Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/992/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 992 of 2005
==============================================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR
VANRAJ CHAVDA - Applicant(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NACHIKETA S JOSHI for
Petitioner No(s).: 1.
MR
SUDHAKAR B JOSHI for
Petitioner No(s).: 1.
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Respondent No(s).: 1.
None for Respondent No(s).:
2,3.
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 23/08/2005
ORAL ORDER
The
petitioner has preferred this petition for challenging the order of
seizure, dated 30.7.04 passed by the respondent No.2 in relation to
vehicle bearing Reg.No.GJ-9Y-5410, Model Tata Mini Truck contending
inter alia, that the said seizure is illegal and arbitrary.
Heard
Mr.Joshi, Ld.advocate for the petitioner. The contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner is that the vehicle is registered in
Gujarat and the certificate of transfer is also effected in Gujarat.
He also submitted that earlier the registration with the RTO
authorities was in UP which is transferred to Gujarat and the
vehicle was being operated in Gujarat and the petitioner was granted
goods carriage permit in Gujarat. He submitted that the seizure was
effected by the Anti-Auto Theft Squad(AATS) Khajurikhas PS, New
Delhi on 30.7.04 without following the legal procedure and in
violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
He also submitted that there is no order of the court concerned
authorising the seizure of the vehicle and the place at which the
vehicle is seized is Chhani Police Station which is in territory of
Gujarat. He submitted that the RTO authorities are located in
Gujarat and therefore this court has jurisdiction to entertain the
petition.
He
submitted that no police officer has authority to stop the vehicle
and to seize in the manner which is done in the present case. He
submitted that the vehicle is also lying in Gujarat. Under these
circumstances, he prayed that this court may interfere with the
present case.
Having
considered the above, it appears that the vehicle in question is
seized on 30.7.04 by Anti-Auto Theft Squad(AATS), New Delhi through
the police officers of Khajurikhas PS, New Delhi in connection with
FIR No.155/02 under section 379 of IPC. The seizure memo is provided
for such purpose and therefore if the petitioner is desirous to
claim the custody of the vehicle, it would be open for the
petitioner to approach the concerned criminal court situated at
Delhi by making appropriate application under section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Whether the vehicle is seized under lawful authority or not is also
the question which can be considered by the criminal court which is
seized with the the matter. In any case, the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate which may be concerned with Khajurikhas Police Station,
New Delhi is not under subordinate jurisdiction of this court and
therefore I find that when the petitioner has efficacious remedy
available of approaching the concerned court, this is not a fit case
to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and therefore the present petition is rejected.
It
is clarified that in the event such an application is preferred, the
concerned criminal court or the High Court within whose subordinate
jurisdiction the concerned criminal court is functioning, all
contentions of both sides shall remain open.
(JAYANT
PATEL,J)
23.8.05/murty
Top