Gujarat High Court
Laxmanbhai vs State on 10 May, 2012
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1473/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1473 of 2011
=========================================
LAXMANBHAI
UKAJI PRAJAPATI PRO P. HARESHKUMAR LAXMANKUMAR C - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR DIPEN K
DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 04/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
[1.0] Present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the applicant - original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned dated 13.04.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Limdi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application, whereby the application submitted by the applicant for getting interim possession of the muddamal gold has been rejected as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No.25/2011 confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the applicant for interim possession of the muddamal.
[2.0] Applicant is the original complainant who is running Angadia service at Ahmedabad. That some packets which were being carried by the employee of the aforesaid firm were stolen from the S.T. Bus and therefore, the applicant - original complainant filed the criminal complaint being C.R. No.I-71/2010 before Panshina Police Station. That during the course of investigation, the packets came to be recovered which were seized as muddamal. That the gold came to be recovered from original accused Nos.11, 12 and 13 - goldsmiths. That thereafter the application submitted the application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for getting the interim possession of the muddamal 1589 gms gold and Rs.7,20,000/- cash. That it appears that initially original accused Nos.11, 12 and 13 from whom the muddamal gold was found/seized submitted no claim pursis and thereafter again they denied having given such pursis and objected to give muddamal to the applicant. That thereafter again after few months have submitted affidavit/applications that they have no objection if the muddamal is given to the applicant. That by reasoned order the learned trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 13.04.2011. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 13.04.2011 rejecting the application of the applicant for interim possession of the muddamal, application preferred revision application before the learned Sessions Court, Surendranagar being Criminal Revision Application No.25/2011 and by impugned judgment and order the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision application confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, the applicant - original complainant has preferred the present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[3.0] Shri Zala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in not handing over the interim possession of muddamal gold to the applicant complainant. It is submitted that when the persons from whom the muddamal gold was seized have submitted No Claim Pursis and have submitted the affidavit that they have no objection if the muddamal gold is given to the applicant and when no other persons have claim, the learned trial Court ought to have handed over the interim possession of the muddamal to the applicant - original complainant. It is submitted that the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in dismissing the said revision application confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition and direct to hand over the interim possession of the muddamal gold and cash to the petitioner - original complainant.
[4.0] Heard Shri Zala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below rejecting the application of the petitioner for interim possession of the muddamal gold/cash to the petitioner. The orders passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned orders and it appears that both the Courts below have rightly exercised the discretion and the same are not required to be interfered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[4.1] As rightly observed by the learned Revisional Court, it has not come on record from which packet how much gold and cash was recovered and/or the gold was belonging to whom and of how much quantity. Therefore, it is observed by both the Courts below that if the muddamal is handed over to the petitioner, in that case, there is likelihood of change in muddamal. As such nothing is on record that which packet belongs to which party and what was contained in the packet. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly refused to grant interim possession of the muddamal gold/cash to the petitioner who admittedly is not the owner of the muddamal. It is also required to be noted at this stage that initially original accused Nos.11, 12 and 13 from whom the muddamal was found/seized submitted No Clim Pursis. However, subsequently, again they denied having given any such pursis and objected to give muddamal to petitioner and thereafter again after few months, affidavit/applications were filed stating that they have no objection if the muddamal is given to the petitioner. Considering the above and for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any error and/or illegality in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for interim possession of the muddamal gold/cash. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[5.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R. Shah, J.) *menon Top