Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar Subedarsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/723/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MUDDAMAL) NO. 723 of
2025
==========================================================
ANILKUMAR SUBEDARSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR H K PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
By way of this revision application under Section 438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14/02/2025 passed by learned Principal District & Session Judge, Navsari in Criminal Misc. Application No. 66 of 2025, rejecting the said application seeking return of Muddamal in nature of GUN -S.V.B.S. GUN NO. 1873102, BORE-12 (MAKE INDIA).
2. The facts as emerging from the record are that the muddamal in question has been seized by the investigation officer in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No. I- 31 of 2014 registered with Jalalpore Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 114 of I.P.C. read with section 29, 30 of Arms Act. After registration of the said FIR, the trial against the accused was commenced and concluded wherein, he came to be acquitted. However, since the co-accused was not found; a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against him and trial against him is yet to be completed.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/723/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the trial against the accused is concluded and there is no dispute about the ownership of the muddamal gun in question, the trial Court ought to have returned the said muddamal to the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in case of 'Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State Of Gujarat', AIR 2003 SC 638 and submitted that learned trial Court ought to have considered the application of the petitioner seeking return of the muddamal.
4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State would submit that since the trial of co-accused is yet to be completed; no error can be said to have been made by the trial Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking return of the muddamal. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present revision application.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the impugned order, this Court does not find any substance in the present revision application; for the simple reason that though the petitioner came to be acquitted from the charges levelled again him; but the trial qua co-accused is yet not completed and therefore, it cannot be said that the muddamal Gun of the ownership of the petitioner is required to be returned to him. To be noted that, the offence is in related to the Arms Act and therefore, also to examine the role / involvement of the co-accused and for the purpose of identification of the muddamal in question, the custody of the muddamal Gun is required with the trial Court.
6. Insofar as the reliance placed upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the decision in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/723/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined (supra) is concerned, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the trial in question is yet not concluded qua co-accused co- accused Ganesh Shri Gangaram Sharma since while acquitting the petitioner the trial Court in its judgment has recorded that since the supplementary charge-sheet in respect of other accused-co-accused Ganesh Shri Gangaram Sharma is filed, the muddamal in question is ordered to be kept in status-quo condition. However, the petitioner is having alternative remedy which can be availed of at the time of conclusion of the trial in respect of co-accused by making appropriate application before the trial Court seeking custody of the muddamal in question.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision application is devoid of merits and it is accordingly rejected.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 00:05:43 IST 2025