IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 731 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 731 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 731 OF 2008 Prashant Damodhar Katkade. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. S.K.Shinde i/b. Sagar Kasar for the applicant. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 29th April 2008. DATED: 29th April 2008. DATED: 29th April 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.3014/2008 registered with Manmad City Police Station, Manmad for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The factual matrix gone in the order of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th March, 2008 are not in dispute as such need not be reproduced. In the investigation, it is revealed that one Chandrashekhar Chhajed deals in illegal selling of gas cylinders at Chandvad. The applicant is running Gas Agency at Manmad. Accused No.2 is the Manager of the applicant’s Gas Agency. The statements of the witnesses produced before the Court show prima facie involvement of the applicant. It also appears that the applicant has entered into partnership with one Shri Ramesh Kantilal Parekh of M/s.Manmad Gas Agency for running business of distribution of gas cylinders. The arrangement made in the form of partnership needs investigation to connect the applicant with the offence alleged. The statement made by Rajesh Parekh in this behalf also needs to be investigated. Thus the necessity of custodial investigation cannot be ruled out. The Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. v. C.B.I. v. C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma Anil Sharma Anil Sharma, 1997 (7) SCC 187, ruled that custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well protected under the umbrella of section 438 of Cr.P.C. 4. Having heard rival parties, in my view, there is sufficient prima facie material available on record to investigate the offence alleged against the present applicant. In this view of the matter, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE