamal vehicles even in instances under section 98(2) of the amended Act and hence, the Court can consider cases falling under section 99 of the Act as well.

[9] In the result, the petition is allowed. Both the above orders passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.GJ-24-K-9930, on the terms and conditions that the petitioner;

(i) shall furnish, by way of security, bond as stated in the seizure memo;

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

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

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

9.1 Before handing over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner, necessary photographs shall be taken and detailed panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn, shall be drawn for the purpose of trial. If the Investigating Officer finds it necessary, videography / photography of the vehicle shall also be done and the expenses thereof shall be borne by the applicant.

9.2 It is clarified that this order shall be subject to the decision that shall be rendered by the Apex Court in the

R/SCR.A/10481/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

pending S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018.

9.3 Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. Registry is directed to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. Learned advocate for the petitioner is also permitted to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) SLOCK BAROT