NITESHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2020-11-39
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on November 03,2020

Niteshkumar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ashokkumar C.Joshi,J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India and section 451 r/w. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to release the muddamal vehicle - Ashok Leyland Ltd. Bus, bearing RTO registration No. RJ-14-PD 9696, in connection with the FIR being III-C.R. No. 149 of 2019, registered before the Chiloda Police Station, Dist.: Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116B and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act. The petitioner had preferred muddamal application No. 39/2019 before the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gandhinagar, who rejected the said application by an order dated 29.07.2019, against which, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 70 of 2019, which also came to be rejected by an order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar.
(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Dineshkumar D. Gautam for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel on behalf of the respondent - State through video conference. Factual Matrix of the case:
(3.) As per the allegations made in the FIR, liquor worth Rs.26,646/- was found in the muddamal vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the muddamal vehicle in question. It is further the case of the petitioner that the learned Courts below have rejected the release of muddamal applications, only because of restriction under Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and if the muddamal vehicle would lie at the police station for more time, there will be physical damage to it and therefore, interference of this Hon'ble Court is required in the interest of justice. It is submitted that otherwise, the petitioner has no antecedents. 3.1 It is contended that the muddamal vehicle was seized by the police as the liquor was found in the bike and the offence, as aforesaid, came to be registered. 3.2 It is also contended that the petitioner has purchased the muddamal vehicle with aforesaid registration number. That, at present the said vehicle is lying at the police station in abandoned condition. It is also contended that learned trial Court had rejected the muddamal application and thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the said order and therefore, the present petition is filed. 3.3 The learned advocate for the petitioner time and again vehemently submitted that the Coordinate Bench passed the order in favour of the petitioner in identical cases. Further learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Coordinate Bench (1) in case of Ritesh Bishmber Agrawal vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 5533 of 2018 order dated 18.01.2019, (2) in case of Ganibhai Yusufbhai Jamroth vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2776 of 2020 order dated 07.07.2020, (3) in case of Ranjitbhai Ishvarbhai Chunara (Vaghela) vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 7631 of 2019 order dated 12.06.2020, (4) in case of Zala Mahendrasinh Kirtisinh vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2717 of 2020 order dated 26.06.2020, (5) in case of Prajapati Rajendrakumar Rameshbhai Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2692 of 2020 order dated 14.07.2020 and also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 AIR(SC) 638.;


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