Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
32ND COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
Notice No.139/N/2021
CR NO. 30/J/2020
CNR No.MHMM180008192021
Chandran Kakkatteyil … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'J' Division) ...Respondent.
Notice No.140/N/2021
CR NO. 30/K/2020
CNR No.MHMM180008202021
Ajay Chandran Kakkatteyil … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'K' Division) ...Respondent.
Notice No.141/N/2021
CR NO. 30/K/2020
CNR No.MHMM180008212021
Rajni Chandran Kakkatteyil … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'K' Division) ...Respondent.
Notice No.142/N/2021
CR NO. 30/K/2020
CNR No.MHMM180008222021
Rajni Chandran Kakkatteyil … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'K' Division) ...Respondent.
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Notice No.143/N/2021
C.R. No. 30/K/2020.
CNR No.MHMM180008232021
Rajni Chandran Kakkatteyil … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'K' Division) ...Respondent.
COMMON ORDER BELOW APPLICATIONS FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
1. These are the applications vide section 451 of Cr.P.C. for
return of seized four wheeler and two wheeler vehicles mentioned in the
applications seized by the excise department 'J' and 'K' division
respectively. All the applications taken together for order as the vehicles
seized in both the offences are belongs to the accused of one family. It
means all the five vehicles are owned by one family.
2. Perused application, say of excise departments. Heard both
sides.
3. Applicants i.e. Chandran, his wife Rajni Chandran and son
Ajay Chandran sought custody of following seized cars and motorcycles
being in requirement thereof, claiming that they are owners of the said
vehicles and they are in urgent need of the same. They are ready to
abide by conditions imposed, if any.
Sr.
No.
Applicant Vehicle Model Registration
No.
1 Chandran Kakkatteyil Maruti Swift Dzire MH43AG8910
2 Rajni Chandran Kakkatteyil Swift Dzire MH02BT4745
3 Rajni Chandran Kakkatteyil Honda City MH01BK6619
4 Rajni Chandran Kakkatteyil Tata Indigo ECS GLS MH01CT6720
5 Ajay Chandran Kakkatteyil Honda Dio MH01BQ7438
-- 2 of 4 --
3
4. Perused affidavit of the applicants. As per Section 98 of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, these vehicles are liable for confiscation. As per
section 99 of the said Act other than intoxicants, hemp mhowra flowers
or molasses anything liable for confiscation can be returned to the
bonafide owners, if such owner pay fine instead of confiscation. The
vehicles, therefore, can be returned if the applicants shows that they are
bonafide owners.
5. The excise departments opposed the applications claiming
that property is liable for confiscation. The accused are habitual. They
are the family members and all their vehicles are involved in same and
similar offence. There is possibility of repetition of crime by use of same
vehicles. It affects revenue of Government. Investigation is pending.
6. In case of Jilani Nasruddin Gore Vs. State of
Maharashtra; 2005 (3) Mah.LJ 1058; the Hon'ble Bombay High court
considered the Precedents on law of return of property and imposing
bank guarantee and confirmed the order of bank guarantee of Rs.1 Lacs
i.e. around 50% of the value of vehicle seized. As such, if the vehicle is
to be released the condition of bank guarantee is to be imposed upto
50% value of the vehicle to secure the vehicle for confiscation
proceedings, if required.
7. The applicants alongwith their affidavits filed on record the
copy of registration of vehicle & insurance certificates.
8. Perusal of documents, the applicants are found the owners
of the respective vehicles. Except the claim that the applicant are in
urgent need of the vehicles, noting pleaded or shown that the applicants
are bonafide owners entitled for interim custody. The applicants are
-- 3 of 4 --
4
themselves the accused in the crime. Therefore, they cannot claim that
they are bonafide owners and the offence have been committed without
their knowledge. It also cannot be said that the applicants have taken all
care to see that their vehicles should not be involved in any criminal
activity.
9. The applicants have not made clear how they are in need of
the vehicles and what is their business and purpose and use of the
vehicles. All the vehicles of one family being involved in the same and
similar offences sufficiently shows that the accused persons are habitual.
Therefore, they being not bonafide owners, not entitled for the custody
of vehicles. There is every possibility of its further use in the same and
similar crimes. Hence, following order :
ORDER
Applications stands rejected.
Date : 02.03.2021
ssl.
(Sudhir N. Shinde)
Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 4 --