Gujarat High Court
Mohsin Mahyuddin Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1830/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/202
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MUDDAMAL) NO. 1830 of
2025
==========================================================
MOHSIN MAHYUDDIN SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ZALAK B SUTHAR(18186) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.ROHAN N.SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner original accused has preferred the application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment and order of rejection for custody of Mobile Phones passed by learned Special NDPS Judge, Surat, in Criminal Misc. Application No.3373 of 2025 vide order dated 06.06.2025.
2. Facts in nutshell are that, the complainant being a police personnel lodged a complaint on 08.11.2024, alleging inter alia that accused No.1- Shahid @ Danish @ Kanar S/O Mayuddin Shaikh along with accused No.2 Krunal S/O Bharatbhai Patel collected MD Drugs worth Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:19:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1830/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/202 undefined Rs.4,35,600/- approximately about 43.69 grams from accused No.3 -Samir Malad (absconding) for the purpose of selling in the market. The said accused were caught by police with the said consignment and Mobile Phones. Pursuant to which FIR were came to be lodged bearing No.11210022242262 of 2024 alleging offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. During custodial Muddamal Mobile Phones were recovered by the Investigating Agency. The applicant preferred an application under Section 497 of the BNSS Act, and the custody of these Mobile Phones which came to be registered as present revision application.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Zalak B Suthar would submit that the order passed by the Ld. 12 th Additional Sessions Judge & Special Court (NDPS), Surat is not in accordance with the law and evidenced as record.
4. It is further argued that the recovery of the Mobile Phones has nothing with the recovery of the contraband and the question of confiscation of Mobile Phones can be decided once the accused is found guilty.
5. That the trial Court ought to have consider that the Investigation is over, trial would take long time to conclude and the Mobile Phones would lose its value and Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:19:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1830/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/202 undefined has thus argue to allow the present application.
6. Per contra, Learned Advocate Ms.Shruti Pathak appears on behalf of respondent-State and has argued that there is no palpable error on the face of record. More particularly, the trial Court has considering the serious changes leveled against the accused and in view of the same rejection by the learned trial Court does not require interference.
7. By consent of parties rule is fixed forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Shruti Pathak waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.
8. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties in the case of Thakkar Mahendra Prasad Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1985 GLH Page-61. The Hon'ble High Court has held that merely because an order under Section 451 is for interim custody, possession and disposal of case property, it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order not revisiable by the High court. It cannot be said to be interlocutory order in that sense and therefore revision application against such order is maintainable. It was further observed in the said judgment that even for the order does not terminate the proceedings and in that sense Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:19:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1830/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/202 undefined it may not the final judgment and order, yet it be decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning the particular aspect.
9. This Court has perused the impugned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that no useful purpose would be served to keep value articles and currency notes for years till the trial is over and in such cases Magistrate should pass appropriate order as contemplated under Section 541 of the Cr.P.C. at the earliest.
10. Considering the averments made in the application before the trial Court and the contentions raised in the present revision application and also considering the ratio laid down in the case of Sundarbhai @ Desai (Supra), it would be in the fitness of the things and the interest of justice that Muddamal Mobile Phones be handed over to the present applicant after due verification and following the procedure as stated in the case of Sundarbhai (Supra), on such terms and conditions as the trial Court dreams fit. It is also made clear that the applicant shall produced the Muddamal as and when call for, during the trial and shall not take any contention with regards to its identity.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:19:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1830/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/202 undefined Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHD SAIF ULLAH Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:19:44 IST 2025