Shadeo Daulatrao Kashid vs State Of Maha & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6840 Bom

                                          1        Cr WP 355 of 2003

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2003


     *       Shadeo s/o Daulatrao Kashid,
             Age 31 years,
             Occupation : Agriculture,
             R/o Near S.T. Stand, Main Road,
             Umapur, Taluka Georai,
             District Beed.                               ..    Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra.

     2)      Kishansing S. Bahure,
             Age 45 years,
             Occupation: Service as
             Police Inspector
             Sheogaon Police Station,
             R/o Sheogaon, Taluka Sheogaon,
             District Ahmednagar.                         .. Respondents.

                                      ----

     Shri. D.G. Nagode, Advocate, for petitioner.

     Shri. S.D. Ghayal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
     respondent No.1.

     Shri. P.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

                                      ----

                               Coram:         T.V. NALAWADE &
                                              S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

                               Date   :       06 SEPTEMBER 2017




::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 02:30:37 :::
                                            2        Cr WP 355 of 2003

     JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J):

1) The petition is filed for relief of compensation

of Rs. one lakh against the State Government and also the

police officer who took action of interception of the

transport vehicle of the petitioner, detention of the vehicle

and then action of filing charge-sheet in the crime

registered on the basis of the report given by the police

officer. Both the sides are heard.

2) The incident took place on 23-11-2002.

Sheogaon Police received information that present

petitioner, Shadeo Kashid was not having any licence from

the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee but he had

purchased cotton outside of the market and he was

transporting the cotton to Madhya Pradesh as the price of

the cotton was higher in the Madhya Pradesh. On the

basis of this information, the truck bearing No. MH 20-A-

1807 was intercepted near the market yard. On inquiry

the driver gave name of the present petitioner and

informed that he was the owner of the cotton and as per

the instruction of the petitioner he was taking the cotton

3 Cr WP 355 of 2003

to Shendwa, Madhya Pradesh. The present petitioner was

present in the truck and some persons were present as

labour. As there was no record of licence, green card etc.

with the present petitioner, the vehicle along with the

cotton came to be seized under panchanama and report

came to be given in the police station. On the basis of that

report crime came to be registered for offences

punishable under sections 17,19, 43 of the Maharashtra

Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing)

Act, 1971. Charge sheet is also filed and the case bearing

Criminal Case No.500/2002 is pending in the Court of the

Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

3) It is the contention of the petitioner that the

aforesaid special enactment was not in force on the date

of the incident and so the action taken of seizure and

detention of the cotton was illegal and that has caused

loss to the petitioner. It is contended that, the truck was

hired by the petitioner for transportation and he had paid

the charges to the truck owner of Rs.16000/-. It is

contended that due to seizure and detention of the cotton,

he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- On various counts

4 Cr WP 355 of 2003

aforesaid compensation is claimed from the Government

and the Police Inspector who made investigation and filed

charge sheet.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew

attention of this Court to the order made by this Court in

Criminal Writ Petition No.561/2000 and submitted that

with effect from 1 July 2001, the aforesaid Act was not in

existence and so the action was illegal. He submitted that

in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents they have

not disputed that at the relevant time the provisions of the

aforesaid Act were not in force. In the reply affidavit it is

contended and the learned APP submitted that the action

of the police cannot be called as mala fide as the relevant

record was not available with the petitioner. The learned

counsel representing the Police Inspector submitted that

it cannot be said that no offence at all was committed.

He drew attention of this Court to various provisions of

the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The learned

counsel submitted that in view of the various provisions

which include section 6 read with section 46 of the Act of

5 Cr WP 355 of 2003

1963 the offence was committed at least under the other

special enactment regulating sale and purchase of the

cotton in Maharashtra. Attention of this Court was drawn

to one Circular issued by the Government by which the

State Government had informed the authority to take

appropriate action if cotton from other States was brought

to this State for sale at the centres opened by the State.

For purchase of the cotton such centres were opened

during the season by the Government to see that farmers

get support price of the cotton procured in this State.

5) The submissions made and the reply affidavit

filed show that at the relevant time the provisions of the

Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and

Marketing) Act, 1971 were not in force. However, the

allegations made in the F.I.R. show that no record at all

was shown by the present petitioner to police in respect of

the cotton which was around 80 quintals. During

arguments opportunity was given to the learned counsel

for the petitioner to show the record to the effect that the

cotton was grown by the petitioner. Some record like 7/12

extract was shown but that record is not sufficient to

6 Cr WP 355 of 2003

create probability that all the cotton was grown by the

petitioner. There is specific allegation against the

petitioner that he is dealing in cotton and he had

purchased the aforesaid cotton outside of the 'market'

created under the Act of 1963 and he wanted to make

profit by selling this cotton outside of the Maharashtra

and probably he intended to take it to other State where

at the relevant time the price was higher. Thus, there is

apparent breach of the provisions of the Act of 1963

though the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement,

Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 was not in force. As

the petitioner did not produce any record at the relevant

time to show ownership of the cotton or to show that as a

farmer he had procured that cotton in his filed, it cannot

be said that action of the police was mala fide in nature.

This Court holds that no compensation can be given to the

petitioner as he was at fault and there was reasonable

ground for police for taking action against him. The case

is still pending. Though the case is under the provisions

of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing

and Marketing) Act, 1971, the criminal court has always

power to find out as to whether and what other offence is

7 Cr WP 355 of 2003

committed by the accused. In view of the aforesaid

circumstances, this Court holds that it cannot be said that

the case could not have been filed and cognizance also

could not have been taken. In the result, the petition

stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief

stands vacated.

                 Sd/-                                 Sd/-
     (S.M. GAVHANE, J.)                  (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)




     rsl