Quashed

Silloo Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2012APL/353/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in criminal applications filed by two individuals, quashed the issuance of criminal process against them for offences under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, holding that the prosecution was unwarranted due to lack of evidence, invalid authorization, and lack of ownership connection.

What did the court decide?

The process issued for an offence under Sections 471, 475A of the M.M.C Act against the applicants is quashed and set aside.

Silloo Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

apl353-354-12.sxw

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.353 OF 2012

¶7

Mrs.Siloo Patel. …Applicant.

¶8

versus

¶9

1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.354 OF 2012

¶12

Mrs.Pilloo Irani. …Applicant. versus 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶13

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b. M/s.Hariani & Co., for Applicants. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for State.

¶14

Ms.Seema Rawade, for Respondent no.2-BMC.

¶15

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶16

DATED : 3^rd December, 2012

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Heard extensively. The applicants question issuance of process

¶19

for an offence punishable under Sections 471, 475A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, pursuant to the prosecution initiated by the Municipal Corporation dated 28.4.2010.

¶20

During the course of submissions, I have inquired with the

apl353-354-12.sxw

2/3

Pvr

learned Counsel for Corporation, what was the basis for initiating the prosecution against the accused (applicants) in respect of the suit premises. She has no document to substantiate.

¶25

In a revision preferred by the applicants questioning the process, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by an undertaking purportedly dated 17.6.2010 issued, singed and executed by Smt.Silloo Patel dealing with collapse of part of portion of building at 298, S.B.S.Road, 83 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai.

¶26

Indeed the premises is, from the record, assigned to Enpro Ltd. The Director of the company has clarified that the undertaking dated 17.6.2010 by Mrs.Silloo Patel was inadvertently given, it should have been by regular Director of said company and it was informed that same requires replacement as a person executing the same was not authorised to furnish the said undertaking on behalf of the company. The company has furnished another notarised undertaking/noting of its Director, who is authorised under law to do so.

¶27

The learned Senior Counsel has invited my attention to the annual returns of the company to impress that at no point the applicants were Director of Enpro Ltd.. This is primarily substantiated, these

apl353-354-12.sxw

3/3

Pvr

documents can be looked into being branded as public document. The Corporation has, so far, not challenged the authenticity or legality of this document as they are part of the petition.

¶32

Smt.Pilloo Irani or Smt.Silloo Patel who are arraigned as accused in the prosecution, from the record, have no concern with the ownership of the company Enpro Ltd. to which the property belongs to. By mere filing an innocuous undertaking on record dated 17.6.2010, liability cannot be fastened to face prosecution that too prior to the undertaking, by prosecution dated 28.4.2010.

¶33

In the above set of facts, the prosecution calls for interference. The process issued for an offence under Sections 471, 475A of the M.M.C Act against the applicants is quashed and set aside.

Silloo Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Silloo Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayshree P. Bagwe Vs Neela Sahadevan and Ors.

Karan Ramashankar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ayaz Ahmed Hafizulla Ansari Vs Sabina Ayaz Ansari and Anr.

Vinaya Mahadev Shenoy Vs Porkodi Soundra Pandian and Anr.

Rajendra Vishwanath Kanhere Vs Sapna Rajeshwar Mishra and Ors.

Aditya Sham Bhatia Vs Dy. Superintendent of Police and Anr.