Parth Jagdishkumar Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 28 September, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Parth Jagdishkumar Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 28 September, 2021

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/SCR.A/8470/2018                                       ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8470 of 2018
                          With
     R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9577 of 2018
=============================================
                         PARTH JAGDISHKUMAR THAKKAR
                                    Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DHRUV B GOSWAMI(8896) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7,8,9
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                 Date : 28/09/2021

                            COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner of Special Criminal Application No.8470 of 2018, Parth Jagdishkumar Thakkar, has approached this Court with prayer to release the muddamal cash amount of Rs.22,10,000/-, which was seized in connection to the FIR being C.R. No.I-5 of 2018, registered with Bhildi Police Station, Dist. - Banaskantha under Sections 395, 397 and 120B of the IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act.

2. Countering the claim, petitioners of Special Criminal Application No.9577 of 2018, Thakkar Mukeshkumar @ Dipakkumar Kantilal and Thakkar Jigarkumar Kantilal, has made the same prayer for handing over the muddamal cash amount of Rs.22,10,000/-, which was seized in connection to the said Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 30 03:26:21 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/8470/2018 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021 FIR.

3. The petitioner of Special Criminal Application No.8470 of 2018 is complainant of FIR being C.R. No.I-5 of 2018. He has alleged that he was going in his Alto Car No.GJ-24-AA-3249, taking the cash amount of Rs.22,10,000/- and was proceeding towards his maternal uncle house, Rajesh Kumar Jayantilal, and on National Highway he was stopped by one unnumbered Swift car and five unknown persons under threat, at the point of sword, had looted him with the said money.

4. Mr. Jatin Yadav along, learned advocate with Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.8470 of 2018, referring to the panchnama stated that, the police as per the panchnama, which has been drawn on 25.01.2018, has intercepted one Swift Car, and about seven persons were found in the vehicle. Thus, when the persons in the Swift Car could not give satisfactory reply of the cash amount the same came to be seized towards the FIR. The muddamal cash amount of Rs.22,10,000/- was recovered from the car and it was found that the money was kept below the seat in a packed box. In the panchnama the denomination of the currency seized was noted.

4.1 Mr. Yadav submits that, to show the ownership of the cash money, the petitioner had produced income tax returns and the very fact of registration of FIR proves the ownership of the cash money.

Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 30 03:26:21 IST 2021

R/SCR.A/8470/2018 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021

5. Countering the same argument, Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No.9577 of 2018 stated that, the petitioners were amongst the persons, who were in the Swift Car and they have claimed the ownership of the Muddamal cash amount of Rs.22,10,000/-.

5.1 Mr. Goswami stated that, petitioners of Special Criminal Application No.9577 of 2018 to show the ownership of the cash amount, had submitted ICICI Bank Statement showing the loan taken by the petitioners from HDFC Bank and details of ornaments sold by them; all documents are produced before the Court below to show the ownership of the cash amount.

6. The petitioners of both the matters have claimed the ownership of the cash amount and they had prayed for possession of the same before the trial Court Judge. Against the order of the trial Court Judge, the petitioners of both the petitions have preferred Revision Applications before the Sessions Judge. Both the learned Courts below have declined to give the muddamal money, as rightly they have come to the conclusion that the ownership of the money would be decided during the trial.

7. This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of both the Courts below in both the matters. It would be in the interest of both the parties that necessary evidence is laid before the trial Court Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 30 03:26:21 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/8470/2018 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021 during the trial of the Sessions matter and the learned Sessions Judge concerned by going through the provision of Section 452 Cr.P.C. may give final decision on the claim of both the parties.

8. In the interregnum, the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 03.05.2018 below Exhibit-1 and 15 in Criminal Misc. Application No.85 of 2018 of putting the muddamal amount in one year fixed deposit with auto renewal in any nationalized bank be continued and the Sessions Judge concerned is hereby directed to follow the procedure under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and decide the claim on the money, on the evidence adduced by the rival parties and the ownership of the money be decided at the conclusion of the trial.

9. In view of the above observations and directions, both the petitions are disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the ownership of the muddamal cash amount.

(GITA GOPI, J.) Pankaj Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 30 03:26:21 IST 2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court