STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DINESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner - State of Gujarat for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :

(2.) The case of the petitioner - State of Gujarat is that an FIR came to be lodged before the Valsad City Police Station, Valsad bearing III-C.R.No.144 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 65(E), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act against the accused named in the FIR, who have been found with possession of liquor bottles, without permit. In commission of this crime, the vehicle Eco car was used bearing registration No.GJ-16-BN-2855 which was seized as muddamal by Investigating Officer. As a result of this, an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by respondent herein, who claiming to be the owner of the vehicle named above. Said application came to be rejected vide order dated 19.8.2017, as a result of which the respondent herein had filed Revision being Criminal Revision Application No. 217 of 2017 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Valsad which appears to have been allowed vide order dated 5.9.2020 and the vehicle in question is allowed to be handed over to the respondent herein on suitable terms and conditions which are engrafted in the said order which order is made the subject matter of present petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner - State of Gujarat, has vehemently contended that the Revisional Court has committed a serious error in passing the impugned order, more particularly when there is an embargo not to release the seized vehicle by virtue of Section 98 and 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Learned APP has further contended that the Revisional Court ought to have considered the provision of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Prohibition Rules, 2012 and had it been considered in proper spirit, the discretion could not have been exercised. By referring to some of the paragraphs, learned APP has submitted that in similar set of circumstance, in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017, the Hon'ble Court had taken the view that vehicle should not be released and by raising aforesaid contention, a request is made to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Revision Court. No other submissions have been made.