ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India as also inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. This application is preferred seeking release of Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. GJ08AJ5985. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is non banking finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing various type of financial services to its customers. The respondent no.3 herein has purchased the vehicle in question and took the finance of Rs.3,40,000/from the petitioner company and the said vehicle has been seized by the police in connection with the FIR being III – C.R. No.519 of 2018 registered before the Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha on 20.12.2018. The respondent no.3 has stopped to make the payment of installments to the petitioner company and there is total outstanding of Rs.4,77,320/and therefore, the petitioner company has filed this petition seeking return of muddamaal seized by the police. 5. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2018, while the police personnels were on patrolling, they received a secret information of the vehicle in question carrying liqour and when police authorities intercepted the same near village Karbun – Aajavada Road, on carrying out the search of the said vehicle, the accused persons were found carrying liquor without any pass or permit. Therefore, an FIR being III – C.R. No.519 of 2018 came to be lodged with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha Rural under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116b, 81, 98(2) and 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. 6. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent-State. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.3. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the finance company is incurring losses as from long time EMIs are not paid by the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 has paid only two installments and till 19.11.2020, the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,77,320/. He also submits that as the respondent no.3 failed to pay the remaining loan installments, he has been declared as defaulter by the petitioner. The petitioner finance company by selling the said vehicle can recover its debts. The respondent no.3 has paid only two installments and till 19.11.2020, the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,77,320/. He also submits that as the respondent no.3 failed to pay the remaining loan installments, he has been declared as defaulter by the petitioner. The petitioner finance company by selling the said vehicle can recover its debts. He has submitted that the vehicle is lying in open place and its condition is deteriorating day by day. He therefore, 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’, 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. He further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in case of General Assurance Counsel and others vs. State of A.P. and others reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2967. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submits that the vehicle in question was involved in the offence under the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and at this stage, permission for selling the vehicle in question to the petitioner may not be granted. 9. On hearing, learned advocates appearing for 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 choses not to enter into that arena in the present matter and instead exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 9.1 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: “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. 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.” 9.2. The Apex Court has, thus, directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of the vehicle before the Court concerned, needful be done. It even went to the extent of directing that where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. It also directed that before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. It also directed that before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared. The Apex Court also held and specifically directed that concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 of the Code are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. It, therefore, directed that this object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. 9.3 In the case of General Assurance Counsel and others vs. State of A.P. and others reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2967, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given. “(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdicitonal Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release. (B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release. (B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. (C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer.” 15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.” 9.4 In the present case, the respondent No.3 has not yet become the absolute owner of the vehicle as he is obliged to pay the loan amount. Even as per the RTO records, the ostensible ownership is with the petitioner company. It appears that a sum of Rs.4,77,320/is due towards closure of the loan which was availed from the petitioner for the purchase of the vehicle in question. 10. Resultantly, this application is Allowed. Even as per the RTO records, the ostensible ownership is with the petitioner company. It appears that a sum of Rs.4,77,320/is due towards closure of the loan which was availed from the petitioner for the purchase of the vehicle in question. 10. Resultantly, this application is Allowed. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, being Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. GJ08AJ5985, on the following terms and conditions. (a) It shall be open for the petitioner company to sell the Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.GJ08AJ5985, after executing a bond in the sum of the amount of sale consideration before the trial Court. (b) The petitioner is at liberty to dispose of the vehicle in question after following the necessary procedure prescribed in law for the transfer of the vehicle i.e. after drawing panchnama and taking photos of the vehicle. (c) The petitioner shall intimate the trial Court about the sale consideration received by it. (ci) The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the petitioner shall deposit the entire sale proceeds in the Court if required/ordered by the Court at the end of the trial. 11. 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. 12. 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. Direct service is permitted.