Arun v. The Executive Officer, Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar

Mr.MA Tandale, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VB Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. The petitioner claims to be owner of Tractor (MH-23/B-5764) and a trolley (MH-23/C-5169), moved an application under Section 94 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking search in respect of the said vehicles. The learned JMFC, did not entertain the application 2 Cri.WP No.699/2010 of return of the property, challenge to the same before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.6/2010 by order dated 7th July, 2010 did not yield any result in favour of the petitioner, consequently the present writ petition. 2) Several contentions are advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the owner of the tractor/trolley, that he is a registered owner of the tractor and trolley, he being a labour contractor, used to provide labours to the sugar factory and consequently, whatever agreement he had entered into, it was only with the sugar factory.

The tractor and trolley were illegally removed by the sugar factory. 3) On the other hand, the Counsel for sugar factory/Respondent No.1 informed the Court, by proving the document/agreement, entered into by the petitioner herein with Rayat Sarvya Sanstha Ltd. Chintamani Nagar, Post Theur, Tq. Haveli, District Pune, that there was an agreement entered into by the petitioner with said Rayat Sanstha in respect of activities disclosed in chart and handing over the vehicles for transport activities. The chart indicated that the petitioner took an advance of Rs.4,37,130/- from said Rayat Sanstha, but repaid only Rs.2,00,381/- 3 Cri.WP No.699/2010 and for balance amount of Rs. 2,36,748/-, proceedings, in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were initiated against him. Thereafter in the subsequent year 2009-2010, he has availed Rs.15,00,000/- as advance and decided himself not to take the Tractor with him and keep the tractor with the said Rayat Sanstha, this was by virtue of the agreement.

These aspects were properly considered by both the courts and they did not approve the contention of the petitioner in respect of search or for custody of the vehicles in question. 4) The learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Sarjerao s/o Limbaji Rathod Vs. Sukhadeo s/o Krishnarao Kadam and Ors., - 1997 (1) ALL MR 583. Though few of the facts in the said case are matching to the present events, however, in the present case, there is an agreement entered into by the petitioner with said Rayat Sanstha to facilitate smooth transportation and has availed financial benefits/assistance. The short-cut, that the petitioner desired to adopt, by taking search, is not permissible. Both the parties have their legal course/remedies available, which the petitioner as well as said Rayat Sanstha could legally adopt. For the present, the orders 4 Cri.WP No.699/2010 under challenge do not call for any interference. Writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. bdv/ ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE