1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 1994 Pravin Govindrao Shinde, ] Indian Citizen, aged about 32 years, ] Occ : Trader, residing at Shirgaon, ] Taluka Chiplun, Dist. Ratnagiri ] Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] 2. The District Conservator of Forests, ] Respondents None for the petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. None appears for the petitioner. So also on 15.04.2010 and 19.04.2010, none appeared for the petitioner. 2. This petition pertains to forfeiture of truck by the learned Magistrate in Summary Case No. 220 of 1993. It is the prosecution case that on 24.12.1992 at about 4.45 a.m., forest produce came to be burnt in order to create coal and the same came to be transported without pass and thereby offence under sections 26(g), 42(2)(b) of the Indian Forest 3.wp622-94 2 Act,1927 came to be committed. It seen that the accused persons admitted their guilt and voluntarily pleaded guilty. Hence, the accused no(s) 1. Tukaram Kondiba Bavdhane, Occupation - Agriculturist, 2.Baban Shivram Gauare, Occupation - Truck Driver, 3. Gautam Kashinath Jadhav, Occupation - Truck Cleaner came to be convicted for the said offence and the muddemal i.e Truck No. MWU-9203 came to be forfeited to the State by judgment and order dated 24.02.1993 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Patan in Summary Case No. 220 of 1993. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the vehicle, hence he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1993 against the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate and prayed for return of the vehicle. Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1993 came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1993. Hence, this petition. 4. The record clearly shows that the truck was used in the offence. During pendency of this petition, as a plea was made by the petitioner to return the vehicle, by way of interim order dated 21.04.1994, this Court directed return of truck to the petitioner on his furnishing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 2 Lacs to the trial Court. This Court also imposed condition that the petitioner shall keep the 3.wp622-94 3 vehicle insured and shall furnish the particulars thereof to the investigating agency and renew the insurance from time to time and that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required. 5. In order dated 25.01.2010 passed in this petition, this Court observed as under: 3. His Lordship Mr. D.G. Karnik, J noted on 10th November, 2009 that there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that the truck was insured, kept in working condition and being piled by the petitioner Pravin Govindrao Shinde. Therefore, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Karnik directed that the vehicle should be produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan, Dist. Satara for investigation. The petitioner should produce original/photocopy of insurance policy. A date was stipulated for such production and appearance. 4. It is with great regret that the Court noted on 10th December 2009 that despite this Court's clear direction, the vehicle was not produced and the petitioner did not comply with this Court's order. Therefore, a warrant for attachment of the truck and a bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. Pursuant to the bailable warrant, the petitioner appeared before this Court on 18th January, 2010 and tendered unconditional apology. He stated that the matter was handled by his father. His father has expired and therefore, the 3.wp622-94 4 documents in relation to the truck could not be produced. 5. A request was made for adjournment on the ground that the documents would be produced which request was granted. The matter was adjourned to 25.01.2010. 6. On 25.01.2010, instead of producing the documents and making clear statement with regard to the vehicle and its present condition, an affidavit is filed seeking four weeks' time. This is not an affidavit but another application for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute that he is owner of the truck bearing no. MWU-9203. He is a registered owner of the truck. However, he is unable to throw any light as to where the truck is and in what condition. After pointing out that the matters were handled by his father and he has now expired, it is stated orally and across the bar that the vehicle may be lying with one of the friends of the father. 7. Such conduct of the petitioner and filing of repeated applications for adjournment without any regard or respect for Court's order demonstrates that the petitioner is not worthy of any equitable and discretionary relief. The petitioner has clearly misused the opportunity granted by this Court. Despite imposing condition on him, he has failed to comply with them. The petitioner needs to be told in clearest terms that the conditions are imposed by this Court in its order and 3.wp622-94 5 therefore, violation thereof amounts to contempt of this Court. Prima facie, the petitioner appears to be guilty of contempt of this Court's order. The discretionary and equitable relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed off by the litigants who approach this Court with clean hands. They should not suppress relevant and material facts from this Court. The least that is expected from them is to state the truth before the Court and come out with clear explanations in case they desire any further equitable relief. Even now, the petitioner does not seem to be interested in complying with this Court's order. He is repeatedly seeking adjournments. 6. By way of last chance, on 25.01.2010, the petitioner was given one final opportunity to comply with this Court's order,therefore he was directed to remain present before the concerned Magistrate at Patan and to produce all documents and records pertaining to the vehicle including its present whereabouts,details of the person who is plying it etc. He was directed to remain present before the learned Magistrate on 29.01.2010 at 11.00 a.m. This Court observed in the order dated 25.01.2010 that failure on the part of the petitioner would result in dismissal of the petition. However it is observed that even though a final opportunity was given to the petitioner on 29.01.2010, he did not remain present before the learned Magistrate with all the documents and 3.wp622-94 6 records pertaining to the vehicle including its present whereabouts and the details of person who is plying it etc. He has also not produced any document before the learned Magistrate on that day. On the other hand, he has preferred an application wherein it is stated that his father has given the vehicle to his friend one Mr. Sikandar Kalal, resident of Koynanagar and the applicant prayed for issuance of summons to Sikandar Kalal. 7. The learned Magistrate in order dated 29.01.2010 has observed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck bearing No. MWU-9203. Letter issued by R.T.O. Office Ratnagiri on 16.01.2010 also reveals this fact. Though the petitioner - applicant was directed by this Court on 25.01.2010 to appear before the learned Magistrate and produce all the documents and record pertaining to the vehicle, its present whereabouts and the details of person who is plying it, the petitioner has failed to do so. Looking to all these facts, the learned Magistrate, Ratnagiri has rejected the application of the petitioner. It may be stated that the learned District Magistrate had on 18.12.2009 already directed for attachment of the truck as per section 83 of Cr.P.C. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that vehicle was given 3.wp622-94 7 to Mr. Sikandar Kalal of Koynanagar, in such case, at least the petitioner should have produced documents relating to the vehicle. Though the vehicle still stands in his name, there is nothing on record to indicate that the truck was insured and kept in working condition by the petitioner. Thus, it is seen that though the petitioner was given a final opportunity to comply with the Court's order, he failed to do so. Moreover, he and his advocate has continuously remained absent before this Court also. Hence, in view of the order dated 25.01.2010 and in view of above facts, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Rule discharged. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3.wp622-94