Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlalji Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 5 April, 2018
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2185 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANILKUMAR RAMLAL @ RAMANLALJI MEHTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.CHIRAG B UPADHYAY(6735) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R)(71) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 05/04/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs; Page 1 of 23
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT "(A) Your lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this application.
(B) Your lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Add. Sessions Court, Arvalli in Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 2017 below Ex.04 and order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Ld. JMFC, Modasa in connection with the impugned FIR in the interest of justice.
(C) Your lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the Police Inspector, Modasa Rural Police Station to handover the custody of the vehicle having RTO Registration No.RJ 12 PA 2786.
(D) Your lordship may be pleased to pass any further order/s in the interest of justice."
2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under.
3. The writ-applicant is a businessman and is the owner of a luxury bus bearing registration no. RJ 12 PA 2786. On 04.12.2017, the police received an information that the luxury bus referred to above was to pass through the Shamlaji Check Post containing a huge quantity of liquor. It appears that the luxury bus started its journey from Rajasthan and was proceeding towards Ahmedabad. The police intercepted the Page 2 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT luxury bus at the Shamlaji Check Post and seized a huge quantity of liquor from the same. In such circumstances, one passenger, the driver and the cleaner of the luxury bus came to be arrested. The luxury bus also came to be seized by the police.
4. The writ-applicant being the owner of the luxury bus came to know about the First Information Report lodged by the police as well as the seizure of his luxury bus in connection with the offence.
5. The writ-applicant preferred an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa for release of the vehicle.
6. The Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa, by his order dated 12.12.2017, rejected the application filed by the writ- applicant herein.
Page 3 of 23
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT
7. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa, the writ-applicant preferred the Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 2017 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aravalli at Modasa. The Revision Application also came to be rejected by the revisional Court.
8. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Courts below, the writ-applicant is here before this Court with this writ application questioning the legality and validity of the two orders.
9. Mr.I.H.Syed, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant would submit that as such the law as regards the power of the Courts below to order interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with the prohibition offences, wherein the quantity of the liquor seized exceeds ten litres has been settled by this Court in the case of Page 4 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.8521 of 2017 and allied matters decided on 15th December, 2017. However, according to Mr.Syed, in the said judgment delivered by this Court, the attention of this Court was not drawn to Section 132 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Mr.Syed would submit that Section 132 of the Act, 1949 makes all the difference so far as the power of the Court below to order interim custody of the vehicle is concerned. Mr.Syed would submit that without complying with the provision of Section 132 of the Act, 1949, the issue with regard to the seizure or the interim release of the seized vehicle would not reach the Court of the Magistrate. In such circumstances, Mr.Syed made a request that the provision of Section 132 of the Act, 1949, may be looked into and thereafter, an appropriate decision be taken by this Court.
10. On the other hand, this writ application has Page 5 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT been vehemently opposed by Mr.Mitesh Amit, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Mr.Amin would submit that the issue is no longer res-integra. The judgment delivered by this Court referred to above has been challenged before the Supreme Court and as on date, the Supreme Court is seized with the matter. Mr.Amin would submit that there is no merit worth the name in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant so far as Section 132 of the Act, 1949 is concerned. According to Mr.Amin Section 132 of the Act, 1949 has no application at all in the facts of this case.
11. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr.Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same be rejected.
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that Page 6 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT falls for my consideration is whether the Courts below committed any error in passing the impugned orders.
13. In Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai (supra), this Court held as under;
"50. The scheme of Section 98 would show that the things mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) are straightway to be confiscated. But in respect of any receptacle, package or covering in which any of the articles liable to confiscation under Sub-Section (1) are found and the animals, carts, vessels, or other conveyances used in carrying any such articles they are not to be confiscated straightway but they are liable to confiscation. There is understandable distinction between the things which must be straightway confiscated as provided by Section 98(1) and the things which are liable to confiscation. This should be in the very nature of things. Things like intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers, molasses, materials, still utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of which offence appears to have been committed under the Bombay Prohibition Act should straightway be confiscated because their possession per se is prohibited. They must be confiscated because they cannot be returned otherwise to the person to whom it is returned would be committing the same offence over again. They are articles, the possession of which is per se prohibited in view of the provisions contained in the Bombay Prohibition Act. But vessels, conveyances, carts and animals used for transport of such prohibited articles are not per se prohibited and therefore, they cannot be straightway confiscated. They are liable to confiscation in view of the use made of such things. Section 99 provides the procedure to be followed by the Court in respect of the things liable to confiscation before they are confiscated. Section 99 provides as under :
"99. When during the trial of a case for an Page 7 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT offence under this Act the court decides that anything is liable to confiscation under the foregoing section, the Court may after hearing the person, if any, claiming any right thereto and the evidence if any, which he produces in support of his claim order confiscation or in the case of any article other than an intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers or molasses give the owner an option to pay fine as the court deems fit in lieu of confiscation :
Provided that no animal, cart, vehicle or other conveyance shall be confiscated if the owner thereof satisfies the court that he had exercised due care in preventing the commission of the offence."
It appears that the articles which are liable to confiscation can only be confiscated after hearing the person claiming any right thereto and the evidence if any which he produces in support of his claim. The proviso to Section99 makes it abundantly clear that vessel or vehicle or other conveyance cannot be confiscated if the owner satisfies the Court that he had exercised due care in preventing the commission of the offence. Therefore, when anything liable to confiscation is to be confiscated the Court has to hear the person claiming any right thereto. Such a person has a right to lead evidence in support of his claim. He has also an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. In respect of the vehicle or conveyance the same cannot be confiscated if the owner shows that he had taken sufficient care to prevent the commission of the offence. He can do so by leading evidence. Therefore, before the Court proceeds to confiscate a vehicle, vessel or a conveyance, it must give an opportunity to the owner thereof to show whether he had used sufficient care to prevent the commission of the offence. In fact before an order of confiscation is passed an inquiry as contemplated by Section 99 would be made. Such an inquiry is to be made in respect of the articles liable to confiscation and not those which are required to be confiscated as a necessary corollary as provided in Section 98(1).
The order of confiscation is not a
Page 8 of 23
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT
consequential order which must follow the findings of fact in the case and a duty is cast on the Court to confiscate anything in respect of which the offence appears to have been committed. One should not ignore distinction made by the Legislature between Sections 98(1) and 98(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Section 98(1) provides for confiscation of certain things in respect of which an offence appears to have been committed. In respect of those things such as intoxicant, hemp, mhowra flowers, molasses, materials still utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of which an offence appears to have been committed they are straightway to be confiscated. As soon as the Court comes to the conclusion that in respect of the articles set out above the offence appears to have been committed, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, the Court has no option but to confiscate those articles. Sub-Section (2) makes a distinct departure in respect of these things or articles which are not to be confiscated straightway but which are liable to confiscation and the things which are liable to confiscation have to be dealt with as provided by Section 99. Therefore, in respect of the things which are not to be confiscated but which are liable to the confiscation he Court has to follow the procedure prescribed in Section99 before the order of confiscation in respect of such things could be passed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of confiscation is a mere consequential order following the findings of fact recorded by the Court. It may be that a person may be held guilty of possession of liquor imported in the motor track and yet the truck need not be confiscated if it is found that it belongs to some other person who had exercised due care for preventing the commission of the offence. To take a simple illustration, a person in transport business was approached with a request that the truck is to be hired for transporting vegetables and while loading vegetables a few bottles of liquor were also loaded. If a search of the truck is taken and bottles are recovered the person who hired the truck and transported vegetables would be in possession of the bottles and would be liable for possession of liquor. But in such circumstances, it is unconceivable that the Page 9 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT motor truck could also be straightway confiscated. Therefore, before the motor truck could be confiscated the Court must make an inquiry as envisaged by Section 99 and give an opportunity to the owner of the motor truck to show that he had exercised due care for preventing the commission of the offence and if the Court is satisfied that he had exercised due care, the truck cannot be confiscated. Therefore, it cannot be said that in all cases the order of confiscation is a consequential order or that there is a duty cast on the Court to confiscate every article coming before the Court trying the offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act.
51 I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. A.D. Shah, the learned Amicus Curiae that the Court should read into Section 98(2) of the Act, 1949, the power of the Magistrate to release the vehicle in exercise of power under Sections 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C., as the case may be, otherwise Section 99 of the Cr.P.C. would be rendered redundant. In my view, the entire purpose of the legislation would be defeated if any other literal construction was to be adopted. I am in agreement with the submission of Mr. Raju, the learned Amicus Curiae that the words during the trial of a case in Section 99 of the Act, should not be construed as at any stage of the trial. In my view, Mr. Raju, the learned Amicus Curiae, is right in submitting that Section 99 of the Act comes into play when the Court decides to pass an appropriate order as regards the disposal of the muddamal property under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 452 contemplates disposal of property at the conclusion of the trial and says that when an inquiry or trial for any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for its disposal. This Section 452 refers to a stage when the trial is concluded. The word inquiry in Section 452 should be construed as one necessary for the disposal of the property i.e. confiscation, etc. The word concluded in Section 452 means, in my opinion, concluded after a full hearing with a final judgment for determination of the case against the accused. For, clearly an order under Section 452 can be made only on the basis of Page 10 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT the evidence recorded in the inquiry or trial, and in accordance with the findings, the Magistrate may arrive at with material. Therefore, Section 99 comes into play on conclusion of the trial i.e. when the Court decides to confiscate the vehicle. At that stage, the Court may conduct a formal inquiry and in such an inquiry, an opportunity has to be given to the person claiming the possession of the vehicle. At that stage, the proviso to Section 99 comes into play. In accordance with the proviso, the owner may adduce necessary evidence to satisfy the Court that he had exercised due care in preventing the commission of the offence and although the accused persons may be held guilty and convicted, yet the vehicle involved in the commission of the offence may not be confiscated. There is one more reason to take this view. In Section 99, the words are give the owner an option to pay fine as the Court deems fit in lieu of confiscation. The question of payment of fine would come only on conclusion of the trial and not at an earlier stage.
65 My final conclusion is that Section 98(2) of the Act, 1949 curtails the power of the Magistrate to order interim release of the seized vehicle under Sections 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C., as the case may be. The Courts below will have no jurisdiction to order interim release pending the trial of the seized vehicle in connection with the offence under the Act, 1949, if the quantity of the liquor recovered exceeds 10 litres in quantity.
66 The Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a methodology to deal with the prohibition offences, seizure, confiscation, release, etc. Once such a procedure is prescribed, the Courts have to examine the rights of the parties in accordance with the procedure so prescribed. I am unable to hold that the Magistrate and Revisional Court have committed any error in rejecting the applications preferred by the respective applicants under Sections 451 or 457 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Act, 1949, the general provisions laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat [JT (2002) 10 SC 80] cannot be pressed into service for release of Page 11 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT vehicle from the Court of Magistrate."
14. Thus, this Court took the view that Section 98 (2) of the Act, 1949 specifically excludes the power of the Magistrate to order interim release of the seized vehicle under Sections 451 or 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be. This Court made itself very clear in the judgment referred to above that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to order interim release of the seized vehicle pending the trial if the quantity of the liquor recovered exceeds ten litres. This Court also clarified that in view of the provisions of Section 98 (2) of the Act, 1949, the general principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat [JT (2002) 10 SC 80] cannot be pressed into service for release of vehicle from the Court of Magistrate.
15. As the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant has very seriously raised the Page 12 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT issue of Section 132 of the Act, 1949, let me look into the same.
16. Section 132 of the Act, 1949 reads as under;
132. Articles seized.- [When anything has been seized under the provisions of this Act by a Prohibition Officer exercising powers under Section 129 or by an officer-in-charge of a police station], or has been sent to him in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such officer, after such inquiry as may be, deemed necessary,-
(a) if it appears that such thing is required as evidence in the case of any person arrested, shall forward it to the Magistrate to whom such person is forwarded or for his appearance before whom bail has been taken;
(b) if it appears that such thing is liable to confiscation but is not required as evidence as aforesaid, shall send it with a full report of the particulars of seizure to the Collector;
(c) if no offence appears to have been committed shall return it to the person from whose possession it was taken.
