1 Cri.A.2109.11+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2109 OF 2011 Umesh Bansilal @ Bansisingh Gehlot Age 46 Years, Occup. Business R/o Flat No.4, Plot NO. 72 Sangit Nagar Banjara Niwas, Pinjutta, Hyderabad-58 (AP) ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, and others ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.N.B.Surywanshi, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2114 OF 2011 Vinayak Kashiram Sawant, Age 46 Years, Occup. Business R/o Jeevan Niwas, Nana Pawshe Chowk, Katemanily, Kalyan (E) Dist: Thane. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, and others ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.N.B.Surywanshi, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondents. CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2011. 2 Cri.A.2109.11+1 PER COURT : 1. Both the applications are filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No. 39 of 2011, registered with Mohadi Police Station, Dhule, District Dhule, for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Papers of investigation are made available by the learned APP. Both sides are heard. 3. Crime is registered on report of one Avinash Rajesingh Dabahade, Food Inspector. Papers show that when raid was effected at godown, from Dhule many boxes and pouches of Goa Gutka were found. Value of Gutka was more than 3.24 crores. Some boxes were found in godown and some boxes were found in trucks. It transpired that this production was not of Goa Gutka producer and false record was created to show that it was Goa Gutka. Trucks and boxes containing Gutka came to be seized. It transpired that this business was being done in the name of Company “Minakshi Food Products Pvt. Ltd.” It transpired during investigation that applicants from both proceedings were directors of this Company and applicant in second 3 Cri.A.2109.11+1 proceeding was taking care of the company business at Silvasa. There is allegation that false pouches and false record in respect of Goa Gutka were prepared. It is alleged that these articles were produced without obtaining production license. It is alleged that false record was created to save the taxes like vat and other taxes. It is alleged that false record is created by suppressing the material information in respect of this business. 4. For the applicant in first proceeding it was submitted that he had already sent resignation of Director ship of this company and copy of form No.32 allegedly sent to Registrar of company is produced to show that resignation was sent on 18.03.2011. But there is no record to show that this resignation reached at office of Registrar before the date of FIR. It is admitted that applicant from second proceeding was director of the company and looking after the affairs and day to day business of the company. 5. Defence of two applicants is that they were not involved in the business and they are falsely involved in the present crime. Whether they were involved or not in running the business can not be considered at this stage. Such companies are floated to make profit by wrongful means and there is allegation that they created false record. Though, Gutka worth more 4 Cri.A.2109.11+1 than three crores came to be recovered on the date of raid, then there is possibility that at other places also business was done by company. Offence is not only against Gao Gutka company, but it also involves fraud on Government. In view of the circumstance, this Court holds that it is not fit case for granting anticipatory bail to both the applicants. So, both the applications stand rejected. No interim relief. It is made clear that the above observations are only for the purpose of deciding the application for anticipatory bail and the same will not come in the way of trial Court while deciding the case. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK