Allowed

Khema Mahadeo Ghadigaonkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2012WP/2182/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition arising from a case where the accused were found cutting jack-fruit trees owned by the petitioner but detained under CrPC Sec 451, the Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order that had directed the property to be handed over to the accused.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Sessions Judge dated 19.1.2011 was set aside and the petition was allowed.

Khema Mahadeo Ghadigaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

wp2182-11.sxw

1/2

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2182 OF 2011

¶7

Khema Mahadeo Ghadigaonkar. ...Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Ravindra Sankpal, for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.S.A.Shaikh, A.P.P. for State.

¶10

None for Respondents 2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶12

DATED : 5^th July, 2012

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner (original complainant)

¶15

Khema Mahadev Ghadigaonkar-P.W.1 in Regular Criminal Case no.42 of 2006.

¶16

The petitioner filed FIR for an offence under Section 379 read

¶17

with Section 34 of IPC against the respondents as accused nos.1 and 2, informing that in furtherance of their common intention, the respondents have cut jack-fruit tree from the property-land of the petitioner. The petitioner was away to Mumbai and in his absence the activities were

wp2182-11.sxw

2/2

Pvr

carried out. The property was seized under the panchanama at Exhibits 45 and 46 from the house of P.W.5 - Prabhakar Rajaram Ghadigaonkar and a saw mill.

¶22

All throughout the stand of the petitioner was that it was his property, taken charge from the jack-fruit tree standing near his house, situated at village Kirlos, Tal.Malwan. His application moved before the learned Trial Judge below Exhibit 9 for handing over the property, indeed was entertained under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and rejecting the claim of the accused Sunil to this effect. Considering the nature of offence and assertion of rights by the petitioner, though the learned Judge has softly referred to the entitlement of petitioner, however, ultimately allowed the appeal of respondent no.2 Sunil and directed handing over of the seized property to the accused instead of the petitioner as P.W.1.

¶23

In the above said features, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros dated 19.1.2011 calls for interference. It is set aside. The petition is allowed.

Khema Mahadeo Ghadigaonkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khema Mahadeo Ghadigaonkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sunjjoy Kamlakar Dhanway Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aslam Gulab Mujawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Dattatray Yesumali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Latif Hasan Madari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manjit Singh Peelia and Ors. Vs Senior Police Inspector Bhadrakali Police Station and Anr.