17. I take notice of the fact that Section 98 of the Act, 1949 falls in chapter (vii) of the Act. Chapter (vii) of the Act is with regard to the offences and penalties. So far as Section 132 is concerned, it falls in Chapter
(ix) of the Act. Chapter (ix) is with regard to the powers and duties of the officers and procedures.
Page 13 of 23
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT
18. Section 132 of the Act, 1949 talks about an inquiry at the end of the officer in-charge of the police station or a Prohibition Officer as regards the articles seized in exercise of the powers under Section 129 of the Act. 132 (a) provides that if any article seized by the authority concerned is required as evidence in the case of any person arrested then such article shall be forwarded to the Magistrate to whom such person is forwarded or for his appearance before whom the bail has been taken. Clause (b) provides that if it appears to the authority concerned that the articles seized are liable to be confiscated but, are not required as evidence then, under such circumstances, the authority has to prepare a full report in that regard of the particulars of seizure and forward the same to the Collector. In my view, if at all, the case falls within Section 132 (b), then the same should be read in conjunction with Section 100 of the Act, 1949. Section 100 of Page 14 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT the Act, 1949 reads as under;
100. Procedure in confiscation.- When an offence under this Act has been committed and the offender is not known or cannot be found or when anything liable to confiscation under this Act is found or seized, the [Director], Director or any other officer authorised by the [State] Government in this behalf may make an inquiry and if after such inquiry is satisfied that an offence has been committed, may order the thing found to be confiscated:
Provided that no such order shall be made before the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing [the person, if any, claiming any right thereto] and the evidence, if any, which he produces in support of his claim.
19. Thus, under Section 98 of the Act, the powers of confiscation are with the Court. It is only when the offender is not known or cannot be found, that the power has been given to the Collector or any other officer authorized by the State Government to make an inquiry and at the end of the same order confiscation.
20. The argument of Mr.Syed is that an inquiry under Section 132 of the Act is a must before the property seized is produced before any criminal Court in accordance with Section 451 or Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be. To put it in other Page 15 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT words, the argument is that it is only upon an appropriate inquiry that the authority concerned can arrive at a subjective satisfaction whether to treat the vehicle as a muddamal or not. I am not at all impressed with this submission of Mr.Syed.
21. In my view, once the matter reaches the Court of law, thereafter, it is only that Court which has to deal with the issue of confiscation. Section 132 has nothing to do so far as Sections 98 and 99 of the Act, 1949 respectively are concerned.
22. In my view, Section - 132 of the Act does not save the situation. I have my doubts whether a vehicle like a car, or a truck or a bus would fall within the ambit of the term 'articles' as explained in Section 132 of the Act. In any view of the matter, I am not convinced with the arguments as regards Section 132 of the Act. As the judgment of this Court has been carried to the Supreme Page 16 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT Court, the issue is now at large before the Supreme Court.
23. However, the facts of this case are very peculiar. The writ-applicant is a businessman and he is into the business of plying luxury bus. It appears that the luxury bus was travelling from Rajasthan to Ahmedabad. It prima facie appears that the main accused (passenger) in collusion with the driver and cleaner of the luxury bus somehow managed to get a huge consignment of liquor loaded in the luxury bus. The writ-applicant being the owner of the luxury bus might not be having any idea or knowledge about this. In fact, it is very difficult in the facts of this case to attribute such knowledge. The case of the prosecution appears to be that one of the passengers in the bus was the owner of the entire contraband and he had got it loaded in the bus in connivance with the driver and cleaner. The luxury bus, as on date, is in the custody of the police and is lying in Page 17 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT open past almost four months. In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant appropriate relief to the writ-applicant in exercise of my extraordinary powers under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not find anything wrong with the two impugned orders but the only option now left for this Court if at all the vehicle is to be released is to exercise extraordinary powers under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. In Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (4) SCC 453, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide a very important question as regards the power of the High Court under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis non applicability of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the State of U.P. In the said case, the Additional Solicitor General of India who appeared in the matter on the request of the Supreme Court had submitted that the High Page 18 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT Court can in only the rarest of rare cases grant pre-arrest bail while exercising the powers under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, since the provisions for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was consciously omitted by the State Legislature. It was submitted that the relief which otherwise the accused - appellant could not have obtained under the Code, was sought to be obtained indirectly by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, which was impermissible in law.
