JAYPALSINH J MANGROLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.Manisha Shah, learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1. With the consent of the parties, both these applications are taken up for final disposal today. These are the cases where the applicants have tried to stall the investigation and successfully avoided the order of remand passed by learned Magistrate against one of the applicants. Few facts of the case are required to be noted. The concerned Police Inspector of Bharuch Police Station instituted a complaint being C.R. No.II - 59/2003 before the Hansot Police Station, District Bharuch, against the applicant " Jaypalsinh J. Mangrola and two other accused. As per the said complaint, on investigation of four water tankers which were stationary at Ambika Kerosene Depot, it was found that two tankers were having solvent and two tankers were having kerosene. As per the complaint, solvent worth Rs.65,000/- was found, while kerosene worth Rs.45,000/- was found. It was also noted that aforesaid articles were tried to be transported without appropriate license as required under the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, it is presumed that it must have been transported for the purpose of black-marketing. After seizing the tankers, samples of the articles contained therein were taken for the purpose of sending it to Forensic Science Laboratory and complaint was registered under Section 307 of the Essential Commodities Act against the applicant, who was alleged to be the owner of the tankers in question, and other accused persons. It seems that the applicant had obtained the order of anticipatory bail from the competent Court and, thereafter, the investigating agency moved the competent Court for the purpose of getting remand of the applicant. The learned Magistrate granted remand of the applicant, which order was confirmed in revision by the Sessions Court and even a Special Criminal Application preferred before this Court challenging the order of the Sessions Court was withdrawn unconditionally by the applicant. At the stage, when the police was trying to arrest the applicant and was trying to take him on remand for further interrogation, the applicant has filed this application for quashing F.I.R. by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Prior to filing of this application, one Ritesh Rakeshkumar Bhavsar, had filed Special Criminal Application No.261 of 2004 before this Court and has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R. (the F.I.R., which is the subject matter of earlier Special Criminal Application), on the ground that he is the owner of the tankers in question and that the police wants to book him in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. and therefore, it is prayed that aforesaid F.I.R. may be quashed. It is also the contention of the said applicant that even though he is the owner of the tankers and though he has not played any role in the commission of the alleged offence the police wants to book him. So far as this application is concerned, learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing notice has stayed further investigation of the aforesaid complaint.

(2.) Thereafter, the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.204 of 2005 has filed present Special Criminal Application by annexing the aforesaid order. Since entire investigation was stayed by the order passed in Special Criminal Application No.261 of 2004, the investigating agency has not proceeded any further with the investigation and as a result thereof, practically the remand order of the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.204 of 2005, granted by the learned Magistrate and confirmed upto this High Court, could not see the light of the day. This shows the ingenuity on the part of the applicant. The applicant has not uttered even a single word about granting of remand by learned Magistrate and confirmation of that order by this Court in the memo of Special Criminal Application No.204 of 2005. So far as the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.261 of 2004 is concerned, the applicant has applied for releasing the tankers on the ground that he is the owner of said tankers. This was done obviously with a view to save the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.204 of 2005 from remand and also from any further proceedings. The learned Magistrate being unaware of the motive of the applicants has released the tankers by, prima facie, observing that the applicant is the real owner of the said tankers.

(3.) At time of hearing, learned Single Judge of this Court has passed following common order in both these applications on 13-4-2005.