Dismissed

Sanjay @ Shiva Sujith Sarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and Another

Bombay HC1 Oct 2021APL/940/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Nagpur Bench dismissed criminal application (APL) under Section 482 CrPC challenging FIR registration under Maharashtra Prohibition Act for illegal liquor sale. Court found prima facie case and dismissed application without evidence trial.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no opportunity for further inquiry or relief granted.

Sanjay @ Shiva Sujith Sarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

apl940.21.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.940/2021

¶5

Sanjay alias Shiva Sujith Sarkar .vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO P.S. Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. A. R. Fule, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1.

¶8

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 1, 2021

¶9

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of First Information Report under Section 65 (A) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The FIR came to be registered against the applicant and others with accusation that in Gadchiroli district, where sale of liquor is prohibited, liquor from wine shop, of which license is in the name of the applicant, was found to be carried out. Details of the liquor are mentioned in the FIR. The liquor, which was seized by the investigating agency is to the tune of Rs.7,77,700/-. It appears that the liquor consists of various brands of foreign liquor.

¶10

The applicant has, therefore, filed the present application challenging registration of the FIR. This Court, on 17.09.2021 issued notice to the non applicant. The investigating officer pursuant to the issuance of notice has filed reply dated 22.09.2020. In the reply, it is stated by the investigating agency that on 21.10.2020, during patrolling he received secret information that from Telangana State some

¶11

apl940.21.odt

¶12

¶13

persons are transporting liquor in one silver colour Bolero car. He, therefore, laid trap and stock was seized. Arrested persons revealed name of applicant during interrogation. The investigating agency, in paragraph 4, has stated that present applicant is not cooperating with the investigating agency. The investigating agency had issued notice to the applicant on 27.06.2021 and requested to submit stock register but till filing of the reply, the applicant has not submitted the stock register for verification/investigation by the investigating officer. The reply also disclosed that the applicant is having criminal antecedents and the offence is pending.

¶14

We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and the reply filed by the investigating agency. From perusal of the material it appears that the applicant was prima facie found to be selling liquor in the area where sale of liquor is prohibited. Whether the applicant was selling the foreign liquor in the prohibited area through co-accused persons is the matter of evidence. At this stage, we cannot go through the same unless prosecution is given an opportunity to prove its case. We find no substance in the application. The application is therefore dismissed.

¶15

JUDGE

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

kahale

Sanjay @ Shiva Sujith Sarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Shiva Sujith Sarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and Another

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. Sandeep S/O Vishwas Parate and 3 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Gadchiroli, Distgadchiroli and Another

Snehadeep Sandip Taywade Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Gadge Nagar, Dist. Amravati and Another

Vimalbai Wd/O Lakharam Raut and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Civil Line Akola Distakola and Another

Mr. Hasyavandan Balkrushan Balekaramkar C/O. Umesh Wadighare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Pschamorshi Dist.Gadchiroli and 2 Others

Sadan Narayan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur City, Nagpur and Another

Nagesh S/o Chandrakant Ganvir and 6 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Nandgaon Khandeshwar Tq. Nandgaon Khandeshwar Dist.Amravati