CR.RA/606/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 606 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ========================================= = 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 ? ========================================= = PATEL GOVINDBHAI HARIBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ========================================= = Appearance : MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI for Applicant MR LB DABHI APP for Respondent No.1 MR RAJESH K KANANI for Respondent No.2 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA CR.RA/606/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 26/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT [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 CR.RA/606/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT 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. [4] Today, when the matter is called out after notifying the matter at 24 times, learned advocate for the applicant is not present. [5] However, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed for non-prosecution and it is directed that if the trial is over and any directions are given by the learned Magistrate in respect of muddamal vehicle, those directions shall be followed and if the trial is not over yet then it is directed that the custody of muddamal vehicle shall be kept with Vijapur Police Station as has been directed by this Court by way of interim direction on 26.11.1999 and, thereafter, subject to the final outcome of the trial. Rule is discharged. [ J. R. VORA,J. ] CR.RA/606/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT (vijay)