1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2450 OF 2009 Shridharrao S/o Raghunath Mundhe and another. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. *** Mr. S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. 1. Heard both the counsel extensively. The Application for production of document, moved by the Accused/ applicants is allowed. The documents are perused. The police papers are furnished by the learned A.P.P. 2. Though it was canvassed that the purchases by the Accused/ applicant are valid and legally enforceable purchases and the goods seized from the godown of the Accused/ applicant could not be said to be the prohibited food grains meant for public distribution system, however, the record, at this stage, rebels against the Accused/ applicant. The seizure Panchanama in unequivocal terms indicate that the bags had the marking of F.C.I. of other State (M. P.), stitching material, the details of other goods also require investigation. The role of the government authorities, is found dubious by the investigator as different 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. versions are made by the revenue authorities. The raid arranged, was under the specific direction of Superintendent of Police, carried by the Deputy Superintendent of Police with the competent persons and Pancha. It also cannot be said to be an infraction of any of the provisions. Consequently, I do not see any merit in the pre-arrest bail application. It is rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:28/07/2009. ans/2450