NATHUBHAI PRAHLADBHAI SOSETIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2020-10-1040
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 15,2020

Nathubhai Prahladbhai Sosetiya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vipul M.Pancholi,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the release of the muddamal vehicle i.e. EON ERA PlUS bearing Registration No.GJ-12-DA-1397.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under, 2.1 The petitioner is the owner of the muddamal vehicle i.e. EON ERA PlUS bearing Registration No.GJ-12-DA-1397 and it is duly registered with the transport department of the Government. However on account of registration of FIR being C. R. No.III-493/2019 registered with Anjar Police Station for the offences under the provision of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the vehicle of the petitioner was recovered as muddamal. 2.2 Therefore to get the custody of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anjar rejected the said application vide order dated 04.03.2020. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Court below being Criminal Revision Application No.15/2020, which came to be rejected by an order dated 31.08.2020. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order rejecting the Revision Application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed present petition with a prayer to release the muddamal of vehicle.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has referred to the RC Book placed on record at Page No.10 and submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and till date, no one has claimed for the vehicle in question. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the usage of the vehicle in question in commission of such offence under provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. It is submitted that the vehicle in question is the source of livelihood of the petitioner and if the same is not released, the petitioner would suffer grave hardship.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.