Kanakadurga Finance Ltd Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2021

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kanakadurga Finance Ltd Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 951

Bench: Gita Gopi

      R/SCR.A/9750/2019                               ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9750 of 2019

==========================================================
KANAKADURGA FINANCE LTD THRO PRADUMANSINH MAHENDRASINH
                        MATIEDA
                         Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PM DAVE(263) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for th Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 21/06/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. P.M.Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent-State.

2. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the petitioner - Kanakadurga Finance Limited is Non- Banking Finance Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956, company having its registered office at 40-7-31 Jammichetu Center, Moghlrajpuram, Vijaywada, District Krishna, Andhra Pradesh - 520010 and it's branch office at 111, First Floor, Center Point, above IDBI Bank, Vapi Cross Road, Vapi, Gujarat.

2.1 Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that the respondent No.3 had availed vehicle loan for the purpose of purchase TATA SE 1616 vehicle which came to be seized in connection with Criminal Case No. 78 of 2018 registered with Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 22 22:45:42 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/9750/2019 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 Songadh Police Station, District Tapi for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

2.2 Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that the applicant had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2019 before District Court, Tapi at Vyara. The learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara vide order dated 15.06.2019 allowed the said revision application and thereby directed that the muddamal vehicle seized was ordered to be given to the present petitioner - revisionist on furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the muddamal seized vehicle, alongwith bail and bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned lower court, within a period of 15 days from the date of order by imposing certain other conditions. Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that one of the condition laid down in the order was to the effect that on breach of any of the above conditions the unconditional bank guarantee furnished by the applicant will be forfeited and deposited with the government.

2.3 Mr. Dave, learned advocate further stated that one of the condition in the order of not transferring or assigning the muddamal vehicle to anybody without the prior order of the trial court would stand onerous since the vehicle in question was purchased by respondent No.3 with the loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs on execution of the loan agreement, and therefore, the vehicle stood hypothecated with the petitioner company but still outstanding amount of Rs.5,61,375/- is to be recovered and therefore the petitioner finance company would become Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 22 22:45:42 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/9750/2019 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 entitled to sell the muddamal vehicle.

2.4 Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner would be always ready and willing to move the trial court prior to the sale of muddamal vehicle contending that any motor vehicle seized by the police during the course of investigation if remains in police custody would be a national waste and and such vehicle would become junk and would not be worthy to ply on roads. He further submitted that since the vehicle was seized under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, without considering the facts of the matter that the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara vide order dated 15.06.2019 had allowed the petitioner finance company to take the custody of the muddamal vehicle on furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the muddamal seized vehicle alongwith bail and bond of the same amount. Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has modified the conditions in cases of vehicles seized under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. In support of the same he has relied upon the following decisions.

1. Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Chaudhari (Legal Heirs of Late Ramanbhai Chaudhari) v. State of Gujarat decided on 14.08.2020 in Special Criminal Application No. 3387 of 2020.

2. Vipul Roshan Kumar Shah v. State of Gujarat decided on 22.07.2020 in Special Criminal Application No. 7143 of 2019.

Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 22 22:45:42 IST 2021

R/SCR.A/9750/2019 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

3. Smitaben Kalpeshbhai Chaudhary v. State of Gujarat decided on 20.07.2020 in Special Criminal Application No. 2851 of 2020.

4. Maheshbhai Dayashanker Teraiya v. State of Gujarat decided on 27.01.2021 in Special Criminal Application No. 226 of 2021.

5. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Thro Ravikumar Bipinbhai Doshi v. State of Gujarat decided on 20.01.2021 in Special Criminal Application No. 7214 of 2020.

6. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Thro Ravikumar Bipinbhai Doshi v. State of Gujarat decided on 31.03.2021 in Special Criminal Application No. 2063 of 2021.

5. I have heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and gone through the averments made in the application, the condition imposed in the order dated 15.06.2019 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Tapi at Vyara in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2019 releasing muddamal with a condition of furnishing unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times the value of the muddamal seized vehicle TATA SE 1616 bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-05-AU-8808, Chasis No. MAT361203BID111409 alongwith the bail and bond of the same amount within 15 days shall be modified to the extent that the applicant shall produce solvent surety of Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 22 22:45:42 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/9750/2019 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 Rs.5.00 lakhs instead of furnishing unconditional bank guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of the vehicle and personal surety. It is clarified that rest of the conditions of the order dated 15.06.2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2019 shall remain intact.

6. With the above observations, the order dated 15.06.2019 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Tapi at Vyara in Criminal Revision Application No. 26 of 2019 shall be modified to the aforesaid extent and present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(GITA GOPI,J) A.M.A. SAIYED Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 22 22:45:42 IST 2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court