SARJERAO LIMBAJI RATHOD Vs. SUKHADEO KRISHNARAO KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal application is under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12/4/1996, passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Ambejogai, in criminal revision application no. 7 of 1996 whereby he has set aside the order dated 29/2/1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambejogai on Exhibit 1 in Misc. Criminal application No.23 of 1996, moved by the present respondent no. 1. THE additional sessions Judge vide order dated 12/4/1996, directed the present petitioner to hand over the custody of the truck bearing No. MXL 7794 to the respondent no. 1 and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal application before this court.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that, on 2/1/1996, the present respondent no. 1 had brought his above mentioned truck to Ambejogai for some work. The said truck was parked near petrol pump. The present petitioner Sarjerao Kadam, at the relevant time, was the agricultural Officer serving in Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana. The present petitioner, security Officer Sahastrabudhe, Watchman Changude and Mahadik and other driver Maroti had asked the respondent no. 1 to come with them for some work. They had taken the truck on Beed Road. On reaching near Channel Pati, they had threatened the Driver and cleaner of the truck and had made them to sit in a jeep. They had, then taken the truck to Adinath Sugar factory, Shelgaon Bhalvani. It was taken in the premises of the sugar factory and parked there. They had, in threatened the respondent and signature on bonds,blank papers, some documents etc. This was done on or about 4/1/1996. The respondent was kept confined till 28/1/1996. He was, thereafter, released, when the respondent demanded the truck in question, that was refused and hence the respondent no. 1, thereafter had gone to the police station, Jaur and had given a report there. However, the police had not taken any action against present petitioner and others. The respondent No.1 had filed the application bearing Misc. criminal application No.23 of 1996 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate first class in which the respondent no. 1 has requested the search warrant be issued and the truck be restored in his possession. The Judicial Magistrate first class, after hearing both the parties rejected Misc. criminal application NO. 23 of 1996 of the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 19/12/1996.

(3.) IN order to a ppreciate and consider the scheme of section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary for me to consider the provisions of section 94 of Code of Criminal procedure. From the perusal of the provisions of section 94 of the Code Criminal Procedure, it is clear that, if a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Magistrate of the First Class, upon information and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that any place is used for the deposit or sale of stolen properly, or for the deposit, sale or production of any objectionable article to which this section applies, or that any such objectionable article is deposited in any place, he may warrant authorise any police officer above the rank of a constable - a)to enter, with such assistance as may be required, such place. b)to search the same in the manner specified in the warrant. c)to take possession of any property or article therein found which he reasonably suspects to be stolen property or objectionable article to which this section applies. d)to convey such property or article before a Magistrate, or to guard the same on the spot until the offender is taken before Magistrate, or otherwise to dispute of it in some place of safety. e)to take into custody and carry before a Magistrate, every person found in such place who appears to have been privy to the deposit, sale or production of any such property or article knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect it to be stolen property or as the case may be, objectionable article to which this section applies. IN the light of this provision and in view of the judgment of this court quoted above, the magistrate is entitled to exercise power under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after taking into consideration the necessary ingredients of this section, without there being any criminal case or proceeding pending in any court.