High Court

Legal Reasoning

11545.2023WP.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.909 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1545 OF 2023SHANKAR GANGARAM CHAKURKARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S.APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Deshmukh Umakant B.…CORAM :SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.DATE :11th July, 2024.P.C.:1.By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated21st September, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilolion application below Exhibit-34 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2023,whereby request under section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code(for short, “Cr.P.C.”) for release/custody of 12 receipts of food grainsseized by Respondent No.1 in Crime No.101/2022 (Sessions Case 13of 2023), came to be rejected and application below Exhibit-3 filed byrespondent no.2 is allowed, for giving custody of these 12 receipts.2.It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thatMr.Mangesh Tadkhele was Proprietor of Shri Pandurang TradingCompany and was doing business of commission agent at Mondha, 21545.2023WP.odtDegloor, Dist. Nanded. Mr. Mangesh had purchased certainagricultural produce and kept it in Buldhana Urban CooperativeSociety Warehouse at Khanapur. The learned counsel furthersubmitted that since Mr.Mangesh was in dire need of money, requiredto be paid to the agriculturists from whom he had purchased theagricultural produce, Mr.Mangesh approached the petitioner andrequested for purchase of agricultural produce. Accordingly, he issuedpurchase receipt and handed over 12 receipts about deposit of theagricultural produce kept in Buldhana Urban Warehouse. In lieu ofhanding over the 12 receipts, the petitioner had paid him theconsideration amount. The learned counsel further submitted that atthe relevant time, Mr.Mangesh had executed the written receipt to besubmitted to the credit society with whom the goods were kept. Thelearned counsel further submitted that Mr.Mangesh has committedsuicide and his dead body was found on 24th February, 2022. Thepolice registered the offence under section 306 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) against four persons, who arerelatives and close acquaintance of Mr.Mangesh. The learned counselfurther submitted that three suicide notes were recovered during thecourse of panchanama. In these suicide notes the name of thepetitioner was referred to about holding possession of 12 receipts. Thepetitioner was called by the police authority and asked him to produce12 receipts. Accordingly, the police has seized 12 receipts from the 31545.2023WP.odtpossession of the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that thepetitioner sought anticipatory bail in respect of the crime of suicide ofMr.Mangesh. The learned counsel further submitted that aftercompletion of the investigation in respect of the crime registered forsuicide of Mr. Mangesh, charge-sheet has been filed by the police. Inthe said charge-sheet no name of the petitioner is mentioned asaccused. The recovery of the 12 receipts from the possession of thepetitioner by the Investigating Officer was without any foundation. Thepossession of the petitioner over the 12 receipts is required to beconsidered as a lawful and as such the provisions of Section 102 ofCr.P.C. has no application in the present factual scenario. The learnedcounsel further submitted that initially before filing charge-sheet, thepetitioner had filed an application seeking release of the 12 receiptsbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The said applicationwas rejected. The petitioner questioned the said impugned orderbefore the Sessions Court by filing criminal revision. The CriminalRevision Application No.19 of 2022 is also rejected. The learnedcounsel further submitted that thereafter, after filing of the charge-sheet, the respondent no.2 filed an application for release of the 12receipts and the petitioner also filed application for release of the 12receipts. The Sessions Court has allowed the application filed by therespondent no.2 whereas the application of the petitioner has beenrejected. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has 41545.2023WP.odtnot considered the fact that 12 receipts were in possession of thepetitioner. The petitioner has paid the amount to deceased Mangesh.Mangesh has issued 12 receipts in respect of agricultural produce keptin warehouse to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to take custodyof said agricultural produce, hence requested to allow the petition. Thelearned counsel is relying on M.T. Enrica Lexie and another Vs.Doramma and others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 760.3.It is contention of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 thatthe deceased was husband of the respondent no.2. Deceased wascommission agent. He was doing business of agriculture produce. Hehad purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers and kept inthe warehouse. The learned counsel further submitted that the houseof respondent no.2 is situated in a village at 10 Kms away. FromDegloor city, the deceased was collecting the grains from the farmersfrom various villages and