PARSOTTAMLAL BANWARILAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sabnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.M. Vyas, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. Perused the relevant papers of investigation tendered by the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court.

(2.) On a complaint alleged to have been lodged in the year 1984 in respect of a theft of certain gold ornaments, though in fact about 10 different complaints came to be lodged with the police by 10 different persons though the allegations are similar, the principal accused who is alleged to have committed the theft is already arrested. The role attributed to the present petitioner is to the effect that he is alleged to have purchased some gold ornaments from the principal accused and obviously there was likelihood that he is being involved in an offence of receiving the stolen property as sought to be spelt out. The petitioner accused comes out with a specific case that on two occasions the principal accused had visited his shop and sold certain ornaments for which he had paid almost the market price and for which several documents were brought into existence including receipts and vouchers and register also mentioned the said transactions. He had then got those ornaments melted officially and those are also incorporated in the register.

(3.) He is resident of Calcutta and it is an admitted position that police visited his shop, interrogated him when he is alleged to have disclosed some transactions in pursuance of which police already attached all the documents including the receipts, vouchers and registers. Police now claim that it may be that the petitioner is involved in more transactions than what he has disclosed and ornaments and gold in different shapes is yet to be recovered. These are obviously vague allegations. The police have already visited the shop and attached relevant documents and they can have further search of the residence and shop as advised. In respect of the complaint of 1984 it would not be proper to deny bail to the petitioner at the end of the year 1985. Interest of the prosecution can be safe-guarded if the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that this should be done for seven days to which the learned counsel is agreeable.