1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4582 OF 2010 Haidarkhan S/o Rashidkhan Pathan ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. R.L. Kute, advocate for applicant Mr. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondents ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 2 nd December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks directions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. It appears that on basis of the secrete information that the premises of M/s Nav Maharashtra Transport Services were being misused for storage of blue coloured kerosene, which was actually meant for distribution through P.D.S. (Public Distribution System), and with a view to indulge in black marketing thereof. The Police carried out raid on the premises in the night between 30th and 31st August, 2010. At about past midnight, when the police party reached the premises, the room no.3 was found locked, and therefore, the party members were required to break open the lock 2 and entered the room. It was fond that there were four barrels comprising of 735 litrs of blue colour kerosene. The police informed the Tahsildar in respect of the raid. The Police thereafter recorded the statement of the Proprietor of M/s Nav Maharashtra Transport Services, namely, Mausin Umarkhan Pathan. He is nephew of the applicant. From his statement, it was gathered that the premises are situated in an agricultural land of the applicant and he was using the same. Consequently, the F.I.R. was lodged against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 r/w 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant has no concerned with M/s Nav Maharashtra Transport Services. He would further submit that the applicant is unconcerned with the business of transport service and yet is likely to be arrested without any substantial reason. The learned Advocate placed on record the duplicate copy of the registration certificate of M/s Nav Maharashtra Transport Services. Perusal of the said copy purports to show that the business is registered in the name of said transport service and the proprietor is shown as Sikandarkhan Rashidkhan Pathan. It is important to notice, however, that the copy of the registration certificate is only in respect of the year 1995-97 and 1998 to 2000. What happened 3 after the year 2000 and how the nephew of the applicant named him as Proprietor of the said business is the most relevant aspect. It is argued that the nephew of the applicant gave false information to the police on account of family dispute. There appears no whisper in the avernments and pleadings of the Petition about any dispute of the applicant and nephew. The nephew of the applicant did not produce the copy of 7/12 extract in support of his statement in order to show that the premises of M/s Nav Maharashtra Transport Services are situated in the land which is recorded in the name of applicant and in any case, at this stage, it is difficult to meticulously scan the evidence. Unless there is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant is innocent, discretionary and extra ordinary relief is unavailable to him. 4. In view of the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed. Ad-interim protection stands vacated. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri4582.10