Gujarat High Court
Vijay Samarsingh Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 810 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd./-
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
VIJAY SAMARSINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 14/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives
service of notice of Rule for the respondent-
State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition,
seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
of this Court under Article 226 and
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for the release of
the muddamal vehicle i.e. car-Harrier XZ 2 OL
Kryotec BSIV (Make Tata Motors Ltd.) bearing
Registration No. GJ-16-CN-1038.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that on registration of the FIR being C.R.
No. 11822009211842 of 2021 registered with
Chikhli Police Station, District: Navsari,
for the offences under the provision of the
Gujarat Prohibition Act. The vehicle of the
petitioner has been seized as muddamal in
connection with the aforesaid offence.
However, the said vehicle is duly registered
with the transport department of the
Government and in support of it, RC Book is
placed on record at Page No.16 of the
compilation.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is not shown as an
accused in the FIR and even during the course
of investigation, he is not arraigned as an
accused till date. He further, under the
instructions, submitted that the petitioner
is the registered owner of the vehicle in
question and till date, the vehicle in
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
question is not involved in any other case
and even no one has claimed for the interim
custody of the muddamal vehicle and if the
interim custody of the said vehicle is handed
over to the petitioner, he will abide by the
conditions that may be imposed by this Court
while handing over the vehicle. He further
submits under the instructions that the
vehicle in question is not involved in any
other case. He, therefore, urged that this
petition may be allowed on suitable
conditions.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged
that this Court has wide powers, while
exercising such powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution. It can also take into
account the ratio laid down in the case of
'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF
GUJARAT', reported in AIR 2003 SC 638,
wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario
of number of vehicles having been kept
unattended and becoming junk within the
police station premises. Learned advocate has
also placed reliance upon the orders passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has
strongly objected the submissions made by
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
learned advocate for the petitioner and
submitted that the vehicle in question was
used for transporting liquor by the accused
and if this motor vehicle would be released,
it will be used for transporting liquor by
the petitioner. However after referring to
the documents produced on record with regard
registration of certification and Identity
Card, it is submitted that the petitioner is
the owner of the vehicle.
7. On thus hearing both the sides, without
determining the other issues raised by the
petitioner, in reference to Sections 98 and
99 and other provisions of the said Act and
reserving that to be determined in future, in
an appropriate proceedings being a
contentious issue, this Court chooses not to
enter into that arena in the present matter
and instead exercise the powers under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
8. Further, from the submissions canvassed by
learned advocate for the petition, it is
revealed that if the vehicle in question is
not released, ultimately it would reduce to
scrape and further the land / space of the
campuses of police stations are also reduced
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
to scrapyards. As against this, continuing
the vehicle in police custody as muddamal,
for various reasons, hardly turns out to be a
factor for furtherance of dispensation of
justice, on conclusion of the trial, as and
when that stage is reached.
9. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in
number of cases, some of which are noted
above, have released the vehicles. This Court
has taken into consideration those decisions
and the judgments / orders referred in those
decisions. Having considered the same, taking
any different view would not be proper.
10. Resultantly, this application is
allowed. The authority concerned is directed
to release the vehicle of the petitioner,
muddamal vehicle i.e. car-Harrier XZ 2 OL
Kryotec BSIV (Make Tata Motors Ltd.) bearing
Registration No. GJ-16-CN-1038, on the terms
and conditions that the petitioner:
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
(i) furnish a solvent surety of the
amount equivalent to the value of the
vehicle in question as per the value
disclosed in the seizure memo or
panchnama;
(ii) 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;
(iii) shall also file an undertaking 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;
R/SCR.A/810/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
(v) shall not use this vehicle in
transporting liquor in future;
(vi) 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;
(vii) 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;
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd./-
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
UMESH/-
