Bench held that no admissible material existed to support the charge of receiving stolen property. Reliance on unrecorded statements and non-part of charge-sheet evidence was rejected. Petitioner discharged.
Impugned orders rejecting discharge application set aside; petitioner discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
905.wp.1886.14
ngale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2014
Nilesh Mahendra Shah .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.Vikram R. Sutaria, Advocate of the Petitioner. Ms.S.S.Kaushik, APP for State.
CORAM : ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J. DATE : 15th November, 2014
P.C. :
. Rule.
905.wp.1886.14
-: 2 :-
committed an offence punishable u/s 411 of the IPC.
-: 3 :- 905.wp.1886.14
punishable u/s 411 of the IPC was to be made. However, even assuming that the case of the investigating agency is that 'the petitioner had received stolen property knowing it to be stolen' , still, there does not seem to be any material whatsoever to support such an allegation.
instance of the petitioner. No material, except the statement allegedly made by the co-accused Tejas Parikh and the applicant before the police, exists to support the allegation that the stolen property had been received by the petitioner at any time.
-: 4 :-
905.wp.1886.14
whether a case for proceeding against the petitioner by framing of charge exists.
This approach is highly improper, inasmuch as the prosecution is expected to adduce evidence in support of the claim made by the investigating agency and in accordance with material that has been collected in the course of the investigation. When the case of the investigating agency itself was that the material against the petitioner consisted of his own alleged admission made before the police, and the statement made by co-accused before the police officer in the course of investigation, it was obvious that the said material could not be converted into evidence, and the prosecution would never be able to establish that petitioner has received stolen property on the basis of the said material.
-: 5 :- 905.wp.1886.14
in accordance with law.
(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient material on record to sustain the charge of receiving stolen property against the petitioner.
Whether the discharge application filed by the accused is maintainable given the lack of admissible evidence in the charge-sheet.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nilesh Mahendra Shah
The State of Maharashtra
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
