Gujarat High Court
Ashish Kanjibhai Dangar vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3552/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF
MUDDAMAL) NO. 3552 of 2025
=========================================
ASHISH KANJIBHAI DANGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MS SHWETA S LODHA(10592) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
APP MR ROHAN H RAVAL for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent.
2. By this petition under Articles 19, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to
quash and set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the
learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision
Application No. 81 of 2024 as well as the order dated 11.03.2024
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot.
3. The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the vehicle
Ashok Leyland Tanker Truck bearing registration No. GJ-03-
AZ-5124 along with fuel oil therein. The said vehicle was seized
by the police in connection with the FIR being CR No.
11208055230231 of 2023 registered with D.C.B Police
Station, District Rajkot for the offences punishable under
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3552/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Sections 285, 286, 120B, 114, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3, 7, 8, 10 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 as well as under section 9(B)(1)(b) of the
Explosives Act, 1884.
4. The petitioner preferred an application in the Court of the
learned Magistrate for releasing of the muddamal under Section
451 of the Code. The said application was rejected by the learned
Magistrate.
5. Being dissatisfied the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision
Application before the Sessions Court which also came to be
rejected.
6. Being dissatisfied the petitioner has come up with this
petition. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and having gone through the material on record, I am of the view
that pending the criminal proceedings the vehicle should have been
ordered to be released, subject to certain terms and conditions so
as to protect the interest of both, the petitioner as well as the
prosecution.
7. I am conscious of the fact that both the Courts below have
thought it fit not to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the
petitioner. Ordinarily, when there are concurrent findings of fact,
the Court should interfere only in rarest of the rare case in exercise
of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
However, taking into consideration the fact that if the vehicle is
allowed to remain in custody at the police station, then by passage
of time the vehicle will get damaged and deteriorated. No useful
purpose would be served to allow the vehicle remain at the police
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3552/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
station.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1168 of 2012 decided on 11 th October 2012 had the
occasion to consider almost an identical issue with regard to
release of the vehicle. In the said case, the vehicle was seized in
connection with the offence under IPC and Essential Commodities
Act. The Court made the following observations :
“10. In any view of the matter, we are not going into the merit of the
question as to whether the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under
Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, for which a show cause notice has already
been issued and the proceedings will take its own course. We are only
concerned with the limited question as to whether the vehicle should
be ordered to be released by imposing suitable terms and conditions
pending the confiscation proceedings.
11. We find substance in the submission of Ms. Shah that by keeping
the vehicle open to sky for a long period of time will reduce the
vehicle to a scrap. The object of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 is
analogous to Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An identical
question fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003
SC 638. The Supreme Court was primarily dealing with the provisions
of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code. While quoting the aforesaid two
provisions of the Act in the judgment, it was observed in para 7 as
under:-
“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Criminal
Procedure Code should be exercised expeditiously and
judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
1) owner of the article would not suffer because of its
remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2) court or the police would not be required to keep the
article in safe custody;
3) if the proper panchnama before handing over
possession of article is prepared, that can be used in
evidence instead of its production before the court
during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be
recorded describing the nature of the property in detail:
and
4) this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should
be exercised promptly, so that there may not be further
chance of tampering with the articles.”
12. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, in that case
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3552/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
the Supreme Court directed that following measures should be
adopted giving instances contained in para 12 reproduced
hereinbelow:
“12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that
such articles belong to the complainant at whose house
theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized
articles be handed over to the complainant after:
(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such
articles;
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that
such articles would be produced if required at the time
of trial; and(3) after taking proper security.”
13. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by
the police either in commission of various offences or
abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during
investigation of complaint of thefts, the court observed as
under:-
“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use
to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a
long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate
orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and
guarantee as well as security for return of the said
vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be
done pending hearing of applications for return of such
vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the
accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third
person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be
auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with
the insurance company then the insurance company be
informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle
which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If
the insurance company fails to take possession, the
vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court.
The court would pass such order within a period of six
months from the date of production of the said vehicle
before the court. In any case, before handing over
possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of
the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama
should be prepared.”
9. Considering the fact that, as the goods loaded in the
muddamal tanker does not fall in the category of Bio Diesel and is a
petroleum product (DOM), present petition is allowed. The
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3552/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
impugned orders are hereby quashed. The authority concerned is
directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Ashok Leyland
Tanker Truck bearing registration No. GJ-03-AZ-5124 along
with fuel oil therein on the petitioner’s furnishing an undertaking
of the nature as referred to hereinafter:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond within a period of one
week from today, for the production of the vehicle so
released, if and when required before the Court having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any such illegal
activity.
(iii) The petitioner shall furnish solvent surety of the value
of 1.5 times of the actual value of the muddamal vehicle and
the goods therein;
(iv) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer or alienate the
vehicle in any manner, pending the criminal case and shall
produce the vehicle before the Investigating Officer as and
when call upon to produce the same for the purpose of
further proceedings.
10. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking on oath on
the above terms, and on filing such an undertaking before the
Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer shall immediately
release the vehicle and hand over the same to the petitioner.
11. If the vehicle as on today is in custody of the other
respondent, then in view of the order passed today, the same shall
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3552/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
be handed over to the petitioner, subject to the above terms.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
Kaushal Rathod
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Aug 28 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 28 22:22:49 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link