SHANTILAL DAMJI SAWLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Shri Galeria, the learned A.P.P. waives service of rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) BY this application the petitioner accused has prayed for anticipatory bail. Alongwith the application the petitioner has annexed order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Judge dated 9-7-1999 on an application filed by the petitioner being Anticipatory Bail Application No.1088 of 1999 wherein the learned Judge has, on considering the application of the applicant and considering the prosecution case, rejected the application by observing that the applicant cannot claim to be absolutely innocent or innocent of the activities of the drivers and cleaners who are in fact his employees and the rations which are being siphoned off resulting in great loss not only to the Government but also to the public who are deprived of essential commodities. Immediately thereafter the petitioner has moved this court and as per order passed by this court while receiving notice on 14-7-1999 by directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on 15-7-1999 between 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and also directing him to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and till then this court has protected the petitioner by passing order not to arrest the petitioner. The application for anticipatory bail is moved at the instance of the applicant as he apprehends his arrest in respect of the offence registered under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Maharashtra Food Grain Rationing Act, 1966 and under sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Bombay Rationing Area Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) 1986 and under sections 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with sections 407, 120-B I.P.C. on the complaint filed by the Rationing Officer against several accused who are drivers, cleaners of trucks employed by the present petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of the transport company. As per complaint, the drivers and cleaners have disposed of some quantity of grain by transporting from the Government godown to the ration shop. The real persons viz. the drivers and cleaners of the truck and the receiver of the goods have already been arrested. The affidavit in reply is filed by the Assistant Police Inspector opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail and while giving details about the case, according to him the petitioner has obtained contract from the Director of Civil Supplies for transporting the foodgrains from F.C.I. godown to Spring Mill Godown, Naigaon. The petitioner has his transport business named as Nootan Transport Company. As per the agreement between the petitioner transport company and the Director of Civil Supplies, all the three trucks seized during investigation found that the foodgrains from F.C.I. to Springmill Godown and during the transit they unloaded and illegally sold foodgrains to Shri Rajesh Madhav. These trucks belong to the present petitioner and even the investigation shows that the petitioner has taken those trucks on contract from different persons and according to the Investigating Officer, he is the only person who is responsible for the entire transaction of transportation of foodgrains from F.C.I. godown to Spring Mill Godown, Naigaon. He has also given details that in all 610 wheat-bags for supply to rationing shop of different areas were given for transportation to Spring Mill Godown, Naigaon out of which three bags of wheat containing 100 kg. of bag were unloaded from truck No. MCU 2031, 6 bags containing 50 kg. per bag from Truck No.MH 04/P 2280 and 4 bags containing 230 kg. from Truck No.MHB 4145 by the accused persons at Juni Bavan Chawl, Tukaram Bhikaji Kadam Marg, Kala Chowky, Mumbai. According to the Investigating Officer, the petitioner was wanted in the aforesaid crime and he was searched at his residence but was not found. He has also highlighted about the application moved praying for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and even thereafter to this court. As per the order passed by this court, he has also narrated that the applicant had appeared before him as directed by this court and he was interrogated. However, according to him, looking to the offence committed, he required custodial interrogation of the petitioner and prayed for rejection of the application for anticipatory bail.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts of the prosecution case, this court is inclined to release the applicant accused on anticipatory bail by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the accused, he is ordered to be released on bail for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner is directed not to leave the local limit of Maharashtra without permission of the Investigating Officer. The application is accordingly allowed in the above terms.