Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/124/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 124 of 2006
==============================================================
RAKESH
AMBALAL PRAJAPATI - Applicant(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANIL H SONI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
Date
: 13/02/2006
ORAL
ORDER
Mr.
Anil Soni, ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner is heard when
matter is called out.
The
present petition is preferred against the order passed by ld. JMFC
as well as against the order passed by the Court of Sessions
confirming the order passed by ld. JMFC whereby ld. JMFC dismissed
the application under section 451 preferred by the present petitioner
to get the interim custody of the muddamal vehicle viz. Maruti Car.
Undisputedly, the vehicle was intercepted
and seized by police when it was found involved in the offence
punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The ld. JMFC has
categorically observed that this very vehicle was found involved in
the offence punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act and while
releasing the vehicle, one condition which was imposed by the Court
was that the vehicle, if released, shall not be used or found
involved in the offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act.
So, when the Court found that the very vehicle again seized by the
police was found involved in the offence of similar nature i.e.
offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, the ld. JMFC rejected the
request of the petitioner to release the vehicle apprehending of its
re-involvement in similar type of activities.
The
said order passed by ld. JMFC was assailed
by the petitioner by filing Cri.Rev. Application before the Court of
Sessions and ld. Sessions Judge, after appreciating the details that
were placed before him, confirmed the
findings recorded by the ld. JMFC. Both these orders are now being
assailed by the petitioner by filing
present petition.
This
is not a case wherein, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court should interfere, especially when there is a statutory
provision of confiscation of the vehicle to the State if the accused
is found guilty. It is true that the Apex Court has said that the
motor vehicle normally should be given to the registered owner or the
owner of the vehicle who is entitled to prove the better title, but
the apprehension expressed in the present case by both the Courts
below being very reasonable and under Statute the vehicle is likely
to be confiscated to the State, non-passing of the favourable order
in favour of the petitioner under section 451 of CrPC can not be said
to be erroneous and, therefore, the present petition is dismissed in
limine, confirming the orders passed by both the Courts below.
Ld.
APP Ms. Panchal has nothing to add.
(C.K.
BUCH, J)
*rawal
Top