1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2009 Sou. Rajani Shripad Bhat ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale for the applicant. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 12th March, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant is a Proprietor of the Firm M/s. Pure Paints. On 6/10/2008, the Controller of Rationing, F Region, Thane, raided the factory premises of the applicant and seized all the drums containing Mineral Terpentine Oil as well as synthetic Enamel Thinner from the factory premises of the applicant and an offence was registered against the husband of the applicant under Essential Commodities Act and various other provisions for violation of Rationing Order and Kerosene Order, 1966. Pursuant to the said complaint which was filed against the husband of the applicant, the husband was arrested and panchanama was prepared and the articles were seized. Subsequently, supplementary complaint has 2 been filed in which it is stated that the applicant being the Proprietor of the said Firm, criminal proceedings should be initiated against her. The present application has, therefore, been filed in this Court directly as the applicant apprehends that if an application is filed in Sessions Court and upon her application being dismissed, she may be forthwith arrested. Though, normally, the application is first preferred in the Sessions Court and, thereafter, in this Court, it is a well settled position in law that the application which is filed directly in this Court is also maintainable in view of the specific provision of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I am satisfied that, in the present case, the applicant who is a lady and who is the Proprietor of the Firm, though the business is carried on by her husband, is justified in her apprehension that if her application for anticipatory bail is rejected by the Sessions Court, she may be arrested forthwith by the police. 3. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the applicant's husband has been carrying on the said business for last 15 years, though the applicant has been shown as the Proprietor. She has never taken active participation in the said business. Applicant's husband was arrested and later on he has been released on bail. All the said goods have been seized. It is an admitted position that the applicant is not a dealer in kerosene and does not deal in sale of kerosene and, therefore, the question of illegally stocking kerosene in her factory does not arise. The Firm 3 manufactures paints and in the raid which was conducted, kerosene was found in the drums which contained Mineral Terpentine Oil as well as synthetic Enamel Thinner. A proper panchanama has been made and the relevant samples have been sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis. This being the position, custodial interrogation of the applicant, in my view, is not necessary, firstly, because she is a lady. Secondly, the business is carried on by her husband and she is only the Proprietor for the name sake. 4. Applicant, therefore, in the event of her arrest in connection with the offence registered by Manpada Police Station vide C.R. No. II-56 of 2008 for the offence punishable funder sections 3, 7, 8, 10 of Essential Commodities Act and for violation of the Maharashtra Dealer Food Grain Rationing Order 1966 and under section 3 of the Maharashtra Dealer Kerosene Rationing Order, 1966 and under section 2(1), M 15, 16(A) of the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate & Slap (Licensing) Order, 2007, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall cooperate with the Police and shall report to the police station as and when called. Applicant, if called by the police, be called between 11.00 a.m and 2.00 p.m. 5. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)