VINODKUMAR SUNDERLAL BHOJANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th December, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan in Criminal Revision Application No.88 of 2007, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30th November, 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddhpur, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code).

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner is carrying on the business of selling food grains and jaggery etc. on wholesale basis. Pursuant to the raid carried on the business premises of the petitioner, a First Information Report being Siddhpur Police Station Prohibition C.R. No.235/2007 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 70A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Prohibition Act). Pursuant to the said raid, the godown of the petitioner was sealed along with the muddamal jaggery. As the petitioner was unable to carry on his business in view of the seal applied by the concerned police, the petitioner moved an application being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.185 of 2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddhpur under the provisions of Section 451 of the Code for release of the muddamal being 2,222 kilos jaggery which was lying in the godown sealed by the police. By the impugned order dated 30th October, 2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan by way of Criminal Revision Application No.88 of 2007, who by the impugned order dated 4th December, 2007, rejected the revision application and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the said orders.

(3.) HEARD Mr.Mahendra K.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.I.M.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent State of Gujarat.