Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(1) The criminal application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that exceptstatement of co-accused, there is absolutely no material toconnect present applicants with the alleged offence. Noinvestigation is carried out to show that present applicants aredealing with any contraband articles and dealing with thebusiness of supplying the said contraband…
Judgment
Judgment27 apl392.261IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURCRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.392 OF 20261. Ravi s/o Tukaramji Nalat, aged 45years, occupation: agriculturist, r/o SaiNagar, behind Saraswati School, Akot, taluka Akot, district Akola.
Laxman @ Kalu Jethanand Lalwani, aged about 53 years, occupation: business,r/o Kacchi Kholi, SindhiCamp, Akola, taluka and district Akola. ….. Applicants.:: V E R S U S ::State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer / ASI, AkotGramin Police Station, Akot, districtAkola. ….. Non-applicant.================================Shri S.A.Mohta, Counsel for Applicants. Shri K.R.Lule, APP for the NA No.1/State.================================CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.DATE : 25/03/2026ORAL JUDGMENT1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APPfor the non-applicant/State. Admit. Heard finally by consent......2/- Judgment27 apl392.2622. By this application, applicants are seeking quashing ofFIR in connection with Crime No.346/2023 registered with thenon-applicant police station for offences under Sections 188,272, 273, and 328 of the IPC and under Sections 26(2)(i),26(2)(iv), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), and 30(2) of the Food Safetyand Standard Act, 2006 and Rules 2011 and consequentproceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions TrialNo.67/2025 pending on the file of learned Additional SessionsJudge-1, Akot, district Akola.
The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodgedby Manoj Pandurang Kolhatkar (the complainant) serving as Police Officer on allegations that he received a secretinformation and on the basis of the said secret information, hehas intercepted a vehicle “Mahindra Bolero Pick-UP bearingregistration No.MH-30/BD/2001”. On intercepting the saidvehicle, in presence of panchas, the vehicle was searched andcontraband articles of Rs.2,00,925/- were found includingscented tobacco, scented nuts, and other contraband articles.....3/- Judgment27 apl392.263prohibited in the State of Maharashtra. On the basis of thesaid report, the police have registered the crime and theoffence was registered against co-accused namely Abdul SadikAbdul Rafique, Mazar Ali Ayub Ali, and Ravi Nalat.
After registration of the crime, investigation startedrotating. During the investigation, the accused persons wereinterrogated and during interrogation with the other co-accused, names of present applicants were revealed and, therefore, present applicants are arrayed as accused.
Learned counsel for applicants submitted that exceptstatement of co-accused, there is absolutely no material toconnect present applicants with the alleged offence. Noinvestigation is carried out to show that present applicants aredealing with any contraband articles and dealing with thebusiness of supplying the said contraband articles. Thus, except the statement of co-accused, there is no materialcollected during the investigation and, therefore, theapplication deserves to be allowed......4/- Judgment27 apl392.2646. Per contra, learned APP for the State has stronglyopposed the said contentions and submitted that thestatement of the co-accused reveals involvement of presentapplicants in the alleged offence and, therefore, theapplication deserves to be rejected.7. After considering rival submissions of both the partiesand perusing the investigation papers, it reveals that on thebasis of the statement of the co-accused, that he procured thesaid contraband articles from the present applicants, thepresent applicants are arrayed as accused.
During theinvestigation, nothing is revealed as far as any connectionbetween the present applicants and other co-accused and theyare dealing with the said contraband articles. 8. Thus, even if learned APP for the State submitted thaton the basis of the statement of the co-accused offence isregistered against present applicants, the entire chargesheetnowhere demonstrates that what other material has beencollected by the investigating agency. The prosecution further.....5/- Judgment27 apl392.265could not show that present applicants are the persons whohave supplied the said contraband articles. The prosecutioncould not show that present applicants have any concern withthe business of the said contraband articles. 9. As such, in absence of any material on record againstpresent applicants, the prosecution, under the offencesregistered, as alleged, against them, would be an abuse ofprocess of law. 10.
Operative part
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(1) The criminal application is allowed. (2) FIR in connection with Crime No.346/2023 registered withthe non-applicant police station for offences under Sections188, 272, 273, and 328 of the IPC and under Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), and 30(2) of the FoodSafety and Standard Act, 2006 and Rules 2011 and.....6/- Judgment27 apl392.266consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearingSessions Trial No.67/2025 pending on the file of learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-1, Akot, district Akola are herebyquashed and set aside to the extent of present applicants Ravis/o Tukaramji Nalat and Laxman @ Kalu Jethanand Lalwani. Application stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!...../-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER(1) The criminal application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Food Safetyand Standard Act, 2006; FoodSafety and Standard Act, 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.