Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/206020/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2060 of 2006
============================================
NAVRANGSING
BAHUDERSING RAJPUT - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
============================================
Appearance :
MR
HARSHADRAY A DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS
FALGUNI PATEL ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 13/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition is filed by the petitioner who is serving as a Manager in a
Partnership Firm namely Rajput Carriers, for release of muddamal
vehicle i.e. tanker number MH-04-H-4404 and crude oil ceased by the
police.
2. Learned
advocate Shri Dave appearing for the petitioner submits that
initially the petitioner preferred an application before the learned
JMFC, Olpad, for the purpose of taking back the muddamal, which was
ceased by the investigating agency and it came to be rejected by an
order dated 3.6.2006. That, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the
order dated 3.6.2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Olpad, revision
application being Criminal Revision Application No.146 of 2006 before
learned District and Sessions Judge, Surat was preferred, which came
to be allowed and order was passed to the effect that muddamal
vehicle i.e. tanker, be returned on certain terms and conditions.
However, one of such conditions was that oil filled in the tanker
shall be sent to District Supply Officer, Surat, as early as,
possible. Thereafter, the petitioner once again preferred Misc.
Application No.93/2006 before learned JMFC, Olpad for taking back
muddamal, which was ceased by investigating officer, which came to be
rejected by order dated 11.9.2006 and against which revision
application No. 224/2006 preferred before learned District and
Sessions Judge, Surat, also came to be rejected and thus, this
petition is filed under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. Shri
Dave, learned advocate, for the petitioner submits that initially the
tanker and the oil came to be ceased for the offences under Section
379 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered against the driver
and cleaner of the firm and nowhere the petitioner or any other
employee or the partner of the firm were involved in the said
offence. The charge sheet is already filed and necessary documents
with regard to the transportation of crude oil were submitted before
the concerned authority and there is no dispute about the same at any
stage before any authority. Shri Dave, learned advocate, further
submits that even the courts below have found that tanker is to be
released to the petitioner but one of the consideration was that the
crude oil being essential commodity is to be returned to the District
Supply Officer, Surat, which is not proper and legal.
4. This
Court had already issued Rule on 13.12.2006 making it returnable on
27.1.2007 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Jhaveri) and thereafter the
matter is heard on time to time. The concerned in-charge officer was
called for and it is verified that the crude oil contained in the
tanker was lawful commodity to be transported to the petitioner and
there is no dispute about that. Upon filing an undertaking before
the concerned Court/authority, the crude oil along with the tanker
can be permitted to be released in favour of the petitioner.
5. This
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has satisfied that the
petitioner is lawful owner of that tanker No. MH-04-H-4404 and the
crude oil contained in the said tanker, as per documents, it was
transported to ONGC at IOC Koyali. Therefore, the order passed by
the courts below of directing delivery of crude oil to District
Supply Officer, Surat, deserves to be quashed and set aside and it is
directed that upon filing an undertaking to the concerned Court as
well as respondent No.2 by furnishing proper security in the form of
bond to the satisfaction of the above authorities, the tanker along
with crude oil shall be released in favour of the petitioner.
6. The
petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
7. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top