Gujarat High Court
Kishanbhai Liladharbhai Faldu vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1166/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MUDDAMAL) NO. 1166 of
2024
==========================================================
KISHANBHAI LILADHARBHAI FALDU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the
respondent-State.
1. The petitioner has preferred this Revision Application under
section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set
aside order date19.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Surat below Exh.5 in Criminal Misc. Application
No.4337 of 2024 and prayed to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e
bearing RTO registration No. GJ-19-X-5524.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the team of Geologist
were on patrolling, they received a secret information of the
vehicle in question carrying soft moram when police authorities
intercepted the same, on carrying out the search of the said
vehicle, its driver was found carrying soft moram without any
pass or permit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1166/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for
the respondents.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that
petitioner is ready and willing to deposit amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court without prejudice to
his rights, contentions and defence which could be raised before
the Court. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that so
far as provisions of Mines and Mineral (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 is concerned, Court cannot take
cognizance of any offence under the Act or Rules, except on
complaint made in writing by person authorize on that behalf by
Central or State Government. Learned advocate for the petitioner
has relied on the judgment in the case of 'SUNDERBHAI
AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', 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. Therefore, it is submitted to allow
present Revision Application.
5. Learned APP for the respondents has objected the
submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and
submitted to dismiss the Revision Application.
6. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the
observations made by the Apex Court in 'SUNDERBHAI
AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT' (Supra), which read
as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1166/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
"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
applications for return of such vehicles."
7. It appears that learned Trial Court has ignored provisions of
the Act. Resultantly, this Revision Application is allowed.
Impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent.
8. The learned Trial Court / authority concerned is directed to
release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing RTO registration No.
GJ-19-X-5524 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:
(i) shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,01,656+1245=
Rs.2,02,901/- (Rupees Two lakh Two Thousand Nine
Hundred One only) under Rule 22 Scheduled 3 (a) and
Scheduled 3(b)(d) before the learned Trial Court.
(ii) shall furnish a surety to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) before learned Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1166/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
(ii) shall file undertaking before the learned Trial
Court that he shall not transfer the vehicle till final
disposal of the trial.
(iii) shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by
the learned Trial Court.
(iv) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle
shall stand confiscated.
9. Before release of the vehicle, concerned police authority shall
take photographs of the vehicle from all sides at the cost of the
petitioner and shall draw necessary panchanama to that effect.
Said panchanama and photographs shall be part of charge sheet
papers for the purpose of trial.
10. Copy of this order be send to concerned RTO, where the
vehicle is registered, for necessary entry in the Register and to
take notice that this Court has restrained transfer of vehicle till
final disposal of the trial. Such transfer shall be subject to any
order that may be passed by the learned Trial Court permitting
transfer of vehicle.ct. Said panchanama and photographs shall
be part of charge sheet papers for the purpose of trial.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
