Gujarat High Court

Prakashbhai Ghughabhai Jograna vs State Of Gujarat on 24 August, 2023

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/14107/2023                           ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023

                                                                               undefined




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14107 of 2023
===================================================
            PRAKASHBHAI GHUGHABHAI JOGRANA
                          Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
===================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
===================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                           Date : 24/08/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing

for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up

for final hearing.

2. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, the

learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of

Rule on behalf of the respondent- State.

3. By way of this petition under Article-226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14107/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023

undefined

reliefs:

"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the action of respondents of seizing the vehicle at ANNEXURE-B and release the ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-01-FT- 2737, of the ownership of the petitioner which is seized by the respondents and at present the case is pending with the respondent, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit.

(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for releasing the ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-01-FT-2737, of the ownership of the petitioner which is seized by the respondents and at present the case is pending with the respondent, on such terms and conditions as this Hon' ble Court may deem think fit.

(d) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to release the vehicle being ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-01-FT-2737, on appropriate terms and conditions that may be deem fit and proper to this Hon ble court.

(e) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice."

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is

the owner of the vehicle being ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK having

Registration No. GJ-01-FT-2737. It is the case of the petitioner

that on 20.06.2023, inspection was carried out by the team of

the respondent no.4 at Ranesar road, Mogaldham. The vehicle

was seized by the respondent authority as the royalty pass was

expired and the vehicle was transporting blacktrap mineral. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14107/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023

undefined

said vehicle was kept in custody of the respondent no.3. The

respondent no.4 issued memo on 20.06.2023 i.e. on the same day

for seizure of vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that, till

date, no F.I.R. has been registered.

5. Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has

submitted that as is clear from the seizure memo, which was

issued on 20.06.2023, however, the F.I.R. as provided under sub-

clause (ii) of sub- clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the

Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and

Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of

2017") has not been filed by the respondent authorities. It is

submitted that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the

specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing

the vehicle, is illegal and against the principles laid down by this

Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of

Gujarat, rendered in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020. It

is submitted that, this Court has categorically held and observed

that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under sub-

clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14107/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023

undefined

Rules of 2017, in absence of the complaint, the competent

authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle

without insisting for any bank guarantee. Therefore, the

principles laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai

Jinabhai Gamara (supra) applies to the facts of the present case.

It is therefore urged that the petition deserves to be allowed

directing the respondent authorities to release the vehicle.

5.1 It is urged that the petition be entertained only for

the limited purpose of release of the vehicle.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader has fairly conceded that no First Information Report has

been registered as provided under the provisions of Rules, 2017.

7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties.

8. It is undisputed that seizure memo was issued on

20.06.2023. It is not disputed rather conceded that after the

period of 45 days, no First Information Report has been

registered by the respondent authority. Therefore, the principle

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14107/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023

undefined

laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai

Gamara (supra) applies to the facts of the present case.

9. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court, while dealing

with the provisions of the sub-clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-

Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017, in paragraphs 7, 10

and 11 has held and observed thus:-

"7. Pertinently the competent authority under Rule 12 is only authorized to seize the property investigate the offence and compound it; the penalty can be imposed and confiscation of the property can be done only by order of the court. Imposition of penalties and other punishments under Rule 21 is thus the domain of the court and not the competent authority. Needless to say therefore that for the purpose of confiscation of the property it will have to be produced with the sessions court and the custody would remain as indicated in sub-rule 7 of Rule 12. Thus where the offence is not compounded or not compoundable it would be obligatory for the investigator to approach the court of sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the court on expiry of the specified period. In absence of this exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated; resultantly the property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for the bank guarantee.

10. The bank guarantee is contemplated to be furnished in three eventualities: (i) for the release of the seized property and (ii) for compounding of the offence and recovery of compounded amount, if it remains unpaid on expiry of the specified period of 30 days;

(iii) for recovery of unpaid penalty. Merely because that is so, it cannot be said that the investigator would be absolved from its duty of instituting the case on failure of compounding of the offence. Infact offence can be compounded at two stages being (1) at a notice stage, within 45 days of the seizure of the vehicle; (2) during the prosecution but before the order of confiscation.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14107/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023

undefined

Needless to say that for compounding the offence during the prosecution, prosecution must be lodged and it is only then that on the application for compounding, the bank guarantee could be insisted upon. In absence of prosecution, the question of bank guarantee would not arise; nor would the question of compounding of offence.

11. The deponent of the affidavit appears to have turned a blind eye on Rule 12 when he contends that application for compounding has been dispensed with by the amended rules inasmuch as; even the amended Rule 12(b)(i) clearly uses the word "subject to receipt of compounding application". Thus the said contention deserve no merits. Thus, in absence of the complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle without insisting for bank guarantee. There is thus a huge misconception on the part of the authority to assert that even in absence of the complaint it would have a dominance over the seized property and that it can insist for a bank guarantee for its."

It has been held that it would be obligatory for the

investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written

complaint and produce the seized properties with the Court on

expiry of the specified period. In absence of such exercise, the

purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand

frustrated; resultantly, the property will have to be released in

favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting

for the bank guarantee.

10. In view of the fact that no First Information Report

has been registered and the principle laid down by this Court in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14107/2023 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2023