IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No 413 of 1986
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
————————————————————–
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION
Versus
IMRAN AHMED HAJI YAKUB
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Petitioner
UNSERVED for Respondent No. 1
Mr M A Bukhari, APP for Respondent No. 2
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
Date of decision: 11/04/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
This Revision Application has been filed by the
Oil and Natural Gas Commission against the order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana dated 7.8.1986
whereby the learned Judge set aside the order of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana dated 18.7.1986
and allowed the accused to take over the crude oil on
executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and on
the other conditions set out in the order.
2.It is contended by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that as per the test report, the sample
resembled with the properties of crude oil in North Kadi
area. Crude oil cannot be available with any private
party. The learned Judge glossed over this important
aspect of the case and thereby he landed on an erroneous
conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the
crude oil does not belong to the accused.
3.I have considered the contentions raised by the
learned Counsel. It is not in dispute that as per the
report of the laboratory the properties sample of crude
oil resembled with the properties of crude oil in North
Kadi area. Thus, there is prima facie a case against
the accused persons. In view of this, there was no
justified reason for the learned Judge to interfere with
the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
4.In the result, this Revision Application is
allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated
7.8.1996 passed in Revision Application No.86/86 is
quashed and set aside and the order of the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana dated 18.7.1996
is restored.
Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
…