JAYESHKUMAR RANCHHODBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2020-11-75
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on November 25,2020

Jayeshkumar Ranchhodbhai Rathod 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 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) seeking to release the muddamal vehicle - Maruti Suzuki Wagon R Car, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-05-CS-6306 in connection with the FIR being CR. No. 11214021200681 of 2020, registered before the Kosamba Police Station, Dist. Surat (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(E) and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The petitioner had preferred Muddamal Application before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrol, which came to be rejected vide order dated 28.07.2020, against which, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 151 of 2020 before the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, who confirmed the order of the trial Court vide order dated 10.09.2020.
(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Jarjeeskhan for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta 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.880/- 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 same 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 with a prayer to set aside the orders passed by the learned Courts below and also prayed for releasing the aforesaid muddamal vehicle. 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.