AJAYKUMAR HARICHARAN PAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondents.

(2.) What is challenged in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat as well as order dated 19.09.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat rejecting the prayer of handing over muddamal vehicle having its registration No. MH-48-AY-5572 in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. III-34 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Dist-Surat for the offence under the provisions of Prohibition Act, 1949 ('the Act' for short). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that learned trial Court as well as revisional Court have not handed over interim custody of the vehicle in question in view of the provisions of Section 98 of the Act which provides embargo for handing over the custody of the vehicle used in the offence pending the trial. It is, therefore, requested that appropriate directions should be given to the concerned Magistrate/Trial Court who is dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicle to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicle is seized by taking appropriate bond/guarantee/solvent surety for the return of the said vehicle if required by the Court at any point of time.