Petitioner sought compensation for seizure of cotton and subsequent charge-sheet filed by police. Court held petitioner failed to prove cotton ownership and breached provisions of the 1963 Act, making police action non-mala fide. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed, Rule discharged, Interim relief vacated.
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 Cr WP 355 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2003
Versus
Shri. D.G. Nagode, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. S.D. Ghayal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.
Shri. P.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. Date : 06 SEPTEMBER 2017
2 Cr WP 355 of 2003
JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J):
3 Cr WP 355 of 2003
to Shendwa, Madhya Pradesh. The present petitioner was present in the truck and some persons were present as labour. As there was no record of licence, green card etc. with the present petitioner, the vehicle along with the cotton came to be seized under panchanama and report came to be given in the police station. On the basis of that report crime came to be registered for offences punishable under sections 17,19, 43 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971. Charge sheet is also filed and the case bearing Criminal Case No.500/2002 is pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
4 Cr WP 355 of 2003
aforesaid compensation is claimed from the Government and the Police Inspector who made investigation and filed charge sheet.
5 Cr WP 355 of 2003
1963 the offence was committed at least under the other special enactment regulating sale and purchase of the cotton in Maharashtra. Attention of this Court was drawn to one Circular issued by the Government by which the State Government had informed the authority to take appropriate action if cotton from other States was brought to this State for sale at the centres opened by the State. For purchase of the cotton such centres were opened during the season by the Government to see that farmers get support price of the cotton procured in this State.
6 Cr WP 355 of 2003
create probability that all the cotton was grown by the petitioner. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he is dealing in cotton and he had purchased the aforesaid cotton outside of the 'market' created under the Act of 1963 and he wanted to make profit by selling this cotton outside of the Maharashtra and probably he intended to take it to other State where at the relevant time the price was higher. Thus, there is apparent breach of the provisions of the Act of 1963 though the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 was not in force. As the petitioner did not produce any record at the relevant time to show ownership of the cotton or to show that as a farmer he had procured that cotton in his filed, it cannot be said that action of the police was mala fide in nature. This Court holds that no compensation can be given to the petitioner as he was at fault and there was reasonable ground for police for taking action against him. The case is still pending. Though the case is under the provisions of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971, the criminal court has always power to find out as to whether and what other offence is
7 Cr WP 355 of 2003
committed by the accused. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that it cannot be said that the case could not have been filed and cognizance also could not have been taken. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.M. GAVHANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation is payable to the petitioner for seizure of cotton when the special enactment was not in force.
Whether the police action was mala fide given the petitioner failed to produce ownership records for the seized cotton.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shadeo s/o Daulatrao Kashid
State of Maharashtra
Kishansing S. Bahure
T.V. NALAWADE
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
