1 Cri.Appln.No.881/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.881/2006 Vilas s/o Keshavrao Autade Age: 30 Yrs., occu.Business, R/o II No.52, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad. = PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Police Inspector, Karmad Police Station, Karmad, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad. 3) Maruti s/o Sakharam Survase Age: 55 Yrs., occu. Service, as Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, City Range V, Aurangabad-I Divn.= RESPONDENTS *** Mr.SM Godsay, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VD Godbharale, APP for Resp.Nos.1 & 2; None for Respondent No.3 ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 18th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :A.H.JOSHI,J.) 1) Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for Respondent Nos.1 2 Cri.Appln.No.881/2006 and 2. Perused the record. 2) It is seen that the company belonged to the petitioner owed Excise Duty dues payable to the Central Excise Department. The petitioner had failed to clear the excise dues, the Excise Department had confiscated the plant and machinery belonging to the petitioner. 3) It is alleged that the petitioner had moved the plant and machinery, which was seized by the Excise department and disposed of the same without prior intimation to the said Department. 4) In the present Criminal Application, the petitioner has challenged the FIR as well as charge sheet. 5) By way of grounds of challenge, it is urged that the machinery, subject matter, was hypothecated to the bank and the machinery has been sold with intervention of the Bank. 6) The grounds put-forth by the petitioner for quashing of FIR and charge sheet, are in the nature of defence. 7) In fact, it was open to the petitioner to have placed all these points before the 3 Cri.Appln.No.881/2006 Investigating Officer, and had it been done, in that event, the result would have been different. 8) Even now, it is open to the petitioner to put up his defence when the matter proceeds in the trial court. 9) In view of this, the petitioner to resort to the remedies, as is available in law. 10) Rule discharged. Interim stay granted by this Court stands vacated. Sd/- sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/