bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 8578 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO. 8578 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO. 8578 OF 2005 Pintoo Janardhan Rai ... Applicant v/s State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Amin Solkar i/by Mr.Mohan Tekavade for the applicant. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 27TH JUNE, 2008 27TH JUNE, 2008 27TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This application challenges the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Chiplun, taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet No.87 of 2005. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that he was a driver and had no role to play in the alleged offences committed by the owner of the vehicle under Section 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The vehicle driven by the applicant was seized. Thereafter he was arrested after the investigations were complete. Section 3 of the Essencial Commodities Act empowers the Central Government to control the production, supply, distribution etc. of the essential commodities. The vehicle was allegedly used for transporting solvent petroleum when it was seized by the 2 Central Excise Department. 2. An application for discharge was filed by the applicant. Both the Courts below have rejected the application. In my view, there is no error in rejecting the application for discharge especially since the role attributed to the applicant is that he was illegaly ferrying the solvent petroleum in the vehicle. The learned advocate for the applicant relies on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Bijaya Bijaya Bijaya Kumar Kumar Kumar Agarwala v/s State of Orissa, reported in 1996 Agarwala v/s State of Orissa, reported in 1996 Agarwala v/s State of Orissa, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. Cri.L.J. Cri.L.J. 3577, 3577, 3577, to submit that storing of goods would not include transporting of goods per se. 3. In my view, it would not be proper to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant in this application especially since the owner, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1824 of 2005, has failed in his writ petition as it was dismissed. The present applicant was driving the vehicle without having a valid licence in respect of the material contained in the track. 4. Criminal application rejected. 5. The trial Court will obviously not be influenced by 3 the observations made in this order. Trial expedited.