JEHANGIR MARZBAN PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by ld. PP Mr. Oza for the State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) Undisputedly, the applicant is in judicial custody since 7.12.1995 in connection with the aforesaid offences. He has been chargesheeted along with other co-accused on 26.11.1996. Initially, the case of the present applicant and the co-accused was committed under Section 209 of CrPC to the Court of Sessions by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, but after hearing the application preferred praying discharge from the said offence punishable under Section of 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act, the ld. Sessions Judge, discharged the accused of the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act. The ld. Sessions Judge ultimately remanded the proceedings back to the Court of ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad as other offences are triable by the ld. Magistrate.

(3.) I have carefully considered the allegations and gravity of the offence pointed out from FIR lodged by the Deputy Supdt. of Police, ATS, Ahmedabad. On the day of registration of the alleged offence, the petitioner was dealing in Arms through the firm named M/s B.D.Patel & Sons, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. Initially, the father of the applicant accused late Mr. Marzban Patel was carrying on business of arms and ammunition under different licences issued by the competent authority under the Arms Act. Said firm was a proprietary firm and business was proprietary firm business. After the death of Mr. Marzban Patel- Sole Proprietor- in the year 1993, dealer licences came to be transferred in the name of mother of the applicant accused Mrs. Freny M.Patel. Till 1993, father of the applicant accused was solely managing the business but after transfer of the licences in the name of mother of the applicant accused Mrs. Freny M.Patel, the applicant accused was managing the business under Power of Attorney executed by Mrs. Freny M.Patel. It is submitted that the business under four different licences has been inherited by the applicant accused.