Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/587/2009 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 587 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SANDIPSINH
MAHENDRASINH GOHIL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARSHIT S TOLIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRPARTHSTOLIA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL,
for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 18/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Petitioner
is original accused. He has approached this Court for appropriate
order for disposal of muddamal articles pending trial. The
petitioner was holding license for dealing in explosives.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palitana, however, on surprise visit to
the godown of the petitioner on 14.9.06 found certain irregularities
in maintenance of record, etc. with respect to such explosives. He,
therefore, ordered seizure of following categories of explosive
substances:
Sr.
No.
Name
of Goods
Quantity
(No./kg)
Price
(Rs)
Class/
Division
1
Safety
Fuse
1193
14793
Class-6
Division-1
2
Jelitin
1449
36313
Class-2
3
Detonator
Electric
3218
7884
Class-6
Division-3
4
Ordinary
Detonator
13925
13925
Class-6
Division-3
5
Amonium
Nitrate
1150
19492
Not
an explosive
6
D-Fuse
2250
mtrs.
6300
Class-6
Division-2
A
criminal case was field against the petitioner for alleged breaches
in dealing with the explosives. The petitioner thereafter filed an
application before the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar being
Criminal Misc. Application No.3/09 and prayed that the seized
muddamal articles be handed over to him or in the alternative, the
same should be sold and the proceeds thereof be paid over to the
petitioner and his godown be released. This application was turned
down by the impugned order. Hence the petition.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial may take long
time. In the meantime, the explosives seized would deteriorate. He
further submitted that for storing the explosives pending trial, his
large godown is sealed and he is unable to use the godown for any
other purpose.
Having
heard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that, in the
facts of the case, some suitable order is required to be passed in
terms of section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Apparently,
the petitioner was holding license for dealing in explosives and the
explosives in question have been seized on the allegations of breach
of maintenance of records, etc. Counsel for the petitioner is
justified in contending that by the time the trial is over,
explosives may completely deteriorate and simultaneously his godown
is also sealed and he is unable to put it to any other use.
Under
the circumstances, I find that it will be appropriate to direct
either sale or destruction of the explosives in question. The Deputy
Chief Controller of Explosives, Baroda shall give his opinion
within four weeks from today in writing before the Trial Court after
inspecting the explosives for which purpose seals of the godown may
be lifted temporarily. He shall opine whether it would be necessary
to destroy the explosives or to sell it to other license holders.
On the basis of such report, the learned Sessions Judge shall pass
his order giving consequential directions. In either eventuality,
learned Judge may impose suitable conditions as may be found
necessary. Additionally, if the explosives are to be destroyed, it
shall be at the cost of the petitioner for which an estimate may be
given by the Dy. Controller of Explosives, along with his opinion.
If on the other hand, the explosives are to be sold, sale proceeds
thereof eventually be deposited with the Registry of the Trial Court,
which shall pass final order upon completion of the trial. In either
eventuality, upon removal of the explosives from the godown of the
petitioner, the seal of the godown shall be removed. The learned
Trial Judge may pass fresh order preferably by 30th April
2010. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent.
Direct
service.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top