S G Shah, J. - (1.)Heard learned advocate Mr.Suraj A. Shukla for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent State. Perused the record.
(2.)The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.07.2015 regarding muddamal article while disposing the Criminal Case No.4250 of 2013 whereby original accused were acquitted from the charges under Sections 404, 406, 409, 417, 114 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. By such order, practically the Trial Court has confirmed the order dated 05.02016 in Criminal Misc. Application No.531 of 2015 in Criminal Case No.4250 of 2013 whereby application for muddamal by the present petitioner was rejected. It is pertinent to note that petitioner herein has challenged such order by filing Criminal Revision Application No.15 of 2016 before the Sessions Court at Bhavnagar where by judgment and order dated 208.2016 the Sessions Court has, while rejecting the revision, confirmed the order dated 05.02016 in Criminal Misc. Application No.531 of 2015.
(3.)If we peruse the impugned judgments and application by the petitioner to get muddamal, initially we must make it clear that muddamal article is though alleged to be an article for which there is allegation regarding commission of offence of forgery, it is practically registered sale-deed no.55 of 2013 dated 05.01.2013 for agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.421 paiki 3 sim of village Bhadrod in Mahuva Taluka of Bhavnagar District so also registered the sale deed no.1380 of 2013 dated 26.04.2013 for the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.421 paiki 2 sim of village Bhadrol in Mahuva Taluka of Bhavnagar District. It is the case of the petitioner herein that such agricultural fields are in his possession and he is cultivating and he was witness in the criminal case since such documents are recovered from him during the investigation. It is further contended that he has deposed before the Criminal Court at Exh.93 during the trial and produced the aforesaid documents at Exh.65 and 66 on 24.07.2015. It is further contended that it being original documents he is in need of it at several occasions for different official works. Otherwise also being owner of the land after purchasing the land, as bonafide purchaser for value certainly petitioner is in need of the original documents which generally needs to rest at his disposal and therefore, it is his right for claiming back such documents once, its contents are proved on record.
Therefore, when such documents are lying unutilized and remained in custody of the criminal court for no valid reason, petitioner has claimed its custody.