AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Samir J. Dave, J
Learned Advocate Mr.Alay Sheth states that he has instructions to appear for Respondent no.3 and he seeks permission to file his appearance on behalf of original complainant. The permission as prayed for is granted.
[1] 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 ie., MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA SCORPIO CAR bearing Registration No.GJ-08-BB-6282 which came to be seized by the Investigating Officer in connection with FIR being C.R. III- NO.224 of 2018 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha to the petitioner on appropriate conditions as deemed fit by this High Court.
[2] Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
[3] In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon orders passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application Nos. 2538 of 2014; 2283 of 2016 and 2300 of 2016.
[4] This Court had passed the following order in Special Criminal Application No. 2538 2014 which reads as under :-
“16. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the vehicle should be handed over to the finance company and the company should be permitted to sell the vehicle subject to certain terms and conditions. In this context may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Assurance Counsel and others v. State of A.P. And others, 2010 AIR SCW 2967. The Supreme Court has made the following observations in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 which reads as under:-
“14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given.
“(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdicitonal Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release.
(B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer.”
It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.”
The respondent No.2 has not yet become the absolute owner of the property as he is obliged to pay the loan amount. Even as per the RTO records, the ostensible ownership is with the applicant company.”
[5] Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the authorized person, who has financed the vehicle ie., MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA SCORPIO CAR bearing Registration No.GJ-08-BB-6282 and had provided finance for purchasing the aforementioned Vehicle.
[6] It is submitted that one FIR being III- C.R. NO.224 of 2018 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offence punishable under the Gujarat Prohibition Act as some quantity of liquor was found in the above said Vehicle and the vehicle came to be seized. As the petitioner is the financier of the seized vehicle, denial of release of the seized vehicle amounts to deprivation of rights of the petitioner and therefore, the present petition is preferred.
[7] In the result, this petition is allowed. The concerned Police Station shall handover the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner at the earliest. It shall be open for the petitioner company to sell the Muddamal vehicle ie., MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA SCORPIO CAR bearing Registration No.GJ-08-BB-6282 after executing a bond in the sum of the amount of sale consideration before the trial Court. The petitioner is at liberty to dispose of the vehicle in question after following the necessary procedure prescribed in law for the transfer of vehicle i.e. after drawing panchnama and taking photos of the vehicle. The petitioner shall intimate the trial Court about the sale consideration received by it. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the petitioner shall deposit the entire sale proceeds in the Court if required/ordered by the Court at the end of the trial.
[8] Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service permitted.