Chetan S/O Lungaram Shivankar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Sakoli ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7537 Bom

Judgment                          1                    Cri.W.P.No.104.2022.odt




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

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2022


Chetan S/o Lungaram Shivankar,
Aged about 25 years, Occu. - Business,
R/o. Dharmapuri, Tah. Sakoli,
District - Bhandara.
                                                     .... PETITIONER

                             // VERSUS //

1)    State of Maharashtra,
      through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Sakoli,
      Tah. Sakoli, District - Bhandara.

2)    Motam S/o Raju Venkataiah,
      Aged 32 years, Occu. Business,
      R/o. Rajavaram, Tah. Ganpur
      (Station) Distt. Warangal
      (Telangana State).
                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Mr. K.P. Sadavarte, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.M. Ukey, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.M. Quazi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________________


                  CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED : AUGUST 02, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.No.104.2022.odt

2. The petitioner who is one of the accused has challenged

the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal

Revision Application No. 61 of 2021 by which the Court has permitted

the informant-Motam Raju Venkataiah for return of the seized amount

of Rs.22,00,000/-.

3. The facts in briefs are that :

At the instance of report lodged by one Maashetti Shrinivas

Bhaskar dated 28.07.2021, crime was registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. It is

the informant's case that he was serving as a manager of one Motam

Raju. On 27.07.2021, he was travelling with a transporter

Ramdas(co-accused) by the later's Wagon-R car. In the way he has

collected business amount of Rs.5,53,000/- from one Kailash Agarwal

and the amount of Rs.18,51,945/- from the office of one Dhanraj

Mendhe. While the informant Maashetti Bhaskar was proceeding by

Wagon-R along with co-accused Ramdas, they were accosted by

unknown assailants, who by throwing chilly powder, forcibly snatched

the bag containing the cash amount and therefore, the report on the

following day.

4. During investigation on the following day that is on

29.07.2021, accused namely-Chetan Shivankar (petitioner) came to be

arrested. He made a disclosure statement and in pursuance of that, the Judgment 3 Cri.W.P.No.104.2022.odt

Police have seized cash amount of Rs.22,00,000/- which was concealed

in the bushes. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet has

been filed. The business owner M. Raju with whom the informant

Bhaskar was working as a manager had applied to the Court of

Magistrate for release of cash amount on supratnama. The learned

Magistrate has rejected the same, on which, he has approached to the

Revisional Court. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to return

the amount to the applicant M.Raju, which is under challenge.

5. The petitioner herein is one of the accused from whom

huge cash amount of Rs.22,00,000/- has been seized. Pertaining to

note that though he has not applied to the Magistrate for return of

amount however, first time he is claiming the amount by filing this

petition. Upon query, the petitioner's learned counsel would submit

that the amount has been seized from him and therefore, the

resistance. However, he is unable to satisfy as to how, such huge

amount was seized from him that too kept in bushes. The learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident as narrated in

the police report itself is doubtful. He took me through seizure

panchnama and medical report to contend that no such incident has

occurred. I am afraid to undertake such exercise while deciding this

petition which has a restricted scope to see as to who is legally entitled

for the seized amount.

Judgment 4 Cri.W.P.No.104.2022.odt

6. As per report (FIR) the claimant M. Raju is a businessman

and his employee informant Bhaskar has collected business amount to

the tune of Rs.22,69,000/- which was allegedly robbed and

consequently seized. The FIR, prima facie, discloses the source naming

two persons from whom the said amount has been collected. As

against this, though accused claimed to be the amount is seized from

him, he has nothing to say as to how he owns said amount.

7. It requires to be noted that it is a case of dacoity wherein

on the following day from the date of occurrence itself, the amount

somewhat similar to the amount robbed has been seized from the

possession of the petitioner - Chetan Shivankar. Moreover, there is a

general presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 regarding possession of stolen articles. The trial will take its own

time and thus, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly considered the

lawful claim of the claimant M. Raju and thus no interference is

required.

8. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.

Rule discharged. No costs.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO JANARDHAN Signing Date:03.08.2022 16:51 Kirtak