Allowed

Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2009WP/501/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, allowed a criminal writ petition. The court remitted half the bond amount for the petitioner to comply with the order to produce a confiscated jeep, considering the family's financial calamities and suffering, citing Section 446(3) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 within a month; upon deposit, the bond execution order is deemed complied with.

Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma. Vs the State of Maharashtra. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 501 OF 1996

¶3

Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma, Age: 33 years, Occu. Business, R/o Molgi, Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Dhule.

¶4

... PETITIONER.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Taloda, Tal. Taloda, District: Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS.

¶7

¶8

Mr. C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State.

¶9

CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: 28th July, 2009.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶11

Heard counsel appearing for the Applicant Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma. The

¶12

facts, seeking indulgence of this Court, by virtue of section 446 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, could be put in condensed form as under:

¶13

The Jeep MRD 3735 was purchased by Vasudeo from earlier owner Noorbhai in the year 1986., It was a transport vehicle. On 25th April, 1987 the Range Forest Officer, Akkalkuwa, during the course of their patrolling duty, noticed some goods of one Girdharilal Madanlal carried in the vehicle. Said Girdharilal accepted his liability and responsibility. Kishanlal, who was driving the vehicle, brother of the present Petitioner, accepted that he was driving the vehicle. The proceedings for confiscation of vehicle were initiated. The jeep was seized and confiscated by Respondent no.2 by order dated 6th May, 1987.

¶14

Said order of confiscation was subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1991 before the learned Sessions Judge at Nandurbar. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal with costs. The Appellant Vasudeo and Chirag surety were directed to produce the jeep within a period of eight days from service of the notice before the Sub Divisional Forest Officer and failure to comply to deposit Rs.50,000/- each, as it was the amount of bond executed before the Court. Said order was challenged by the present applicant in Criminal Writ Petition No.314 of 1996. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 23rd July, 1996 on the ground that he has no locus-standi to challenge the order. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice to produce the vehicle. The said jeep was indeed sold on 24th July, 1992 and the subsequent purchaser Jagmal has again exchanged the hands to the jeep.

¶15

An application was moved in terms of section 446 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the present Applicant and also the surety Chirag. The learned Judge, considering the terms of the bond, did not accept the contentions advanced by the respective applicants and rejected the prayer. In support of contentions for such remission, counsel informed that the calamities in the family were of such a high altitude that Vasudeo was compelled to dispose of the vehicle to meet the family difficulties. Smt. Gahinabai suffered heart-attack; she ultimately succumbed on 27th June, 1992. The family remained in grief, the amounts borrowed, was piling and consequently with the compelling situation the jeep was sold and to repay the loan amount. It is informed and now not controverted that the applicant herein is working as driver; he has no other means. Though there subsists a bond of Rs.50,000/- individually executed by the present Applicant with the surety Chirag, however, the fact situation as projected by the

¶16

Applicant herein require to exercise the discretion as indicated in section 446 (3) of the Code. Apex Court in the matter of "Mohammed Kunju & another V/s State of Karnataka" - 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 122 indicated that the powers under section 446 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to grant such remission. It is within the discretion of the Court to grant remission and decide the extent of remission. Of course, such a discretion must be exercised judicially and for good reasons.

¶17

The death in the family and bereaved position cannot be just obliterated though the orders of the Court of executing bond are violated. Though the applicant was conscious as he has been litigating since long, however, the fact situation in the matter demands such leniency and also remission in depositing the bond amount. Hence, order.

¶18

The petitioner Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma will deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of a month. Upon such deposit, the order of bond executed by him, pursuant to the order dated 1st June, 1987, shall be treated to be complied.

¶19

Writ petition allowed in above terms.

¶20

[K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.]

¶21

Dated:28/07/2009. ans/50196

Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudeo Pirchand Sharma. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Abdul Mugni Abdul Wahed Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaijinath Sahebrao Masal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Faisal Chaus Mohd Chaus Vs the State of Mah

Vikram Maruti Anarse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

P.E.Patil. Vs Vijaykumar K. Targe and Ors.

Latabai Bhimrao Thakare and Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra.