CHANDRAKANTBHAI DAHYALAL MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for release of the muddamal vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ- 01-KB-0161.

(2.) Having heard submissions made at bar, it appears that the Courts below refused to return Muddamal vehicle in view of provisions of section 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act and Rule 9 framed under the said Act, inasmuch as, the interim custody of the vehicle carrying more than 10 liters liquor cannot be released.

(3.) The case of the present petitioner is that the petitioner is the registered owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.GJ-01-KB-0161. The said vehicle is alleged to have been used for commission of the offence and therefore the muddamal vehicle is in possession of the police in connection with the offence, being Prohibition C.R. No.487 of 2018 registered with Unjha Police Station, Mahesana for the offences punishable under Sections 65(A) , 65(E) , 98(2) and 116(B) of the Prohibition Act. Therefore, the petitioner initially preferred an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unjha for release of the vehicle. However, the same came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.01.2019. The petitioner therefore, preferred Criminal Revision Application No.14 of 2019 before learned Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which also came to be rejected vide order dated 03.04.2019. As a result of this, since the vehicle in question has remained in custody and several orders have been passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court about release of vehicles, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.