R/SCR.A/8236/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL) NO. 8236 of 2025 ========================================================== PRAHLADBHAI ISHWARBHAI BHAGAT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS NISHKA H PRAJAPATI(10717) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 19/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) RULE. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Karjan, in Criminal Revision Application No. 177/2024, thereby con昀椀rming the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karjan, in Muddamal Application No.262/2023. 3) The case of the prosecution is that, based on secret information received by the police personnel of Karjan Police Station, a raid was conducted at one room (ordi) belonged to one Bharatbhai Trikambhai Patel of village Kasampura, from which, certain stocks of wheat, rice, sugar, salt etc. found and seized from the spot. Pursuant to the same, two accused were arrested under Sections 41(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. Further, R/SCR.A/8236/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 in the said room, stock of 8850 kgs. of wheat kept in 177 plastic bags were also seized belonged to the petitioner. In this regard, FIR came to be 昀椀led being C.R. No. 11197025200803 of 2020 on 29.05.2020 for the o昀昀ence under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC against fair price shop holder Pravinbhai Ambalal Panchal and his accountant Dipakbhai Khinchi. The said complaint was given by Dy. Mamlatdar (Supply), Karjan. Thereafter, Mamlatdar, Karjan submitted an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C before the Court of JMFC, Karjan, for releasing said stocks, which was rejected on 14.10.2020 on a ground that power to release muddamal is with the Collector and not with the trial Court. Against the said order, Mamlatdar had 昀椀led Criminal Revision Application No.2/2021 before Sessions Court, which also came to be rejected on 02.03.2021. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner is entitled to get back his stocks, he approached the authority but as the goods were seized under the Essential Commodities Act and only Collector has power to release it, application was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner constrained to 昀椀le revision application, which also came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by this petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that, from the report of Mamlatdar, it reveals that 177 bags of wheat belonged to the petitioner. Further, learned Magistrate has also passed an order R/SCR.A/8236/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 under Section 6(A)(B)(C) of the Essential Commodities Act and no proceedings are initiated under the Essential Commodities Act till date. Hence, no option is left to the petitioner except to prefer present petition before this Court. 6) Learned APP appearing for the respondent State has opposed the present petition and contended that, 177 bags of wheat belonged to the petitioner is an afterthought and nowhere in the report of Mamlatdar, said facts is mentioned. It is only mentioned that the petitioner has applied to get the possession of 177 bags of wheat. The said goods were seized under the Essential Commemorate Act to prevent the black marketing. The authority has not given any opinion with regard to ownership of 177 bags wheat of the petitioner and the same itself is a disputed question of fact. No any such 昀椀ndings are recorded by any of the authority. Ration card holders were not given their stock at fair price and considering the same, excess stock was found and seized. Even in the panchnama also, said facts is mentioned. It is further submitted that in absence of any material qua ownership, the petitioner is not entitled to receive such goods. Nonetheless, today no such goods exist as it is perishable goods as alleged incident took place in the year 2020. Hence, question does not arise to release the muddamal grain. Further, an intimation was also given by the District Supply O昀케cer to Mamlatdar, Karjan to destroy the said goods as it was perishable. Even otherwise, the R/SCR.A/8236/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 matter has become infructuous. Right from 2020, the petitioner remained silent. When panchnama was drawn by the police, at that time also, on the bags found from the room, it was written on each bag in Hindi language that “50 Kgs.Seva Sah Sanstha, Panvihar, Kharidi Kendra Jilla Ujjain (M.P). Code No.231800, Wheat” and in English language also, it was written as “State civil Supply Corporation, Madhya Pradesh District”. Hence, no such goods as claimed by the petitioner were found and police has ample power to seize the movable properties under Section 102 of the Act. In this regard, reference is required to be made on the decision of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy, reported in 1999 (7) SCC 685. 7) Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent, it appears that nowhere it was stated that 177 bags of wheat belonged to the petitioner. Even today, no such goods are in existence as already destroyed the same. Hence, question does not arise to return the same to the petitioner. Even otherwise, in absence of any material or any proof of ownership of the said goods, no order could have been passed by both the learned Courts below. The learned trial Court had rightly observed that as the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, it has no power to release the muddamal. Further, the muddamal was perishable in nature, question does not arise to pass any order or direction to release the muddamal goods. Hence, present petition has become infructuous. Page 4 of 5 R/SCR.A/8236/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 8) However, in view of the above facts and as the o昀昀ense is also registered under the Indian Penal Code, it is expedient to direct the learned trial Court to decide the ownership of the goods at the time of trial after inquiry if any dispute is raised qua muddamal, and may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Therefore, question does not arise to pass any order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India as the alleged muddamal itself is a disputed question of fact. Hence, petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. However, it is open for the petitioner to 昀椀le appropriate proceedings to prove or claim over the alleged goods and in that event, concerned trial Court has to decide the same independently on its own merit as this Court has not examined the merit of the case. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/08/2025 10:40:14