PATEL GOVINDBHAI HARIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi for the applicant - revisionist, even after second call out, is not present. Learned APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi for the respondent No. 1 is present and he was heard. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Kanani for the respondent No. 2 is present, but he has no instruction as his client has taken the papers from him.

(2.) HOWEVER, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is required to be disposed of on account of non-prosecution by the applicant. The question which has arisen in the present Revision Application is in respect of custody of Maruti Car bearing No. GJ-1-RR-3169 seized by Vijapur Police in a crime registered at Vasai Police Station vide C. R. No. I-133/1999. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijapur passed an order to handover the interim custody of muddamal vehicle to the original accused Govindbhai Haribhai Patel under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code and not to the original complainant Arvindkumar Mohanlal Patel, who also claimed the said muddamal vehicle as purchaser of such vehicle till the trial was over. It appears that the original complainant Arvindkumar Mohanlal Patel preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 166/1999 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana and that Criminal Revision Application came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide his judgment and order dated 03. 11. 1999 setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and it was directed that the custody of vehicle in question be handed over to original complainant - Arvindkumar Mohanlal Patel as he was the registered owner of the vehicle.

(3.) AGAINST that order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana delivered on 03. 11. 1999, the present Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the accused Govindbhai Haribhai Patel.