Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Rada vs State Of Gujarat on 31 March, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/SCR.A/12441/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12441 of 2021
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI RAMANBHAI RADA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 31/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of learned
advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard finally.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to
direct the respondent-authority to release the muddamal
vehicle being TATA MOTORS Ltd. LPT2515TC EX48806*2RHD
B2 1210 bearing Registration No.GJ-03-AT-3997, which was
seized in connection with the complaint being FIR
No.11824006200493 for the offences punishable u/s.11(1)(d)(e)
(f)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act r/w. Section
4 & 9(1) of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle
(Control) Act r/w. Rule 125(e) of the Central Motor Vehicle Act
r/w. Sections 6(k), (1), (3) and 8(2) of the Animal Preservation
R/SCR.A/12441/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2023
Act r/w. Section 177 of IPC.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. The cattle
were transported for agricultural / animal husbandry purposes.
However, the muddamal vehicle has been detained only on the
presumption that the cattle were being transported for
slaughter purpose without any basis. He submitted that if
interim custody of the muddamal vehicle is not handed over to
the petitioner, it would cause serious prejudice to the
petitioner as the condition of the vehicle would get damaged
substantially with the passage of time and probably, by the
end of trial, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also
become 'Nil' as the vehicle is lying under the open sky. It was
further submitted that this Court has ordered release of
muddamal vehicles in instances under section 98(2) of the
amended Act. It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may
order 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.
3.1 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 Court has ordered
release of muddamal vehicle while lamenting the scenario of a
R/SCR.A/12441/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2023
number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming
scrap within the police station premises or at any other
designated places.
4. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State
vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved
in the commission of alleged offence and accordingly, urged
that the present petition may not be entertained.
5. 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 of Apex Court in
the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, particularly, on the
following observations;
"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
R/SCR.A/12441/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2023
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."
6. Considering the facts of the present case and the
principle rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
(supra), this Court is of the opinion that if the interim custody
of muddamal vehicle is handed over to the petitioner on
certain terms and conditions, no prejudice would be caused to
the prosecution.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent-
authority is directed to release the muddamal vehicle being
TATA MOTORS Ltd. LPT2515TC EX48806*2RHD B2 1210
bearing Registration No.GJ-03-AT-3997 on condition that the
petitioner ;
(i) shall furnish, by way of security, Bond and Solvent
Surety of the amount equivalent to what has been
mentioned in the seizure memo / panchnama;
R/SCR.A/12441/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2023
(ii) shall file an Undertaking before the trial Court
concerned that he shall not alienate or transfer or sell the
vehicle in any manner to any third party till the
conclusion of trial and shall also produce the vehicle as
and when directed by the trial Court;
(iii) in the event of commission of any subsequent
offence, the muddamal vehicle shall stand confiscated.
8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
