Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Miteshkumar Chimanbhai Gurjar vs State Of Gujarat on 29 June, 2020 cites

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002

8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the trucks in question stand registered in the name of the petitioner herein and as per the allegation in the impugned complaint also, the petitioner was not present at the place of incident. At this Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 23:10:59 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/118/2020 ORDER juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a decision passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application No.9745 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017 wherein also, the issue pertained to release of muddamal vehicle seized under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and The Gujarat Mines (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules. In the aforesaid judgment, the coordinate Bench has elaborately dealt with the issue, after considering a catena of judgments rendered by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case as also in the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have seriously erred in not releasing the vehicles in question in favour of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the authorized officer had issued the requisite "Form-J" to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the release of the vehicles in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21090 - Full Document
1   2 Next