Gujarat High Court
Damra Surdas Rooplal vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/1504/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1504 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DAMRA SURDAS ROOPLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAMLESH S KOTAI(6150) 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
of this Court under Article 226 and
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India for the release of
R/SCR.A/1504/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
the muddamal vehicle, i.e. Maruti Swift Car
bearing Registration No. GJ-31-D-9856.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that on registration of the FIR being C.R.
No. 1120902021193 of 2021 registered with
Idar Police Station, District: Sabarkantha
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.
Aforesaid 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. 12 of the compilation.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is shown as accused No.2
in the FIR. He was arrested and thereafter
released on bail. It is further submitted
that the vehicle in question has been
purchased by the petitioner from from its
original owner, namely Hemant Kanaiyalal
Labana. The sale agreement is produced at
Page-14 of the compilation. At this stage, it
is further pointed out that the registered
owner of the vehicle in question, namely
Hemant Kanaiyalal Labana, has filed an
affidavit before this Court stating therein
R/SCR.A/1504/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
that he has already sold the same to the
petitioner and therefore if the interim
custody of the vehicle in question is given
to the present petitioner, he has no
objection. 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
learned advocate for the petitioner and
submitted that the vehicle in question was
used for transporting liquor by the accused
R/SCR.A/1504/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
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
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
R/SCR.A/1504/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
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. Maruti Swift Car
bearing Registration No. GJ-31-D-9856, on the
terms and conditions that the petitioner:
(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
R/SCR.A/1504/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
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;
(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.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
UMESH/-
