Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 27.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application No.1359 of 2018. By that order, the Sessions Judge permitted the respondent no.1, Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., to sell the muddamal Toyota Camry Hybrid car bearing registration No. GJ-01-RL-5445, which had been seized during investigation of a complaint lodged under Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The vehicle was originally owned by the respondent no.2 and was financed by the respondent no.1. During the pendency of the revision, the respondent no.1 filed an affidavit stating that the vehicle had been auctioned and the sale proceeds of Rs.15,71,000/- were received on 13.03.2019 by online transfer. The coordinate bench had earlier passed an order on 09.05.2019 noting this fact and directing that the amount be deposited in FDR in any nationalized bank. The High Court, after hearing the learned APP for the State, observed that since the vehicle had already been sold and the amount was lying with the respondent no.1, the revision application had become infructuous. The Court directed that the amount of Rs.15,71,000/- be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of the Nazir of the concerned court, subject to the outcome of the trial. The revision application was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Vehicle - Section 451 CrPC - Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act - The State challenged the order of the Sessions Judge permitting the financier to sell the seized Toyota Camry Hybrid car. The High Court held that since the vehicle had already been sold and the sale proceeds of Rs.15,71,000/- were deposited, the revision had become infructuous. The Court directed the amount to be kept in FDR in a nationalized bank pending trial. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in permitting the respondent-financier to sell the seized vehicle during pendency of trial under Section 451 CrPC.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed as having become infructuous since the vehicle has already been sold. The amount of Rs.15,71,000/- shall be kept in FDR in a nationalized bank in the name of the Nazir of the concerned court, subject to the outcome of the trial.
Law Points
- Interim custody of vehicle
- Sale of seized property by financier
- Section 451 CrPC
- Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act
