Bombay High Court
Ajaykumar Ashokkumar Singh vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 14 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
apl261.17 22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.261 OF 2017
Ajaykumar Ashokkumar
Singh, Prop. Tutu Tyre Shop,
Aged about 43 years, Occupation
Business, R/o C/o Tuttu
Tyre Shop, Rajgir, At Post.
Rajgir, Tahsil & District Nalanda
(Bihar). ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Ramnagar,
Chandrapur, Tahsil & District
Chandrapur. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri H.N. Potbhare, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri V.P. Gangane, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : AUGUST 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:59:04 :::
Judgment
apl261.17 22
2
finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. A crime bearing No.496 of 2015 for the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
is registered against one Indradip Rajaram Singh. The
charge-sheet is filed after completion of entire investigation.
The investigating officer has frozen Cash Credit Account
No.578130110000008 of the present applicant. According to
the applicant and even as per the prosecuting agency, only
Rs.10.00 Lacs is deposited in the aforesaid account by accused
Indradip.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel Shri H.N.
Potbhare for the applicant that aforesaid account is a cash
credit account through which day-to-day business of the
applicant is carried on. In view of the freezing of the said
account, entire business came to an end. It is also contended
on behalf of the applicant that though various documents are
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:59:04 :::
Judgment
apl261.17 22
3
filed on record, those documents are not at all considered by
the Sessions Court.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel Shri H.N.
Potbhare for the applicant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Shri M.J. Khan for the State, I have gone through
the impugned order.
5. Perusal of the order shows that there is no
discussion about any of documents. The reasoning given by
learned Judge of the Court below is that since a detailed
inquiry is required, the revision was rejected.
6. The Revisional Court was expected to decide the
issue vis-a-vis and in the light of the various documents filed
on record by the revisional petitioner/present applicant
whose cash credit account is seized.
7. Further, it is the contention of the present
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:59:04 :::
Judgment
apl261.17 22
4
applicant that he is also ready to deposit amount of Rs.10.00
Lacs in the Court. All these questions should be considered
afresh by the Revisional Court and shall decide the revision in
accordance with law.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
its opinion on merit. After the remand, learned Sessions
Court shall decide the revision in accordance with law.
Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The criminal application is allowed.
ii) Judgment and order passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge at Chandrapur in
Criminal Revision No.46 of 2016 dated 18.1.2017 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) Criminal Revision No.46 of 2016 is remitted
.....5/-
Judgment
apl261.17 22
back to learned Additional Sessions Judge at
Chandrapur for decision afresh.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
