SCR.A/1687/2008 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1687 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= NIRAV DEVCHANDBHAI PATEL & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NITIN M AMIN for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR MR MENGDEY, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 05/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned SCR.A/1687/2008 2/8 JUDGMENT Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners – No.2 -original accused have prayed for an appropriate Writ and Order to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No.68 of 2008 as well as the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc.Application No.334 of 2005 in so far as directing petitioner No.1 to furnish surety of Rs.15 lacs (Rs.11 lacs as modified by the learned Revisional Court) while handing over possession of the Motorcar – GJ-24-A-2066. 3. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that he has purchased aforesaid Motorcar – GJ-24-A-2066 on 04.02.2008 by paying resale price of Rs.10,30,000/- from the petitioner No.2 who is Deputy General Manager of Auto Mart India (First Choice Wheels Ltd.) and the possession of the said motorcar was handed SCR.A/1687/2008 3/8 JUDGMENT over to petitioner No.1 on payment of full consideration. It is further the case that one Kapil Thakkar, an auto-broker agent of ICICI Bank Ltd. was doing the business of purchasing car from their owners and selling the same to the Company of petitioner No.2. It appears that on 18.01.2008, the said auto-broker Kapil Thakkar sold the said car at the price of Rs.9 lacs to the Company of petitioner No.2 and took cheque of resale price of Rs.9 lacs by Cheque No.577384 dated 18.01.2008. That on and around 28.03.2008 the ex-owner- Dr.Bharat Patel through his employee – Rajendra Patel filed FIR at Satellite Police Station being CR No.I-385/2008 alleging that he had delivered the said car for sale to the auto-broker agent of ICICI Bank Ltd. named Kapil Thakker with all the required papers for the transfer of the said car duly signed by him on 16.01.2008 and has taken a cheque from him for Rs.11,11,101/- drawn in his favour. But the said auto-broker had not paid him amount received by him on sale of his car to the company of petitioner No.2. Pursuant to the said complaint motorcar in question came to be seized. It is the case of the petitioners SCR.A/1687/2008 4/8 JUDGMENT that they have read news report in the daily 'Gujarat Samachar' that the said auto-broker Kapil Thakkar has cheated other car owners including the ex-owner of the aforesaid car. The head office of the petitioner No.2 on moral grounds and to protect it's reputation paid the amount of the sale price – Rs.9 lacs to the ex-owner Dr.Bharat Patel by pay order and the said ex-owner has also issued receipt for the said amount. 4. That thereafter, petitioner No.1 submitted application being Criminal Misc.Application No.334 of 2008 before the the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting possession of the said car claiming that he is lawful and legal purchaser of the said motorcar. Original owner also submitted their no objection. In spite of that, the learned Magistrate passed the order on 13.05.2008 to deliver the possession of the said car to the petitioner No.1 by imposing condition of giving surety to the amount of Rs.15 lacs, not to paint or change colour of the said car etc. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners SCR.A/1687/2008 5/8 JUDGMENT preferred Criminal Revision Application No.68 of 2008 before the learned Session Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for removing and deleting such conditions when all parties concerned in the matter have filed their replies and affidavits not making any claim or right in or over the said motor car. That by impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2008 the learned Revisional Court passed the order setting aside the earlier order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and imposed condition that the petitioner No.2 shall furnish a surety of Rs.11 lacs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have jointly preferred present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr.Amin, learned Advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when all the parties concerned in the matter have filed their replies and affidavits, not making any claim or right in or over the said motor car, both the Courts below ought to have delivered the SCR.A/1687/2008 6/8 JUDGMENT possession of the disputed motorcar to petitioner No.1 without any condition i.e. surety of Rs.15 lacs (Rs.11 lacs now by petitioner No.2) and more particularly when original owner is already paid sale consideration. Mr.Amin, learned Advocate has further submitted that on one hand petitioner No.2 has already made payment to the original owner and still petitioner No.2 is directed to furnish surety of Rs.11 lacs, which is absolutely unwarranted and unreasonable. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside that part of the order by which petitioner No.2 is now directed to furnish surety of Rs.11 lacs while taking possession of Motorcar-vehicle. 6. Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned APP has requested to pass appropriate order. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that original owner is already paid amount of sale consideration by the petitioner and that he has no objection and/or he is not claiming the vehicle and more particularly when no other persons SCR.A/1687/2008 7/8 JUDGMENT have claimed custody of the vehicle, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Revisional Court was not justified in imposing condition of furnishing surety of Rs.11 lacs by petitioner No.2 while passing the order of handing over the Muddamal- vehicle to petitioner No.1. It appears that said condition is unwarranted and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances, said condition of furnishing surety of Rs.11 lacs requires to be quashed and set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. Impugned order passed by the both the Courts below are modified to the extent that petitioner No.1 be handed over the possession of the Muddamal motorcar No.GJ-24-A-2066 without any condition of furnishing surety either by petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2 and on condition that petitioner No.1 shall produce the said motorcar as and when required by the Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. [M.R.Shah,J.] SCR.A/1687/2008 8/8 JUDGMENT satish