Mahesh Narayan Mhamunkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4087 OF 2007

¶4

 Mahesh Narayan Mhamunkar .... Applicant

¶5

 versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & ors...... Respondent.

¶7

 Mr. D.H.Mehta i/b M/s. D.M. Legal Associates for the
 applicant.

¶8

 Ms. Kiran N. Joshi for Respondent no.1. and 2.
 Ms. P.P.Shinde APP for State.

¶9

 CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 23RD JANUARY, 2008

¶10

P.C.;

¶11

 1. Heard the application finally by consent of
 parties. It is the case of the applicant that a
 Dumper owned by him bearing No. MH-04-CA-6762 having
 a given chassis and engine number was stolen from
 Diamond Petrol Pump at which place it was parked by
 the applicant. Immediately after the theft of the
 vehicle, FIR was lodged with the police and the
 investigation was made. In the said investigation,
 statement of the accused was also recorded. The

¶12

 Dumper in question was seized by the police and hence
 the present applicant/original complainant moved an
 application before the trial court, demanding custody

¶13

-2-

¶14

 of the vehicle. The respondent no.2 from whose
 possession the Dumper was recovered by the police ,
 also moved an application claiming that the vehicle
 belongs to him and as the possession was taken from
 him he should be put in possession thereof. Both the
 applications came to be heard by the trial court and
 by a common order, the trial court granted possession
 of the vehicle to the respondent no.2.

¶15

 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court
 the present applicant filed a revision application
 before the Sessions Court, Raigad, Alibaug bearing No.
 85/07. The rejection of the Revision Application has
 give rise to the filing of the present application.

¶16

 3. The ground on which the learned counsel for the
 applicant has assailed the impugned order is that
 material documents placed on record by the
 applicant/complainant have not been considered at all.
 His further submission is that the Revisional Court
 has proceeded on an assumption that the present
 applicant has failed to place on record any document
 indicating his ownership of the Dumper. The said
 observation made by the Sessions judge is at the
 conclusion of para 4 of the order. By raising ground
 nos. (h) and (i) in the application, the applicant
 has contended that the learned Sessions judge has

¶17

-3-

¶18

 failed to consider the documents placed on record
 which clearly goes to indicate the ownership of the
 vehicle being that of the applicant. Undisputedly the
 applicant placed on record the following documents.

¶19

 i) Certificate of registration of the Dumper bearing
 chassis number, engine number and the name of the
 applicant as its owner.

¶20

 ii) Goods carriage permit issued by RTO.

¶21

 iii) Insurance policy in relation to the vehicle

¶22

 issued by New India Assurance Company,

¶23

 iv) A receipt of tax payment issued under BMV Tax

¶24

 Act.

¶25

 v) Report made by RTO and the statement of the

¶26

 accused.

¶27

 4. Relying upon all these documents, the learned
 counsel has submitted that the Revisional Court has
 failed to take note of all the above documents and
 without considering those documents, the case of the
 applicant claiming possession of the vehicle came to
 be rejected by incorrectly observing that the
 applicant has failed to place on record any document

¶28

-4-

¶29

 indicative of ownership of the vehicle. Thus the
 submission is that the impugned order needs to be
 quashed and set aside, as the Sessions Judge has
 failed to consider the relevant evidence and material
 on record. The learned counsel appearing for the
 respondent admits that the documents referred to
 hereinabove have been placed on record of the court by
 the applicant. However, he seeks to contend that the

¶30

 said documents cannot be read so as to hold that the
 applicant is the owner of the vehicle. He has also
 made a grievance that the report submitted by RTO was
 on the basis of inspection made by the officer
 concerned behind the back of the respondent no.2 and
 thus the said document cannot be of any use to
 advance the case of the applicant. I do not propose
 to go into the merit of the matter with a view to find
 out as to whose claim of the ownership is well
 founded. I am of the view that it is for the
 Revisional Court to consider all the documents
 referred to hereinabove and then decide the revision.
 The Revisional Court having failed to consider the
 documents filed by the applicant on record and as the
 impugned order records an incorrect factual position
 that the applicant has failed to place on record any
 document indicative of ownership of the vehicle, I am
 constrained to quash and set aside the impugned order.

¶31

-5-

¶32

 5. In the result, the impugned order dated 14-11-2007
 passed by the Sessions judge, Raigad in Criminal
 Revision No. 85/05 is quashed and set aside. The
 revision shall stands restored to file and the learned
 Sessions Judge shall hear and decide the same afresh
 in accordance with law after affording a reasonable
 opportunity of hearing to the parties. Application is
 thus allowed and disposed of with no order as to
 costs. Needless to mention that all the contentions
 raised by the applicant so also respondent no.2 are
 left open to be agitated in the revision before the
 Sessions Judge. Hearing of the revision is expedited.

Mahesh Narayan Mhamunkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Narayan Mhamunkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamamd Jamil Mohammed Ameen Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Haridas Wagh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagannivas Shrinivas Bhat and Ors. Vs Satish P. Dholakia and Anr.

Dharmesh Janak Turakhia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishwas Mahadeo Tiruke Vs Karmveer Bhaurao Patil Zilla Sahakari Patsantha Ltd. and Anr.

Anilkumar Karsandas Makhecha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.