(1) CRI.APP. 4637.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4637 OF 2010 Sachin S/o Subhash Pitale, Age : 77 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Adgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Respondents ... Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for anticipatory bil. 2. Heard. 3. On 2.11.2010, at about 1.00 pm. Tata brand Tempo vehicle bearing no. MH-16-AE-1446 was intercepted by the District Quality Control Inspector. There were 100 gunny bags loaded in the tempo vehicle. The bags were of suphala brand (2) CRI.APP. 4637.2010 fertilizers, containing 50 Kg. fertilizers in each of them. The tempo driver by name Annasaheb Gaikwad was interrogated but he did not reveal the name of the owner of the bags and gave no information. It appears that subsequently, name of the applicant was revealed as the fertilizer trader from whom the bags were purchased without issuance of invoice/bill and were loaded in the tempo vehicle with oblique intention to sell the same in the black market. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant was not disclosed immediately and belated disclosure is shown only with a view to harass the applicant on basis of suspicion. It is contended that arrest of the applicant is not required because the entire stock is seized. It is argued that the applicant is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and, therefore, he may be granted protection under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate. (3) CRI.APP. 4637.2010 5. The stand taken by the applicant before the trial Court was that his name was included due to business rivalry/jealousy. It appears that the applicant was having license to run the business only uptil 9th January, 2011. The plea of the applicant that his name is disclosed by the driver of the Tempo vehicle due to business rivalry is in the shape of his defence which does not get corroboration. The applicant alleges that his stock was checked subsequently and no infirmity was found. This allegation is not corroborated by any inspection report as such. It is true that the driver of the tempo vehicle did not disclose name of the applicant as the person who loaded the fertilizer bags in the tempo vehicle, immediately after the arrest and there is delay in the discovery. This is but natural because the driver is under the thumb of the master or the person with whom he has to work. The applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief as prayed for. Hence, the Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp