Mohammad Akram Md. Gyasuddin vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5253 Bom

                                                                                 
    W.P. No.576/2016                               1




                                                         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.576 OF 2016




                                                        
    Petitioner               :      Mohammad Akram Md. Gyasuddin,
                                    Aged about 28 years, Occ. Business, 
                                    R/o Kolsatal, Kamptee.




                                             
                                    -- Versus --

     Respondent              : 
                               ig   State of Maharashtra,
                                    Through P.S.O. Kamptee.
                             
                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                         Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner
                        Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.P.P. for the Respondent
                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      


                              C ORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                             DATE     :  14
                                               SEPTEMBER, 2016.
                                            th




    ORAL JUDGMENT :- 





                    Heard.  Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith.  


    02]             Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.





    03]             By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality

and correctness of the order dated 21/06/2016 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Kamptee in Misc. Criminal Application No.198/2016

and the order dated 11/07/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2,

Nagpur in Criminal Revision No.137/2016, thereby refusing to release the

seized vehicle bearing registration No. MH-40/Y/4457 to the custody of the

petitioner.

04] The registration of previous crime in Crime No.3097/2014 for

similar offences as involved in the present crime No.228/2016 against the

petitioner, is not in dispute. In that crime, this very vehicle was seized.

However, exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner, the Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamptee released the vehicle by passing the

conditional order. The important condition thereof was that the petitioner

shall not use this vehicle in committing similar kind of offence. By the

impugned orders, the application for release of the seized vehicle to the

custody of the petitioner has been refused only on the ground that the

petitioner has violated the conditional order passed in the previous crime. No

justification whatsoever has been provided by the petitioner, for the act which

prima facie amounted to violation of the aforestated conditional order. It is

not the case of the petitioner that the co-accused, one Shri Qureshi had

himself taken the vehicle for transporting the cattle. The co-accused Shri

Qureshi hired this vehicle for transporting the cattle in a manner which

amounted to prima facie commission of the offences punishable under the

provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act and for that

purpose, the driver of the petitioner was engaged. If the driver of the

petitioner was engaged for transportation of the cattle, I think, that is a

circumstance prima facie indicating knowledge of the petitioner in

commission of the subsequent offence or otherwise he would have reminded

several times over his driver not to make use of the vehicle for transportation

of the cattle for the fear of his vehicle getting involved in commission of

another offence. That being not the case here, I do not think that any

perversity or any illegality has been committed by the Courts below. There is

no merit in the writ petition.

The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE *sdw

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and

correct copy of the original signed judgment.

Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 15/09/2016

P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.