Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 906 (GUJ)

Hasmukh Thavariya Meda v. State Of Gujarat

2020-11-03

A.P.THAKER

body2020
ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Rajvi Patel, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for the respondent – State through Video Conferencing. 2. The present application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the following reliefs. [A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6.7.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kawant, Chhota Udepur in Muddamal Application No. 607/2020 along with order dated 17.8.2020 passed by Hon'ble District and Sessions Court, Chhota Udepur in Criminal Revision Application No. 11/2020 and further be pleased to pass an order directing the release/handover of the seized piockup van bearing Registration No. MP-45G-2118 in connection with FIR being registered as C.R. II No.37 of 2019 with Kawant Police Station, Chhota Udepur to the Petitioner on appropriate conditions as deemed fit by this Hon'ble High Court. [B] Pending admission and final hearing of this application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue direction for release/ handover the custody of the pickup van bearing registration no. MP-45G-2118 which is seized by the investigating officer in connection with FIR being registered as C.R. II No.37 of 2019 with Kawant Police Station, Chhota Udepur to the petitioner. [C] Ad interim relief in terms of paragraph (B) above may be pleased to be granted. [D] Any other and further relief/s which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court be granted. 3. It is averred in the application that the present applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Pickup van bearing registration no. MP-45G-2118 which came to be seized by the police authority. It is also averred by the applicant that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle in question and he is not the accused in the offence and has prayed that the application may be allowed. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of application. He has prayed to allow the present application. 4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. He has prayed to allow the present application. 4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It can also take into account the ratio laid down 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. 5. Learned APP has strongly opposed to the grant of present application. 6. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), which read as under: “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 suchseized 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. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of learned advocates for both the sides and considering the facts that the vehicle i.e. Pickup van bearing registration no. MP-45G-2118 has been seized by the concerned police authority during the course of the search. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of learned advocates for both the sides and considering the facts that the vehicle i.e. Pickup van bearing registration no. MP-45G-2118 has been seized by the concerned police authority during the course of the search. It also reveals from the materials placed on record that the applicant is the owner of the said vehicle and is not the accused in the crime. It is an admitted fact that if the vehicle is kept unused then it will become useless. 8. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the provisions provide for confiscation. However, considering the factual aspects of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custody of the vehicle, if granted in favour of the applicant, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution as there will be stringent conditions on the applicant with regard to the seized vehicle i.e. Pickup van bearing registration no. MP-45G-2118. 9. This Court has considered the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 . This Court has also considered the following orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. (i) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Through Depot Manager Morbi Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.1126 of 2018 dated 21.06.2018; (ii) Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlalji Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.2185 of 2018 dated 05.04.2018; (iii) Munavarbhai Dadabhai Sandhi Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.4996 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018; (iv) Dikulbhai Dineshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.10437 of 2018 dated 07.12.2018; (v) Balvantbhai Jivanbhai Sapra Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.10835 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018; (vi) Rathod Gopalbhai Devabhai Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.10964 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018; 10. In the result, this application is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the applicant, being Pickup van bearing registration no. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.10835 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018; (vi) Rathod Gopalbhai Devabhai Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.10964 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018; 10. In the result, this application is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the applicant, being Pickup van bearing registration no. MP-45G-2118, on the terms and conditions that the applicant : (i) shall furnish, by way of security, bond of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and solvent surety of the equivalent amount; (ii) shall file an undertaking on oath 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 on oath 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. 10.1 Before handing over the possession of the vehicle to the applicant, necessary photographs shall be taken and detailed panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn, shall also be drawn for the purpose of trial. 10.2 If, the Investigating Officer finds it necessary, videography of the vehicle also shall be done. Expenses towards the photographs and the videography shall be borne by the applicant. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted. 11. Registry is directed to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. Learned advocate for the petitioner is also permitted to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. 12. The concerned Trial Court be informed accordingly.