Skip to content


Mohd. Mateen Khan Vs. Rajwanullhaq Quresi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Mohd. Mateen Khan

Respondent

Rajwanullhaq Quresi

Excerpt:


.....cr.p.c was dismissed. in the cours.of arguments, keeping in view the averments of para 7 of the impugned order of the revisional court based on some factual matrix of the matter, on asking from the applicant's counsel that unless the evidence is recorded, how the entitlement of the applicant for taking the interim custody of the seized wire could be adjudicated when prima facie there is some difference in the article stated in the papers submitted by the applicant before the trial court and the actual identity of the seized substance/wire, on which instead to argue further, the applicant's counsel prayed to dispose of this petition with appropriate direction to the trial court to expedite the trial on some early date within some time bond schedule alongwith the question regarding entitlement of the applicant regarding custody of the seized wire. in view of the aforesaid, instead to pass any order on merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the impugned criminal case and conclude the same on or before 31.7.2013 under intimation to this court. however, the trial court is further directed that while considering.....

Judgment:


M.Cr.C.No.11877 o”

13. 03.2013 Shri S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

None for respondent no.1.

Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned PL for respondent no.2- State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The applicant on whose behalf application under Section 451, r/w Section 457 of Cr.P.C.was filed before the trial court for giving the interim custody of the seized wire, has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by Xth ASJ.Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.197/2009 affirming the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.18165/09, whereby his aforesaid application filed under Section 451/457 (2) of Cr.P.C was dismissed.

In the couRs.of arguments, keeping in view the averments of para 7 of the impugned order of the Revisional Court based on some factual matrix of the matter, on asking from the applicant's counsel that unless the evidence is recorded, how the entitlement of the applicant for taking the interim custody of the seized wire could be adjudicated when prima facie there is some difference in the article stated in the papers submitted by the applicant before the trial court and the actual identity of the seized substance/wire, on which instead to argue further, the applicant's counsel prayed to dispose of this petition with appropriate direction to the trial court to expedite the trial on some early date within some time bond schedule alongwith the question regarding entitlement of the applicant regarding custody of the seized wire.

In view of the aforesaid, instead to pass any order on merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the impugned criminal case and conclude the same on or before 31.7.2013 under intimation to this court.

However, the trial court is further directed that while considering the matter on merits also consider and adjudicate the question that who is entitled to get custody of seized substance, wire.

Such question be decided by the court keeping in view the provision of Section 452 of Cr.P.C.The petition is disposed of as indicated above.

C c as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //