Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14600 MP
Judgement Date : 5 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1220 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ASHIK @ SOHEL S/O LATE AYYUB, AGED ABOUT 21
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: FABRICATION R/O BALAI
MOHALLA, PATEL MARG, RAJGARH, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR, DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION RAJGARH,
DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDAR GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 3.9.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in special Case No.18/2021, whereby the seized amount of Rs.2,07,537/- has been confiscated and directed to deposit the same in the treasury.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case prosecutrix solemnized marriage with the appellant/accused Ashif @ Sohel. After the trial, accused Ashif @ Sohel has been acquitted from all the charges Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 06-Sep-23 10:35:29 AM
and in Para-61 of the impugned judgment, trial Court has observed that neither the accused nor the victim has claimed the seized amount, therefore, the seized amount should be confiscated and it should be deposited in the treasury. The aforesaid amount was seized from the possession of the accused. Hence, he prays that the seized amount be given to the appellant.
3. Per contra, learned GA for respondent/State opposes the appeal and prays for its rejection.
4. Counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant Shehjad has lodged a missing person report (Ex.P/1) before P.S. Rajgarh, District Dhar
by stating that his minor daughter/prosecutrix is missing from home along with the cash amount of Rs.5 Lakhs. During the investigation amount of Rs.2,07,537/- has been recovered from the possession of appellant/accused Ashif @ Sohel by seizure memo (Ex.P/24). During the trial, appellant did not claim any title over the aforesaid seized amount and during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in Question No.31 & 32 he specifically denied that such amount has been recovered from his possession. Therefore, the appellant/accused is not the owner of the seized money and he is not entitled to get the aforesaid money because as per the report (Ex.P/1), the owner of the said amount is Shehjad.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
7. Let the record of the court below be sent back along with the copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for information.
C.C. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 06-Sep-23 10:35:29 AM
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 06-Sep-23 10:35:29 AM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!