- (1.)This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dtd. 12/12/2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan and the order dtd. 3/9/2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Revision Application No.112 of 2019, and seeking the relief to release the muddamal vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-25-A-9389, which was seized in connection with F.I.R. being I-C.R. No.270 of 2018 by the Patan City B-Division Police Station, Dist. Patan for the offence punishable under Ss. 413 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 472 , 201 , 120B of the IPC on suitable terms and conditions.
(2.)Mr. Ankit Y.Bachani, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR is of car being stolen and also some allegation is made of manipulating the chassis number and thereby has caused destruction of evidence. He submits that it is further alleged in the FIR that new chassis numbers were made for the sale of vehicles in the State of Gujarat.
2.1 Mr. Bachani states that, in the FIR itself, the muddamal Swift (Black Car) which is in ownership of the present petitioner, has been noted down with the current Chassis Number as MA3FHEB1S00A88623 and the petitioner has shown the ownership of the vehicle in his name, as the same vehicle is registered in the R.T.O. of Gujarat at Patan, and the said chassis number matches with the chassis number noted in the FIR.

2.2 Mr. Bachani further submitted that the ownership of the vehicle has been shown by the petitioner and thus the vehicle would have no connection with the accused Shrimali Mukeshbhai Virchandas Devchandas and if at all any claim is moved by any of the accused, then it would require to be decided by the Civil Court in a Suit. The copy of the R.C. Book has been produced on record to prove the aspect of ownership.

2.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the muddamal vehicle has been detained by the investigating officer and that if the interim custody of the vehicle is not given, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as the muddamal vehicle would get substantially damaged by the time the trial gets concluded and probably, by that time, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also become 'Nil' as the vehicle is lying under the open sky in different climatic conditions. It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may direct release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on suitable terms and conditions.

2.4 The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court ordered release of muddamal vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act while lamenting the scenario of a number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming scrap within the police station premises or at any other designated places.

(3.)Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the muddamal vehicle was involved in the offence and the allegations are of selling the stolen vehicle by changing the chassis number and therefore, no powers may be exercised by this Court by releasing the muddamal vehicle seized by the police. It was, however, urged that the powers of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.