Allowed

Prasad @ Vithalla Kantappa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Mar 2023APEAL/286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allah acquitted of crimes under MCOC and IPC, appellant sought return of passports detained by the Court. High Court held remote possibility of tampering by co-accused insufficient to justify retention and ordered return of passports.

What did the court decide?

Registrar (Sessions) directed to return the passports (old and renewed valid one) to the Appellant within one week.

Prasad @ Vithalla Kantappa Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/4 13 APEAL-286-23.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.286 OF 2023

¶4

Prasad @ Vitthalla Kantappa Shetty

¶5

.. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Mr.Rahul Arote for the Appellant. Ms.A.A.Takalkar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 15^th MARCH, 2023

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

By the present Appeal preferred under Section 454 of Cr.P.C., the Appellant has assailed the order dated 03/02/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under MCOCA, on Misc. Application No.100 of 2023, thereby rejecting the request of the Appellant to return the articles on conclusion of the trial, in terms of the directions issued by the learned Special Judge on 24/12/2021, while acquitting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 387 read with 34 of IPC, under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act.

¶13

The Appellant was tried in MCOC Special Case No.10 of 2012, being arraigned as accused No.2, for the offences

¶14

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶15

2/4 13 APEAL-286-23.odt

¶16

punishable under Sections 120-B, 387 read with 34 of IPC, under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act.

¶17

The said case was decided by the Special Court on 24/12/2021 alongwith MCOC Special Case No.14 of 2013, by delivering a common judgment. At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant stood acquitted of the offences with which he is charged.

¶18

The learned Special Judge, in the judgment, directed that the muddemal property enlisted in Annexure 3 of the judgment, shall be kept in MCOC Special Case No.10 of 2012 @ 14 of 2013 and shall not be disposed off for one year, after disposal of the case, but if in the meanwhile, intimation of appeal having been fled in the Hon’ble High Court is received, then the muddemal was directed, not be disposed of until a period of one year expires from the date of the decision of appeal to the Hon’ble High Court. This included passports (old and renewed valid), three mobiles and Citizen watch with black colour belt of the Appellant.

¶19

Upon the application being moved for return of these articles, the say of the prosecution was called for and the prosecution strangely put up a stand to the effect that one of the wanted accused, Ravi Pujari has been arrested and a supplementary charge-sheet has been fled against him and MCOC Special Case No.693 of 2021, which is pending for trial. It is also stated that other wanted accused may also be

¶20

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶21

3/4 13 APEAL-286-23.odt

¶22

arrested in future and supplementary charge-sheet could be fled against them and there is every possibility that the articles, if returned, can be tampered.

¶23

The learned Judge found substance in the said apprehension expressed by the prosecution and rejected the application.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Appellant makes a categorical statement that the said reasoning may apply to the three mobiles which formed part of investigation and may be required in future, but as far as the passports, old and renewed valid one is concerned, they can be returned.

¶25

Looking to the reasoning cited while rejecting the application of the Appellant, though the possibility that was expressed being too remote and, since necessarily the data from the three mobile phones must have been retrieved by the investigation agency, I could have commented upon the approach of the prosecution, but since the Appellant is restricting his prayer only for release of his passports, old and renewed valid one, I do not think that this would pose any diffculty, since the Appellant stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him and, therefore, merely because absconding co-accused is facing a trial, would be no justifcation for denying return of passports to the Appellant.

¶26

Hence, the following order.

¶27

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶28

4/4 13 APEAL-286-23.odt

¶29

: ORDER :

¶30

(1) The Registrar (Sessions) is directed to return the passports, both old and renewed valid one, to the Appellant within a period of one week from today.

¶31

(2) The Appeal stands allowed in the aforestated terms.

¶32

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶33

M.M.Salgaonkar

Prasad @ Vithalla Kantappa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad @ Vithalla Kantappa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

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

Sukhchand Mahesh Pathak and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Vasant Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitendra Gopal Bhagat Vs Saifan Husain Fakruddin Shaikh and Anr.

Sapan Ranjeet Haldar Vs State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Gaur Bishwas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh Vishwanath Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra