Gujarat High Court
Salimbhai Abbasbhai Ravani vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2015
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 93 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
SALIMBHAI ABBASBHAI RAVANI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ATIT THAKORE FOR MR HASMUKH S SOLANKI, ADVOCATE for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KP RAVAL, LD. APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 24/03/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 8
R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.K.P. Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. Having regard to the compass of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case and upon consent of both the learned advocates for the parties, matter is taken up for final consideration making Rule returnable forthwith.
3. Applicant is aggrieved by order dated 16th January, 2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.99 of 2014, thereby Sessions Court rejected the application of the applicant for return of muddamal which is a transport vehicle called Bolero FB bearing Registration No.GJ-6-VV-7392. It appears that the said vehicle came to be seized by the police pursuant to First Information Report dated 17th June, 2014 registered with Kuvadava Police Station, District- Rajkot being Crime Register No.II-35 of 2014. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that in the said vehicle the applicant was carrying two buffaloes and in that connection, offence under Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was alleged.
3.1 From the impugned order it was noticed that the only ground on which custody of the vehicle was refused to the applicant was that he did not produce the relevant documents showing the ownership of the vehicle in the nature of original Registration Book.
Page 2 of 8R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT It appears that this Court on 04th March, 2015 upon considering the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant passed the following order.
"Learned advocate Mr.Atit Thakor for learned advocate Mr.Hasmukh Solanki for the applicant is relying upon a certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Rajkot submitting that R.T.O has permitted to carry 8 buffalos in such vehicle pursuant to Rule 123(2)(a) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Issue notice to the Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Officer, Rajkot, returnable on 19.3.2015, forwarding copy of such certificate with a direction to forward the certified copies of all relevant documents pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-06-VV- 7392 through the learned APP of this Court. The Regional Transport Officer, R.T.O., Rajkot has also to convey to this Court by specific report that whether this vehicle is permitted to carry buffalo as stated in such certificate, and in that case, who has inspected the vehicle and whether vehicle report is part of the documents, which are forwarded to learned APP as aforesaid. If vehicle is not inspected and if no report was forwarded to this Court as aforesaid, then, R.T.O, Rajkot shall explain that why it was not done. The investigating agency shall also inspect the vehicle and shall disclose its nature and more particularly the design of the carriage part."
3.2 Pursuant to the said order, one Milankumar Bhikhabhai Prajapati, Inspector of Motor Vehicle, Regional Transport Office, Rajkot filed affidavit dated 18th March, 2015. Along with the said affidavit, copy of abstract from Register of Motor Vehicles in Form No.24 was produced wherefrom it could be noticed that the vehicle was running in the name and ownership of the applicant. In the said affidavit, the said authority stated as under.
"3. I say and submit that the certificate produced by the petitioner has been issued by the RTO, Rajkot on 01.04.2010, the said certificate has been issued as per the provisions under the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 particularly under Rule 123 under which the certificate has been issued to carry the animals. I say and submit that as per the said Rules, petitioner has Page 3 of 8 R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT been given certificate to carry two big cattle or to carry eight small cattle by the RTO, Rajkot after accepting the prescribed fees, and the said certificate has been stamped by the authority who has issued the said certificate. It is submitted that the said certificate has been issued after verification and inspection of the said vehicle at that time by the RTO authority. It is submitted that because non- availability of the record of the RTO regarding the inspection, it would be difficult to name of the Inspector who had inspected the said vehicle. It is submitted that the RTO officer who has signed the said certificate has been retired in the year 2014. It is submitted that at present no record is available regarding the certificate issued to the petitioner......
4. .... in the said certificate it has not been mentioned to carry eight buffaloes in the said vehicle. I say and submit that according to the Rules 123 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, eight buffaloes cannot be carried in the said vehicle, but the same vehicle can carry only two buffaloes."
3.3 In course of hearing, learned advocate for the applicant sought to produce original copy of Vehicle's Registration Book.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Atit Thakore for Mr.H.S. Solanki for the applicant submitted on the basis of the order that since the ownership aspect is established which was the main premise for refusing the muddamal custody by the Sessions Court, the order of releasing muddamal vechile Bolero may be passed. He submitted that the applicant would abide by whatever conditions which may be imposed by the Court.
4.1 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicle was found to have been used for committing offence. He submitted that earlier also another F.I.R. was registered and the very vehicle was found involved. It was submitted Page 4 of 8 R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT that at that time while releasing muddamal vehicle, Sessions Court had imposed condition despite that, the same was again employed for committing offence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that since the offence is committed with the use of muddamal vehicle in repeat, the vehicle may not be released as there is all likelihood that again it will be used for criminal activities.
5. In Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat [2003 (2) GLR 1337], the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of handing over of muddamal vehicle lying idle in the police station to the owner of the vehicle or from the person from which they are seized, has stated as under.
"17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."
5.1 It may be true that Court has to be strict to the offender and in that view prayer for release of Page 5 of 8 R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT muddamal vehicle used for the purpose of criminal activities should be considered, however keeping the vehicle idle in the police station after seizure would lead to a situation which would benefit none. The vehicle would get deteriorated and get damaged due to wear and tear. The owner would not be able to use it. It may in future expose the State to the liability of compensation, etc. Therefore no fruitful purpose would be served keeping the muddamal vehicle idle and lying and deplete its value. Custody thereof, therefore could be handed over to appropriate person after verifying the ownership, etc. 5.2 The submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that vehicle in question in the instant case was used earlier also for criminal activity and again it was seized, is not to be brushed aside lightly. However the said aspect could be taken care of by imposing more stringent conditions for release of the vehicle.
6. Since as noted above, pursuant to the order of the Court, Regional Transport Office has confirmed by producing documentary evidence that the vehicle in question is owned by the applicant herein and the applicant has also permission from the authority to carry two buffaloes as stated by the authority in the affidavit quoted above, and considering the aforesaid factor that keeping the vehicle in unused condition is not to be preferred, rather it could be released by imposing appropriate conditions.
Page 6 of 8R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT 6.1 Accordingly the present Revision Application
is allowed. Order dated 16th January, 2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.99 of 2014 is hereby set aside. Muddamal transport vehicle being Bolero FB bearing Registration No.GJ-6-VV-7392 shall be released in favour of the present applicant, provided the applicant complies with the following conditions.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking before the trial court that he will produce muddamal vehicle being Bolero FB bearing Registration No.GJ-6-VV-7392 as and when required by the court;
(ii) The applicant shall deposit Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and shall undertake that he will not transfer or alienate the muddamal vehicle during the course of trial and the vehicle will be not allowed to be used in any criminal activity or offence, similar or otherwise;
(iii) The undertaking to the aforesaid effect shall be filed in writing before the competent court which shall be the precondition of release of the vehicle and other conditions be complied with and the vehicle shall be released only upon filing of undertaking by the applicant as above;
(iv) The applicant shall report to the police, that is, Kuvadava Police Station, District Page 7 of 8 R/CR.RA/93/2015 JUDGMENT Rajkot once in a month by physically bringing and producing the muddamal vehicle;
(v) It is noted that an amount of Rs.30,000/- shall stand forfeited if any of the conditions above are committed breached of;
(vi) The applicant shall also inform the police personnel concerned about names and addresses of persons to whom the muddamal vehicle in question may be handed over temporarily or permanently for running or using the same.
7. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 8 of 8