the petitioner was staying at Degloor, hencefor safety purpose, the deceased had kept 12 receipts with thepetitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner isnot authorized agent. He is farmer and he has no authority for doingthe business of grains. The learned counsel further submitted that thepetitioner has alleged that he had paid Rs.44,00,000/- cash to thedeceased husband of respondent no.2 but no documentary proof isproduced in that regard. The learned counsel further submitted that theperson who is doing the business of farming and having no other 51545.2023WP.odtsource of income paying Rs.44,00,000/- in cash is hard to believe. Thepetitioner is taking disadvantage of 12 receipts kept with him. Thelearned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner is sayingthat the deceased had issued letter to the petitioner in respect of giving12 receipts in his possession, but the said letter shows there isalteration of date on the said letter. The learned counsel furthersubmitted that handwriting in the said letter and handwriting in suicidenotes is different. It shows that after death of the deceased, the saidletter is fabricated. The learned counsel further submitted that in initialapplication filed by the petitioner before the trial Court for release ofthe property there is no mention of the alleged letter issued by thedeceased. The earlier application of the petitioner is rejected by thetrial Court. The said order is confirmed by the Sessions Court, butthereafter the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. So thepetitioner has no right to file further application for release of theproperty as earlier claim of the petitioner over the 12 receipts has beenrejected by the trial Court. The learned counsel further submitted thatin the nomination column of 12 receipts the name of respondent no.2is mentioned. Moreover, the Sessions Court has directed respondentno.2 to give indemnity bond along with surety bond of Rs.50,00,000/-.The order passed by the trial Court is legal and valid. No interferenceis called in it. The learned counsel further submitted that the foodgrains kept in warehouse are perishable goods. Bank is issuing notices 61545.2023WP.odtfor removing grains from the godown, hence requested to dismiss thepetition.4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the impugnedorder passed by the Sessions Court.5.Admittedly respondent no.2 is wife of the deceased. It iscontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitionerhad given amount of Rs. 44,00,000/- to the deceased, and he haspurchased agricultural produce kept in warehouse and in return thedeceased had given him 12 receipts about grains kept in warehouse.The petitioner is heavily relying on the letter dated 14th January, 2022.In this letter, it is mentioned that in lieu of agricultural produce kept inwarehouse, the deceased had received Rs.44,87,500/- from thepetitioner and the deceased had handed over 12 receipts to him. It issignificant to note that though this letter was in possession of thepetitioner, he has not referred this letter in the earlier application filedfor release of the property before the trial Court. Earlier application ofthe petitioner to release of 12 receipts is rejected by the trial Court andthereafter the order of the trial Court was challenged before theSessions Court by the petitioner and the said order is confirmed by theSessions Court. When the petitioner was aware that he had paid theamount of Rs.44,87,500/- but no documents in that regard areproduced on record. As observed above, no reference was given ininitial application by the petitioner. Moreover, it appears that 71545.2023WP.odthandwriting of the letter dated 14th January, 2022 and the suicide notesof the deceased produced on record is different. It appears that date14.01.2022 mentioned in letter is altered. It shows that after filingcharge-sheet this letter has been prepared, because in suicide notesthe deceased has mentioned that he had kept 12 receipts in respect ofgrains kept in warehouse with the petitioner and if the petitioner returnsthe 12 receipts, no action should be taken against him. As there wasreference about the 12 receipts in suicide note when the policeinquired with the petitioner about the 12 receipts, he handed over the12 receipts to the police. The issue of section 102 of Cr.P.C. raised bythe learned counsel for the petitioner is already dealt by the trial Courtin initial application filed by the petitioner. In 12 receipts, in nominationcolumn the name of respondent no.2 is mentioned as nominee. Thefood grains kept in warehouse are perishable. Moreover, the trial Courthas allowed respondent no.2 to take the said grains by furnishingindemnity bond and surety bond of Rs.50,00,000/-. If the petitioner filesany proceedings for claiming his amount, surety bond is there. TheSessions Court has passed well reasoned order. No interference iscalled in it and I pass the following order :-ORDER (i)The writ petition is dismissed. 81545.2023WP.odt(ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner requests to stay this order.As food grains are perishable goods and respondent no.2 is givingindemnity bond and surety bond, request is refused. [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] sga