In order to establish the charge of Section 406 of IPC, it
was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the material
which was seized under panchnama (Exhibit24)
was the material
initially manufactured by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals run by PW2.
Secondly, it was required to be established that the same material
was sold by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals to Shrikrishna Feeds and
thirdly that it was given in the custody of the present respondent –
accused No.1 and fourthly that the respondent – accused No.1 had
sold the same articles to PW4
Sukhdeo Mane. It must be said that
said link as to manufacture of said articles by Sunrise
Pharmaceuticals and purchase of the same by Shrikrishna Feeds
has not been cognately established. Moreover there is nothing
brought on record during the substantive evidence of PW3
Harshkumar Sawant of Shrikrishna Feeds that the said stock was
given in custody by the present respondent – accused No.1. Even
the stock register was not produced though admittedly each and
every product was bearing batch number etc... Further more as
mentioned earlier it is not a case that said articles, which were
seized under the panchnama Exhibit24,
were recovered at the
instance of the respondents.
As such, considering the effect of the substantive
evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion as to non
establishment of the case against both the accused and rightly so in
the considered view of this Court looking to the evidence brought
before the trial Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant
(Orig.Complainant)
Versus
Prakash Shrinivas Ghalsasi,
CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 3rd NOVEMBER, 2014
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1319
1. Heard rival submissions on earlier date and also today on
this Criminal Appeal preferred by the State challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal of the present respondents dated
7.10.2003 in Regular Criminal Case No.309 of 1997.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, both the present
respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 406 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case in nutshell is as under :
Some cattle feed and other chemicals used in poultry
were being manufactured by one Sunrise Pharmaceuticals firm run
by PW1
Ramesh. One Sukhdeo Mane a poultry owner (PW4)
and
also another company by name Shrikrishan Feeds were the
purchasers of said poultry products. Sometime in May, 1997
Shrikrishna Feeds purchased various poultry feed chemicals and
medicines. In the month of May, 1997 on two occasions said
medicines were purchased. Thereafter about a month later
Sukhedo Mane (PW4)
approached Sunrise Pharmaceuticals and
met PW2
the owner of the said firm. Said Sukhdeo Mane offered
PW2
to purchase some poultry feed material in boxes / bottles
and in lieu asked for some other material known as mineral
mixture. Noticing the said bottles and boxes which were eight in
number, PW2
entertained a doubt that they were in fact
manufactured by their company and how said Sukhdeo Mane was
selling them back to the manufacturer. Accordingly on getting
more information as to whom said stock was sold, he found that it
was sold to another customer Shrikrishna Feeds and as such he
made a telephone call to the office of Shrikrishna Feeds and
narrated the things. Thereafter at Shrikrishna Feeds enquiries
were made and it was found out that the stock of poultry feed
and other chemicals purchased from Sunrise Pharmaceuticals
have been misused and sold by the present respondent No.1.
According to the case of the prosecution said respondent
No.1/original accused No.1 was the employee of Shrikrishna Feeds
and was incharge
of the stocks. As such, knowing the activities of
the respondent / accused No.1, Harshakumar Sawant an officer
from Shrikrishna Feeds filed a complaint to the police which is
Exhibit28.
As such, enquiries were made by the police and said
Sukhdeo Mane was brought to the police station. He produced
eight bottles/bags and which were taken charge of under the
panchnama in which PW1
panch Vitthal Vaidya took part. Said
panchnama (Exhibit24)
was before the Court. Admittedly it is not
a panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and it was the
panchnama regarding the articles produced by PW4
Sukhdeo
Mane. On the strength of FIR lodged by PW2,
investigation was
conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
present respondents.
4. During the trial total five witnesses were examined.
Finding the evidence led before the trial Court deficient to attract
the provisions of Section 406 read with Section 34 of IPC, the trial
Court acquitted both the accused / present respondents of the said
charges. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, present
appeal came to be filed.
5. In order to establish the charge of Section 406 of IPC, it
was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the material
which was seized under panchnama (Exhibit24)
was the material
initially manufactured by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals run by PW2.
Secondly, it was required to be established that the same material
was sold by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals to Shrikrishna Feeds and
thirdly that it was given in the custody of the present respondent –
accused No.1 and fourthly that the respondent – accused No.1 had
sold the same articles to PW4
Sukhdeo Mane. It must be said that
said link as to manufacture of said articles by Sunrise
Pharmaceuticals and purchase of the same by Shrikrishna Feeds
has not been cognately established. Moreover there is nothing
brought on record during the substantive evidence of PW3
Harshkumar Sawant of Shrikrishna Feeds that the said stock was
given in custody by the present respondent – accused No.1. Even
the stock register was not produced though admittedly each and
every product was bearing batch number etc... Further more as
mentioned earlier it is not a case that said articles, which were
seized under the panchnama Exhibit24,
were recovered at the
instance of the respondents.
6. As such, considering the effect of the substantive
evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion as to non
establishment of the case against both the accused and rightly so in
the considered view of this Court looking to the evidence brought
before the trial Court. In the result, there is nothing to entertain
the present appeal and to view the case in different perspective so
as to convict the respondent – accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the
result, there is no merit in the present appeal preferred by the
State challenging the acquittal. Hence, Criminal Appeal is
accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Bail bonds of both the
accused stand cancelled.
(A. R. JOSHI, J.)
Print Page
was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the material
which was seized under panchnama (Exhibit24)
was the material
initially manufactured by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals run by PW2.
Secondly, it was required to be established that the same material
was sold by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals to Shrikrishna Feeds and
thirdly that it was given in the custody of the present respondent –
accused No.1 and fourthly that the respondent – accused No.1 had
sold the same articles to PW4
Sukhdeo Mane. It must be said that
said link as to manufacture of said articles by Sunrise
Pharmaceuticals and purchase of the same by Shrikrishna Feeds
has not been cognately established. Moreover there is nothing
brought on record during the substantive evidence of PW3
Harshkumar Sawant of Shrikrishna Feeds that the said stock was
given in custody by the present respondent – accused No.1. Even
the stock register was not produced though admittedly each and
every product was bearing batch number etc... Further more as
mentioned earlier it is not a case that said articles, which were
seized under the panchnama Exhibit24,
were recovered at the
instance of the respondents.
As such, considering the effect of the substantive
evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion as to non
establishment of the case against both the accused and rightly so in
the considered view of this Court looking to the evidence brought
before the trial Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant
(Orig.Complainant)
Versus
Prakash Shrinivas Ghalsasi,
CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 3rd NOVEMBER, 2014
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1319
1. Heard rival submissions on earlier date and also today on
this Criminal Appeal preferred by the State challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal of the present respondents dated
7.10.2003 in Regular Criminal Case No.309 of 1997.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, both the present
respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 406 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case in nutshell is as under :
Some cattle feed and other chemicals used in poultry
were being manufactured by one Sunrise Pharmaceuticals firm run
by PW1
Ramesh. One Sukhdeo Mane a poultry owner (PW4)
and
also another company by name Shrikrishan Feeds were the
purchasers of said poultry products. Sometime in May, 1997
Shrikrishna Feeds purchased various poultry feed chemicals and
medicines. In the month of May, 1997 on two occasions said
medicines were purchased. Thereafter about a month later
Sukhedo Mane (PW4)
approached Sunrise Pharmaceuticals and
met PW2
the owner of the said firm. Said Sukhdeo Mane offered
PW2
to purchase some poultry feed material in boxes / bottles
and in lieu asked for some other material known as mineral
mixture. Noticing the said bottles and boxes which were eight in
number, PW2
entertained a doubt that they were in fact
manufactured by their company and how said Sukhdeo Mane was
selling them back to the manufacturer. Accordingly on getting
more information as to whom said stock was sold, he found that it
was sold to another customer Shrikrishna Feeds and as such he
made a telephone call to the office of Shrikrishna Feeds and
narrated the things. Thereafter at Shrikrishna Feeds enquiries
were made and it was found out that the stock of poultry feed
and other chemicals purchased from Sunrise Pharmaceuticals
have been misused and sold by the present respondent No.1.
According to the case of the prosecution said respondent
No.1/original accused No.1 was the employee of Shrikrishna Feeds
and was incharge
of the stocks. As such, knowing the activities of
the respondent / accused No.1, Harshakumar Sawant an officer
from Shrikrishna Feeds filed a complaint to the police which is
Exhibit28.
As such, enquiries were made by the police and said
Sukhdeo Mane was brought to the police station. He produced
eight bottles/bags and which were taken charge of under the
panchnama in which PW1
panch Vitthal Vaidya took part. Said
panchnama (Exhibit24)
was before the Court. Admittedly it is not
a panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and it was the
panchnama regarding the articles produced by PW4
Sukhdeo
Mane. On the strength of FIR lodged by PW2,
investigation was
conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
present respondents.
4. During the trial total five witnesses were examined.
Finding the evidence led before the trial Court deficient to attract
the provisions of Section 406 read with Section 34 of IPC, the trial
Court acquitted both the accused / present respondents of the said
charges. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, present
appeal came to be filed.
5. In order to establish the charge of Section 406 of IPC, it
was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the material
which was seized under panchnama (Exhibit24)
was the material
initially manufactured by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals run by PW2.
Secondly, it was required to be established that the same material
was sold by Sunrise Pharmaceuticals to Shrikrishna Feeds and
thirdly that it was given in the custody of the present respondent –
accused No.1 and fourthly that the respondent – accused No.1 had
sold the same articles to PW4
Sukhdeo Mane. It must be said that
said link as to manufacture of said articles by Sunrise
Pharmaceuticals and purchase of the same by Shrikrishna Feeds
has not been cognately established. Moreover there is nothing
brought on record during the substantive evidence of PW3
Harshkumar Sawant of Shrikrishna Feeds that the said stock was
given in custody by the present respondent – accused No.1. Even
the stock register was not produced though admittedly each and
every product was bearing batch number etc... Further more as
mentioned earlier it is not a case that said articles, which were
seized under the panchnama Exhibit24,
were recovered at the
instance of the respondents.
6. As such, considering the effect of the substantive
evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion as to non
establishment of the case against both the accused and rightly so in
the considered view of this Court looking to the evidence brought
before the trial Court. In the result, there is nothing to entertain
the present appeal and to view the case in different perspective so
as to convict the respondent – accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the
result, there is no merit in the present appeal preferred by the
State challenging the acquittal. Hence, Criminal Appeal is
accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Bail bonds of both the
accused stand cancelled.
(A. R. JOSHI, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment