Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002
[3] By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed to issue a writ, order or direction directing the
respondent authority to release/handover of custody of
seized Muddamal vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ-27-
N-6236 which came to be seized by the Investigating
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 11 20:59:39 IST 2023
R/SCR.A/4453/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2023
Officer in connection with FIR being Prohibition
C.R.No.11191037230215 of 2023 registered with Odhav
Police Station, Ahmedabad to the petitioner on
appropriate conditions as deemed fit by this High Court.
[4] It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner
is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and it is duly
registered with the transport department of the
Government. He is, therefore, before this Court.
[5] Learned Advocate for the petitioner
has urged that this Court has wide powers, while
exercising such powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It can also take into account the ratio laid
down in the case of 'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS.
STATE OF GUJARAT', AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, the
Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicles
having been kept unattended and becoming junk within
the police station premises.
Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlalji Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 5 April, 2018
State has objected the submissions made by learned
advocate for the petitioner and pointed out that this
Page 2 of 8
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 11 20:59:39 IST 2023
R/SCR.A/4453/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2023
Court in the case of 'ANILKUMAR RAMLAL @
RAMANLALJI MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT' in Special
Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018, Dated:
Pareshkumar Jaykarbhai Brahmbhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 2017
05.04.2018, and in the earlier decision in
'PARESHKUMAR JAYKARBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE
OF GUJARAT' in Special Criminal Application No. 8521
of 2017 and the allied matters decided on 15.12.2017,
has held that the powers of the Magistrate to order
interim release of the seized vehicle under Section
98(2)of the said Act has been curtailed, and therefore,
the Courts below have been held to have no jurisdiction
to order interim release of the vehicle, pending trial,
where, the vehicle is seized in connection with the
offence under the Prohibition Act and the quantity of the
liquor seized exceeds 10 liters. Learned APP further,
urged that, of course, powers of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution to order
release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time,
whenever the Court deems it appropriate.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949
1