Dismissed

Aarif S/O Kasambhai Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bramhapuri

Bombay HC9 Oct 2012ABA/383/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for anticipatory bail under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Nagpur Bench rejected the plea. The court noted that chemical analysis showed kerosene mixed with black oil, not crude oil, and questioned the applicant's claim that a motor tanker was stationary for six months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application rejected; interim order vacated; Investigating Officer directed to investigate thoroughly.

Aarif S/O Kasambhai Lakhani Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 aba383.12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.383 OF 2012

¶4

(Aarif s/o Kasambhai Lakhani ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur)

¶5

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

¶6

- - - - -- Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. D.B. Patel, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.

¶7

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 09-10-2012.

¶8

Heard learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Gandhi for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D.B. Patel for the non-applicant/State.

¶9

The applicant is apprehending arrest by the nonapplicant through Bramhapuri Police Station, District Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Section 7 for alleged violation of order issued by the Government in exercise of powers conferred on the Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶10

The applicant claims to be Proprietor of M/s Panjatani Oil Refinery Mill, situated at Bramhapuri, DistrictChandrapur. It is submitted that he was running the said refinery at the said address. For the purpose of running refinery, it was necessary for him to purchase black and crude oil (used and waste) from the market and to refine the same. It is submitted that no licence is required to refine oil. It is further submitted that no licence is required to sell and store after refining oil. It is further submitted that on 22^nd August,

¶11

2 aba383.12.odt

¶12

2010 police had raided the said refinery and had seized 1240 liters of used crude oil. It is the case of the applicant that the police have wrongly labeled the said oil as kerosene mixed with black oil.

¶13

The learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Gandhi has submitted that it was not the kerosene supplied by the Government for Public Distribution System. It is further submitted that it was a black oil and no licence was required for keeping stock of the black oil or for using it as raw material for refined oil.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted the affidavit of the non-applicant and has brought to my notice that the oil found in the tanker was not crude oil but it was blue kerosene oil mixed with black oil. It is submitted that the applicant is running another firm by name Om Traders. The applicant's mother is proprietress of the said Om Traders. Om Traders is licensed dealer of blue kerosene. It is alleged that the blue kerosene received in the name of Om Traders was not being supplied to the retail dealers in accordance with their quota and the excess kerosene was being stocked at M/s Panjatani Oil Refinery Mill. It is the case of non-applicant that black oil was mixed only to prevent detection of black marketing of kerosene.

¶15

During the course of investigation, statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded who are retailers of blue kerosene oil. It is submitted that most of the witnesses have stated that they do not get their full quota from the dealer and that there is short supply to them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the oil which

¶16

3 aba383.12.odt

¶17

is supplied short, is actually stocked at M/s Panjatani Oil Refinery Mill and is sold in black. It is submitted by Mr. J.M. Gandhi that short supply was from the Government only and that Om Traders was supplying kerosene to retailers in proportion to the stock received from the Government.

¶18

In any event, what is material for the purpose of deciding this application is whether the stock found in the tanker was a black used oil or crude oil or it was a kerosene mixed with black oil. The report of Chemical Analyzer clearly indicates that it was not crude oil or black oil. It was kerosene mixed with black oil. The report of Chemical Analyzer also states that it had blue dye that is being used in kerosene of Public Distribution System. In the circumstances, the applicant was under obligation to explain stock of such a huge amount of blue dye kerosene.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the tanker which is allegedly containing kerosene was stationed at the said place for six months and that the black oil was being stocked by the applicant after receiving the same from industries who are using oil or kerosene for cleaning their machineries. This contention does not appear to be acceptable inasmuch as the photographs of the tanker clearly indicate that the tanker is motor tanker and is not stationary tanker. It does not appear that it was stationed at one place for a period of six months. In the circumstances, the case needs thorough investigation. The Investigating Officer is under obligation to investigate the case thoroughly. No case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶20

4 aba383.12.odt

¶21

The application stands rejected. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

pma

Aarif S/O Kasambhai Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bramhapuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarif S/O Kasambhai Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bramhapuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Ashok Govindra Umale Vs Mr Vijay Bhaskar Kelkar

Sau Usha W/O Vishnu Jadhao and Others Vs the State of Maharshtra through Pso Mangrulpir

Husna Afroz W/O Rashid Khan Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ramdaspeth, Akola

Govinda S/O Sitaram Gharpende Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kalamna Nagpur

Shrichand S/O Mohanlal Setiya Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Bramhapuri

Moreshwar S/O Pandhari Misar Vs State of Maharshtra through Pso Brahmpuri