CRIMINAL Manish Natu Bhai Desai v. State of Maharashtra

Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for State Mr.Prakash Naik with Ms Nirmala Vyas for the applicant A.S.OKA,J. CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. CORAM: : AUGUST 12,2008 DATE : AUGUST 12,2008 DATEDATE : AUGUST 12,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. The prayer in this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) is for quashing the criminal case against the Applicant who has been arraigned as accused No.3.

The submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that investigation was carried out for non cognizable offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act,1951 without obtaining permission of the learned Magistrate. The second submission is that even the charge sheet filed by the police after completing investigation records that the Applicant is being prosecuted for offence under section 41 (d) of the said Code. He submitted that section 41 (d) confers power on the police to arrest. He submitted that on the basis of the such charge-sheet, now the learned Magistrate has charged the Applicant for commission of an offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act,1951 and therefore, criminal proceeding - 2 - deserves to be quashed.

I have considered the submissions. As far as the first contention is concerned, on 18th September 2001, a permission was granted by the learned Magistrate to the police under section 155 (2) of the said Code. In the application made by the Senior Inspector of police for grant of permission, in the first column there may be a reference to section 41(d) of the said Code but this application gives all material details of the alleged offence. Therefore, it is obvious that a permission was granted under section 155(2) of the said Code.

So far as the charge-sheet is concerned, it is true that the same refers to an offence under section 41(d) of the said Code. However, it is specifically alleged therein that the accused were possessing stolen diamonds valued at Rs.6.9 lakhs and Tata Sumo valued at Rs.1.5 lakhs in the limits of Greater Mumbai between 8th September 2001 to 13th September 2001. The learned Magistrate has explained to the accused persons the charge under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act,1951.

In view of what is stated above, no case is made out for quashing. Application is rej ected. It is, however, clear that all contentions of the applicant on merits are expressly kept open. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE