Jitendra Singh Tomar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the trial court's order, to the extent it denied custody of the gold ornaments, was erroneous. The Court observed that GST invoices pertaining to the gold ornaments, issued by Kalicharan Darshanlal Saraf, were part of the challan filed before the trial court and were also produced by the applicants. The impugned order did not indicate that these documents were considered. Therefore, the Court set aside the trial court's order concerning the denial of custody of the gold ornaments. The matter was remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the application for interim custody of the gold ornaments, taking into account the GST invoices and passing appropriate orders after due verification and in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that relevant documentary evidence, such as GST invoices, must be considered by the trial court when deciding applications for interim custody of property during a trial.

Facts

The applicants, parents of the prosecutrix in a POCSO case, sought interim custody of ornaments recovered from the accused. The trial court partly allowed their application, granting custody of certain silver ornaments based on a bill but rejecting the request for other ornaments, including gold, due to a lack of certified bills. The applicants challenged this rejection regarding the gold ornaments. They argued that GST invoices for the gold ornaments, though filed with the charge-sheet and produced before the trial court, were not considered. The prosecution did not oppose the application. The trial court's order was dated 08.11.2025, and the revision was filed before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned trial court erred in rejecting the application for interim custody of gold ornaments, despite the existence of GST invoices filed with the charge-sheet and produced before the court? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the consideration of evidence under relevant procedural provisions). Arguments: Petitioner/Applicants: Submitted that the trial court erred in rejecting the application for interim custody of gold ornaments, as GST invoices pertaining to these ornaments, issued by Kalicharan Darshanlal Saraf, were filed with the charge-sheet and produced before the court. They contended that these documents were not considered by the trial court. They also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat. The application was not opposed by the accused or the prosecution. Revenue/State: The learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order.