[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Firoz Abubakar Gadhia vs State Of Gujarat on 7 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 302 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
FIROZ ABUBAKAR GADHIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR EE SAIYED(725) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 07/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] When the matter is called out today, none appeared for the
applicant. Even on the earlier dates fixed in the matter, none had
remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly
appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present
matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on
11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, this Court has
considered the averments made in the application as well as the
material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in
absence of the applicant based on available material on record.
[2.0] By way of the present application, the applicant has requested
this Court to quash and set aside the order dated 12.10.2011 passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
undefined
by the learned JMDC, Sayla in Criminal Case No.212/2011 as well as
the judgment and order dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned 7 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi, District Surendranagar in Criminal
Appeal No.69/2011.
[3.0] Perusing the record it appears that based on intelligence
received, patrolling party intercepted one jeep vehicle bearing No.GJ-
4-D-9061 on 10.04.2011 from which explosives substances were found
pursuant to which an FIR being II-CR No.3036/2011 was registered
against the accused persons including the present applicant for the
offence under Sections 9-B(1)b of the Explosives Substances Act, 1884
alleging that without any pass or permit accused persons were
transporting explosives substance in the jeep and present applicant
was found in conscious possession of the explosives which was seized
and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Further, considering
the evidence of complainant and ASI, the learned Magistrate was
pleased to exonerate accused No.1 and convicted the present
applicant - accused No.2 and ordered to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.3000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 15
days. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal
No.69/2011 which came to be dismissed and conviction of the
applicant was upheld relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lopchand Naruji vs. State of Gujarat reported in
2004 Cri.L.J. 4241.
[4.0] The learned appellate Court has rightly observed that merely
panch witnesses are examined is not a ground to exonerate the
accused as probative value of panchnama is required to be considered.
Based on FSL report, permission was granted to dispose of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/302/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
undefined
explosives seized in connection with the offence. Considering the
prima facie involvement of the applicant - accused in the offence as
explosive substance was found from conscious possession of the
present applicant, no error has been committed by both the Courts
below in convicting the present applicant.
[5.0] In light of above it appears that the applicant has failed to point
out any patent error or perversity in the judgment and order passed
by both the Courts below or any miscarriage of justice and therefore
no case is made out for interference with the concurrent findings of
both the Courts below and the application fails to satisfy the test for
exercising revisional jurisdiction in light of the scope of revision laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs.
Ramesh Chander [(2012)9 SCC 460].
[6.0] Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed.
Rule is hereby discharged. Interim relief granted vide order dated
26.06.2015 by the coordinate Bench stands vacated forthwith. Bail
bond stands cancelled and applicant is directed surrender before the
learned trial Court immediately and not later than one week from the
date of receipt of the present judgment failing which learned trial
Court shall issue Bailable Warrant upon the applicant.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
