Laxman S/O Vishwanath Ghongde vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5213 Bom

Judgment                           1          907.Cri.APL No.368.2021.odt




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

           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 368 OF 2021


     Mr. Laxman S/o. Vishwanath Ghongde,
     Age 50 Years, Occupation - Business,
     R/o. Kargil Square, Gadchiroli,
     Dist. Gadchiroli.
                                                   .... APPLICANT


                            // VERSUS //


1)   State of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary,
     Department of Home,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2)   Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Gadchiroli,
     Dist. Gadchiroli.

3)   Hemant Ramesh Mohre,
     Age 31 years, Occupation Service/
     Tahsildar, having its office at
     Sub Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli,
     Dist. Gadchiroli.
                                          .... NON-APPLICANTS
______________________________________________________________
     Mr. Vikrant Vishwarupe, Advocate h/f Mr. R.R. Vyas, Advocate
     for Applicant.
     Mr. S.D. Sirpurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-
     applicant Nos.1 and 2.
______________________________________________________________


                 CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                         G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 09.06.2022 Judgment 2 907.Cri.APL No.368.2021.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

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

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Although it has been stated by learned counsel for the

applicant that on the day of incident, when the tractor along with

illegal sand was seized, the applicant, the owner of the tractor and

trolley in question, did possess the transit pass for transportation of the

excavated sand. We find that the statement so made before us by the

learned counsel on behalf of the applicant is patently false. The transit

passes filed on record indicate that they were issued for transportation

of sand by a tractor and trolley bearing different registration numbers.

So, it is quite clear that the tractor and trolley in question, which has

been seized in the present case along with sand, did not have any

transit pass for carrying of the sand on the day of the incident. Then,

the post incident conduct of this applicant, prima facie, supports the

case of the prosecution that the sand transported by the tractor and

trolley in question was illegal and was removed from the sand ghat

without having any permit or license for excavation and extraction of

the sand. If this is the case, the offence of theft under Section 379 of

the Indian Penal Code is also prima facie made out along with the

other offences. Thus, this is not a fit case for making any interference.

Judgment 3 907.Cri.APL No.368.2021.odt

3. The Criminal Application stands dismissed.

                                         (G.A. SANAP, J.)             (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)




                                Kirtak




Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO
JANARDHAN
Private Secretary

Signing Date:10.06.2022 15:01