25. K.S.Radhakrishnan, J (As His Lordship then was) in his separate judgment observed as under;
"22. I may, however, point out that there is unanimity in the view that in spite of the fact that Section 438 has been specifically omitted and made inapplicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, still a party aggrieved can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being extraordinary jurisdiction and the vastness of the powers naturally impose considerable responsibility in its application. All the same, the High Court has got the power and sometimes duty in appropriate cases to grant reliefs, though it is not possible to pin-point what are the appropriate cases, which have to be left to the wisdom of the Page 19 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
26. His Lordship Justice A.K.Sikri in his separate but concurring judgment observed as under;
"4. It is for this reason, we are of the opinion that in appropriate cases the High Court is empowered to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the main relief itself is against arrest. Obviously, when provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not available to the accused persons in the State of Uttar Pradesh, under the normal circumstances such an accused persons would not be entitled to claim such a relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It cannot be converted into a second window for the relief which is consciously denied statutorily making it a case of casus omissus. At the same time, as rightly observed in para 21 extracted above, the High Court cannot be completely denuded of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, to grant such a relief in appropriate and deserving cases; albeit this power is to be exercised with extreme caution and sparingly in those cases where arrest of a person would lead to total miscarriage of justice. There may be cases where pre-arrest may be entirely unwarranted and lead to disastrous consequences. Whenever the High Court is convinced of such a situation, it would be appropriate to grant the relief against pre-arrest in such cases. What would be those cases will have to be left to the wisdom of the High Court. What is emphasized is that the High Court is not bereft of its powers to grant this relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
11. It is pertinent to mention that though the High Courts have very wide powers under Art.226, the very vastness of the powers imposes on it the responsibility to use them with circumspection and in accordance with the judicial consideration and well established principles, so much so that while entertaining writ petitions for granting interim protection from arrest, the Court would not go on to the extent of including the provision of anticipatory bail as a blanket provision. Page 20 of 23
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT
12. Thus, such a power has to be exercised very cautiously keeping in view, at the same time, that the provisions of Article 226 are a devise to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The powers are, therefore, to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. In entertaining such a petition under Art.226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Art.226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438,Cr.P.C. proceedings, keeping in mind that when this provision is specifically omitted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it cannot be resorted to as to back door entry via Art.226. On the other hand, wherever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is again clarified that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified."
27. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, I am inclined to exercise my writ powers under Article 226 and order release of the luxury bus pending the trial. Let me make myself very clear that I have though fit to exercise my extraordinary powers because the case is one falling in the category of the rarest of rare case. I am of the view having regard to the peculiar facts of the case that if the luxury bus remains at the concerned police Page 21 of 23 R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT station open to sky then by passage of time, it will get deteriorated.
28. In the result, this application is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to immediately release the luxury bus bearing registration no.RJ 12 PA 2786 on the applicant fulfilling the following conditions.
(1) The applicant shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle in question. The trial Court shall get the value of the vehicle determined in accordance with the law and accordingly ask the applicant to furnish the solvent surety to its satisfaction.
(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking on oath before the trial Court that he shall not transfer, alienate, part with the possession of the vehicle or create any charge over the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial.
Page 22 of 23
R/SCR.A/2185/2018 JUDGMENT (3) The applicant shall produce the vehicle as and when the authority directs him to do so.
With the above, this petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J) MOHMMEDSHAHID Page 23 of 23