LAWS(GJH)-2023-10-86

ARUN SAGARMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On October 12, 2023
Arun Sagarmal Jain Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that on 26/11/2016, the orig. accused no.1 and 2 were caught by the police with the alleged Muddamal of 15 gold biscuits of 1.5 kilogram, and allegedly, as the orig. accused no.1 and 2 were not able to satisfy the police about the possession of the said gold biscuits, the police seized the same under Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arrested the said orig. accused no.1 and 2, and thus, it is alleged that the orig. accused no.1 and 2, in connivance with each other, have committed the alleged offences. With the aforesaid and certain other allegations, the F.I.R. is filed. thereafter, the sheet charge came to be filed pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. and the same got culminated into the Criminal Case No.92 of 2017 and the said orig. accused no.1 & 2 came to be acquitted from the said alleged offences under Sec. 124 of the G.P. Act vide order dtd. 4/8/2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umbergaon. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that vide aforesaid acquittal judgment as the learned trial court has confiscated the alleged Muddamal 15 gold biscuits of 1.5 kilogram in favor of the Government, therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court being Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2018, which was partly allowed and the part of said order with respect to the confiscation of the alleged Muddamal gold was quashed and the learned trial court was directed to conduct the inquiry regarding the ownership of the same and the petitioner was asked to adduce the evidence regarding the same vide order dtd. 31/5/2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel Mr. P.P. Majmudar with Mr. Keval R. Dholakiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent - State.