HARBANSINGH CHETANSINGH KERON v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
(cid:9)The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 114, 420
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 26/07/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.(cid:9)The petitioner is the power of attorney holder of the owner of vehicle No.GQB 6018, which was involved in an offence registered before the Ichhapur Police Station, vide C.R-I No.12/99 for offences under Sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The vehicle came to be seized by police and the petitioner, therefore, applied to 5th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Surat for interim custody of the vehicle, pending the trial. The learned Magistrate, rejected that application. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Revision Application No.67 of 1999 in the Sessions Court at Surat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while deciding Revision Application No.67 of 1999 on 23rd June, 1999, allowed the revision application, reversing the order of the learned Magistrate and directed that the vehicle in question be handed over to the petitioner on certain conditions. One of the conditions being that the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee in favour of P.I. of Ichhapur Police Station for Rs.1 lakh. It is this part of the order with which the present petitioner is aggrieved.
Operative part
2.(cid:9)Heard Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Considering the merits, the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner only on interim basis, pending the trial. The Trial, in all probability, will take time. The petitioner will have to go on incurring expenditure for renewal of the bank guarantee from time to time and, therefore, the purpose would be frustrated. Keeping this aspect in mind, if the petitioner is directed to furnish a solvent surety to the tune of Rs.1 lakh instead of bank guarantee, the ends of justice would be met. There appears to be no need for any modification of any of the other conditions and rightly not prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, the following order :- (cid:9)The petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 1999 of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh for handing over muddamal truck No.GBQ 6018 is hereby quashed. It is directed further that the petitioner shall furnish a surety to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and execute the bond for identical amount whereupon he shall be handed over the custody of the vehicle in question. The other conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge remain intact. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service to respondent No.2 permitted. (cid:9) (cid:9)[ A.L. DAVE, J. ] (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (cid:9)The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 114, 420.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 26 Jul 1999. The bench was A L DAVE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.