Gujarat High Court
Jignasha Kalpeshbhai Prajapati Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 July, 2020
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/2896/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2896 of 2020
=======================================================
JIGNASHA KALPESHBHAI PRAJAPATI
THRO POA KALPESHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.NAMRATA J SHAH(6534) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 20/07/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr.Chintan Dave waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.01.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Songadh in an application filed under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code being Criminal Misc. Application No.77/2018 and also prayed for deletion and/or modification of the condition of furnishing unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the Truck imposed in the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Tapi at Vyar in Criminal Revision Application No.11/2019.
3. By the impugned order, the vehicle in question was ordered to be released on a condition of Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:00:28 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/2896/2020 ORDER furnishing unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the muddamal seized vehicle along with bail bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Songadh by order dated 01.01.2019 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for returning the muddamal vehicle, against which, the petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.100 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Court, in which, the impugned order is passed.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and petitioner is carrying on the business of transport. On 21.08.2018 the vehicle in question was detained by the police on allegation that it was involved in illegal mining and transportation of minor mineral sand and the complaint was filed under Sections 379 and 120(B) of the IPC, under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act and under Rule 21(2) of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
6. Learned advocate Ms.Namrata J. Shah for the petitioner submitted that in such type of matters of release of muddamal vehicles, this Court has entertained those petitions and passed an order modifying the condition imposed by the Court below, copies of such orders passed by this Court are placed on record from Page Nos.38 to 47 of the compilation. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner is also ready to compound the offence Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:00:28 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/2896/2020 ORDER by depositing fine amount as may be specified by the respondents.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Dave submitted that as the vehicle is under seizure and in custody of the Court, the offence cannot be compounded by the authority.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides and on considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence by depositing the fine amount, the petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- of furnishing the Bank Guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the vehicle.
9. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The condition imposed while passing an order dated 16.03.2020 by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Tapi at Vyar in Criminal Revision Application No.11/2019 is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) instead of furnishing unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the vehicle in question and rest of the conditions imposed by the court below shall continue to operate.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) SRILATHA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 22:00:28 IST 2020