Ratansinh Mobatsinh Rajput vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 15263 Guj

     R/SCR.A/6680/2020                            ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6680 of 2020

=============================================
                         RATANSINH MOBATSINH RAJPUT
                                   Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 28/09/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan and the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Revision Application No.112 of 2019, and seeking the relief to release the muddamal vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-25-A-9389, which was seized in connection with F.I.R. being I-C.R. No.270 of 2018 by the Patan City B-Division Police Station, Dist. Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 413, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 201, 120B of the IPC on suitable terms and conditions.

2. Mr. Ankit Y.Bachani, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR is of car

R/SCR.A/6680/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021

being stolen and also some allegation is made of manipulating the chassis number and thereby has caused destruction of evidence. He submits that it is further alleged in the FIR that new chassis numbers were made for the sale of vehicles in the State of Gujarat.

2.1 Mr. Bachani states that, in the FIR itself, the muddamal Swift (Black Car) which is in ownership of the present petitioner, has been noted down with the current Chassis Number as MA3FHEB1S00A88623 and the petitioner has shown the ownership of the vehicle in his name, as the same vehicle is registered in the R.T.O. of Gujarat at Patan, and the said chassis number matches with the chassis number noted in the FIR.

2.2 Mr. Bachani further submitted that the ownership of the vehicle has been shown by the petitioner and thus the vehicle would have no connection with the accused Shrimali Mukeshbhai Virchandas Devchandas and if at all any claim is moved by any of the accused, then it would require to be decided by the Civil Court in a Suit. The copy of the R.C. Book has been produced on record to prove the aspect of ownership.

2.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the muddamal vehicle has been detained by the investigating officer and that if the interim custody of the vehicle is not given, serious prejudice would be caused to

R/SCR.A/6680/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021

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.

2.4 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.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence and the allegations are of selling the stolen vehicle by changing the chassis number and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be

R/SCR.A/6680/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021

exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. 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 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."

5. The petitioner has shown his ownership of the

R/SCR.A/6680/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021

vehicle by way of copy of R.C. Book from R.T.O. of Gujarat at Patan. The chasis number as stated in the FIR gets reflected in the R.C. Book. 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 petitioner on stringent terms and conditions, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution.

6. 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-25-A-9389 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner;

(i) shall furnish, by way of security, bond and solvent surety equivalent of the amount 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;

R/SCR.A/6680/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021

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

6.1 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.

6.2 It is clarified that this order shall be subject to the decision that shall be rendered by the Apex Court in the pending S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018.

6.3 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.

(GITA GOPI, J.) Pankaj