- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2111 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2111 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2111 OF 2008 Ashok Ratanchand Jain ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.M.S.Mohite i/b Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioner Ms S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MAY 6,2009 : MAY 6,2009 : MAY 6,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Mohite, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offences under sections 170, 420, 342, 365, 413 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the co accused. An application for discharge was made by the petitioner (accused no.3) before the Sessions Court. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 19th September 2008. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that section 413 of the Penal Code will be attracted provided charge sheet discloses that the accused is habitually receiving the stolen property. He submitted that there is no material placed in that behalf. He submitted that the applicant has never been convicted for receiving stolen property. He submitted that the property allegedly received by the applicant cannot be termed as stolen property within the meaning of section 410 of the Indian Penal Code. The - 2 - learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Case of Chandmal V/s State of Rajsthan (1976 Cr.L.J. 679). 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the material forming part of the charge sheet, it is very difficult to disturb the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The material produced on record shows that accused no.2 is a diamond broker. The accused persons handed over diamonds in two packets to a witness Mr.Jasani. One Mr.Jitu Sorthia introduced the said Mr.Jasani to one Mr.Ramesh Patel who is a diamond broker. According to the prosecution case, the said Ramesh knew that the present petitioner as purchaser of stolen diamonds. The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid three persons met the petitioner. The petitioner was told about the fact that the diamonds were stolen and thereafter, after making valuation thereof, he purchased the stolen property. There are statements of witnesses recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 which record that the petitioner had purchased stolen diamonds. There is material on record to show that the petitioner had earlier purchased stolen property. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that to attract section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the petitioner was earlier convicted for - 3 - receiving stolen property. 4. At the stage when the court considers the application for discharge, a detail scrutiny of evidence cannot be made. Only question to be considered at this stage is whether there is material to proceed against the petitioner. I find that there is material to proceed against the petitioner. 5. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE