Disposed

Vijay Swaroopchand Gothi v. the Special Inspector General of Police and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2005WP/2667/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of a criminal writ petition praying for protection against arrest under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. The Court held that no relief was pressed by the petitioner after reviewing investigation materials regarding allegations of adulteration of petroleum products.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of as not pressed for any relief.

Vijay Swaroopchand Gothi Vs the Special… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 (G.C.P.)J 455 (5,00,000)-11.2001) Spl-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.,78e

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2667 OF 2004

¶4

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders
 of Coram, appearances, Court’s
 order or directions and
 Registrar’s order.

¶5

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

 Shri M.S.Mohite for the petitioner.

¶7

 Shri V.A.Thorat, Advocate General with Shri
 D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for respondents.

¶8

--

¶9

 CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
 &
 P.V.KAKADE, JJ

¶10

 DATED: 17th February, 2005.

¶11

 P.C.

¶12

 . We have perused the copies of the
 materials collected against the petitioner
 in the course of investigation carried out
 by the investigating agency at Karveer
 Police Station, Kolhapur, in relation to the
 C.R.No.39 of 2004 registered at Karveer
 Police Station, Kolhapur. After hearing the
 parties, the learned APP, on taking
 instructions, has stated that based on the
 materials so far collected and which are
 disclosed to the Court, the respondents do

¶13

 - 2 -

¶14

 not intend to apply the provisions of
 Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,
 1999 (MCOC Act) to the petitioner, unless
 and until further materials disclosing the
 link of the petitioner in the illegal
 activities relating to the adulteration of
 petroleum products are revealed to the
 respondents.

¶15

 2. Perusal of the records in relation

¶16

 to the materials stated to have been
 collected against the petitioner in the
 course of investigation in relation to the
 C.R.No.39 of 2004 registered at Karveer
 Police Station, Kolhapur, apparently does
 not disclose any material showing
 involvement of the petitioner in any
 activities of adulteration of petroleum
 products, and the investigation merely
 reveals the purchase and selling of the
 bleaching powder or bleaching earth by the
 petitioner. Being so, while accepting the
 said statement made by the learned APP on
 behalf of the respondents, the learned
 Advocate for the petitioner has fairly
 stated that, in the circumstances, the
 petitioner does not press for any relief in
 the matter. The learned APP at the same

¶17

 - 3 -

¶18

 time has stated that the petitioner would be
 required for interrogation for which the
 learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
 that the petitioner shall render necessary
 co-operation to the police authority in that

¶19

 regard whenever required by the
 investigating agency and has further pointed
 out that the conditions in that regard have
 already been imposed on the petitioner while
 granting the anticipatory bail in his
 favour.

¶20

 3. In the facts and circumstances of

¶21

 the case, nothing survives in the matter,
 and therefore, while accepting the said
 statement made by the learned APP on behalf
 of the respondents, the petition is disposed

¶22

 of as not pressed for.

¶23

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

¶24

 (P.V.KAKADE, J )

Vijay Swaroopchand Gothi v. the Special Inspector General of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Swaroopchand Gothi v. the Special Inspector General of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babasaheb Pandit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Nanalal Shah Vs H.S.Shetty and Anr.

Suryakant @ Bandu Ranoji Andekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Swaroopchand Gothi Vs the Special Inspector General of Police and Anr.

Raghunath Baburao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State vs J.S. Bakhtawar Khan and 5 Ors. Vs Shri Javed Sultan Bakhtawar Khan and 5 Others