MANISHKUMAR RATILAL PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India essentially seeking the relief to release the muddamal vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-06-AY-5374, which was seized in connection with the offence punishable under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on suitable terms and conditions.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and has not been named in the complaint. The copy of the R.C. Book has been produced on record to prove the aspect of ownership.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence under the Act and that in view of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of sec. 98 of the Act, the Courts below are not empowered to release the muddamal vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court (Coram : J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 decided on 15/12/2017, wherein it has been held that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to hand over custody of the muddamal vehicle in view of the embargo under sec. 98 of the Act. It was submitted that a petition being S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 is pending before the Apex Court in respect of the said issue and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police in connection with an offence under the Act. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.