SHIVABHAI NANUBHAI @ NANJIBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ajay Pandav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-orig.accused no.1 and Ms.D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) Today the respondent no.2-orig.accused no.2 namely Budhabhai Shamjibhai Parmar, who has been held guilty along with the appellant-orig.accused no.1, is present in the Court. He was not required to be brought in person before this Court but on account of some misunderstanding, the Jail Authority has sent the respondent no.2 herein in person before this Court today. His response to the claim of muddamal motorcycle was required to be conveyed on service of notice. When the respondent no.2 herein is present in the Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after getting instructions from him states that the respondent no.2 is not interested in the custody of the muddamal vehicle which was seized by the police during the course of investigation.

(3.) Ms.D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that this appeal can be disposed of today by remanding the matter to the trial Court because the learned trial Judge has not assigned any reasons as to why the muddamal vehicle is required to be confiscated to the State or why the same is required to be destroyed, as ordered by the learned trial Judge in the operative portion of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge may be asked to go through the papers, apply his mind and decide as to what may be done qua the motorcycle which was seized and part of muddamal before the trial Court.