Anil Soni vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 30 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Anil Soni vs The State Of Assam on 1 April, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010011602025




                                                                            undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./69/2025

             ANIL SONI
             S/O SRI BALKISHAN SONI, R/O KASERA OLI SARAFA, LASHKAR,
             GWALIOR, M.P., PIN-474001.


             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J LASKAR,

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                             ORDER

Date : 01.04.2025

Heard Mr.G. Baishya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K K Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This is an application filed under Sections 497, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Sections 438, 442 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, Assam in PRC Case No. 949/2024.

Page No.# 2/3

3. On 20.02.2024, the petitioner was travelling to New Delhi in a train. In Kamakhya station the patrolling party searched his pithu bag and found 14 numbers of gold bullion. The patrolling police party alleged that the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply regarding possession of the gold bullion. Therefore, police lodged an FIR and registered a case being Guwahati GPRS Case No. 55/2025 under Sections 120(B)/379/411/410/413/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The gold bullions were also seized from the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate seeking special custody of the gold bullions. According to the petitioner, like many other Indians, he also visited Bhutan where gold is sold at a cheaper rate and he purchased the gold and he has all the documents issued by Bhutan Duty Free Ltd. In spite of that, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate rejected his prayer of the seized gold.

5. Mr. Baishya has relied upon the famous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC

283. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted as under :

"With regard to valuable articles, such as, gold or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest ."

6. Mr. Parasar has pointed out that the order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate was passed long back on 27.09.2024. On that ground, Mr. Parasar has submitted that a report shall be called for from the Investigating Officer.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

8. I have already stated hereinbefore that many people go to the State of Bhutan to purchase gold because gold is sold at a cheaper rate than our country. The petitioner also went to Bhutan. He has all the documents issued by Bhutan Duty Free Ltd.

9. Under the given circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no report from the Investigating Officer is necessary. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that keeping valuable articles such as gold or silver or other valuables things is of no use. Such articles should be immediately returned to the person from whom it was seized. Moreover, the reason for which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner is found to be not reasonable. Therefore, the impugned order Page No.# 3/3

is set aside. The 14 numbers of gold seized from the petitioner shall be given to his custody on verification of documents and on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000/-.

With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant