VIKI CHANDRAKANTBHAI THACKER vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 165/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKT020007912026

Filing Number

165/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

165/2026

Registration Date

22-Jan-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT BHUJ

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11205042251240

Police Station

BHUJ CITY A DIVISION POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIKI CHANDRAKANTBHAI THACKER

    Adv. D V THAKKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

  2. 2.GUJARAT STATE SUPPLY CO-OP.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhuj rejected the applicant's petition seeking return of 10,335 kg of rice (valued at ₹2,60,959) seized under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court held that under Section 6E of the Act, only the Collector or State Government has jurisdiction over seized essential commodities, and no court—including magistrates—can order their release or return, particularly when the investigation is ongoing. The court emphasized that the Collector must follow proper confiscation procedures under Sections 6A and 6B before final disposition of the seized goods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  11. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 25-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 21-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 20-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 19-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 18-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 17-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 13-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 12-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 11-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 10-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 07-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  32. 05-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  33. 04-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 03-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  35. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  36. 31-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  37. 30-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  38. 29-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  39. 28-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 165/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhuj rejected the applicant's petition seeking return of 10,335 kg of rice (valued at ₹2,60,959) seized under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court held that under Section 6E of the Act, only the Collector or State Government has jurisdiction over seized essential commodities, and no court—including magistrates—can order their release or return, particularly when the investigation is ongoing. The court emphasized that the Collector must follow proper confiscation procedures under Sections 6A and 6B before final disposition of the seized goods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case