(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3992 of 2011 1. Shashikant s/o. Dasrao Fatak, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kalamb, Taluka : Kalamb, District : Osmanabad. 2. Kalidas s/o. Rambhau Jadhav, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kanerwadi, Taluka : Kalamb, District : Osmanabad. .. Applicants. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Kasar Shirsi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Latur, District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. (2) ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 3007/2011, registered at Police Station, Kasar Shirsi (Taluka : Nilanga, District : Osmanabad), for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Prakash s/o. Bhaurao Shinde, on 17-6-2011, alleging that the wheat totalling 615 quintals, worth Rs. 9,22,500/-, was being transported by the respective truck drivers in three trucks bearing registration Nos. MH-25/U-4421, MH-25/U-5921 and (3) MH-25/U-7121. However, it is alleged that the said wheat which was being transported, was belonging to Government and meant for ration, and it was being carried for sale in black market, and the respective truck drivers were not in possession of any documents pertaining to the said goods. The applicants herein claimed ownership of the said goods i.e. wheat and it is stated that within one hour after seizure of the said goods, the applicants approached the concerned Police Station and showed the bills thereof to the investigating agency, and the applicants claimed themselves to be commission agents. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants has canvassed that the names of the applicants have not been reflected in the FIR, and there are no allegations against the applicants to connect them with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the seized goods are in the custody of the Police personnel and the applicants are ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation, and urged that the interim protection granted to them be confirmed on the condition of giving attendance. It is also submitted that the applicants are businessmen and they are having reputation in the society, and they would cooperate in the investigation, and accordingly, learned Counsel for the applicants urged that the present Application be allowed. (4) 5. Learned APP, for the respondents, countered the said arguments and opposed the present Application vehemently, and submitted that the seizure of the wheat in huge quantity i.e. 615 quintals, worth Rs. 9,22,500/-, was effected on 17-6-2011, and the alleged bills produced by the applicants pertain to the period from 24-9-2010 to 26-11-2010 i.e. about eight months back, and there is nothing on record to show that the said bills belong to the seized quantity of goods. Moreover, it is also pointed out by the learned APP, that the truck drivers who were along with the said goods, could not produce the documents of the said wheat which was being transported and could not produce lorry receipts thereof, showing names of the applicants as owners of the said goods, and hence, he submitted that there is no substance in the arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicants, and thorough investigation is required to be carried out, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary, and accordingly, urged that the present Application be dismissed. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it is apparent from the contents of the complaint that the truck drivers, who were along with the said goods i.e. wheat, could not produce the documents pertaining to the wheat which was being transported in the respective trucks. Moreover, the said truck drivers also could not produce the lorry receipts showing the names of the (5) applicants as owners of the said goods. In fact, the lorry receipts would have disclosed the destination of the said goods and names of the owners of the said goods which were being transported. But in the instant case, the truck drivers could not produce the lorry receipts at the time of seizure of the said goods, and the said inaction on the part of the truck drivers speaks volumes for itself. Moreover, the bills produced by the applicants along with the present Application pertain to the period from 24-9-2010 to 26-11-2010, for the goods allegedly purchased by the applicants from Food Corporation of India. But there is no nexus between the said goods and goods seized at the time of seizure since the said bills pertain to 8 - 9 months back prior to the seizure, and apparently, there is nothing on record to establish that the goods mentioned in the said bills and the goods seized at the time of seizure are one and the same. Besides, the seized goods appear to have origin of the State of Punjab, and therefore, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that the goods purchased by the applicants, as mentioned in the aforesaid bills, were the same which were found in the trucks. 7. In the circumstances, having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering the accusations made against the applicants, and nature and gravity thereof, apparently, there is prima facie case against the applicants, and therefore, their (6) custodial interrogation is imperative for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective, and hence, present Application deserves to be rejected and interim protection granted to the applicants, by order dated 23rd September 2011, is required to be vacated. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed, and interim protection granted to the applicants, by order of this Court dated 23rd September 2011, stands vacated, and present Criminal Application is disposed of finally. 9. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3992