BAROT CHENJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) What is challenged in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, Deodar in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2018 and the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deodar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 35 of 2018 whereby both the courts below rejected the prayer of handing over the vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Swift Car having its registration No.GJ-05-JE 4851 in connection with the FIR being CR No.I-159 of 2018 registered with Deodar Police Station, Deodar for the offence under the provisions of the Gujarat 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 vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond / guarantee / solvent surety for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.