Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1024 (BOM)

Chandrashekar Sing v. State of Maharashtra

2016-06-17

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Mr. Bajaj, learned Advocate for the petitioner who has criticized the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 22.03.2006 and the judgment of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 16.05.2006. Mr. Bajaj submits that both the orders are perverse, erroneous and unsustainable. The Magistrate could not have handed over the possession of the truck bearing No. MH34M2411 to the respondent Mr. Anilkumar Ramnagina Jaiswal and Mr. Avinash Ramnagina Jaiswal. He further submits that the “suprutnama” bond of Rs. 11,00,000/( Rs. eleven lac) is a meagre amount and hence the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 2. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Mantri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No. 4. Both the learned Advocates on the basis of the Rozanama (daily status) from the District Court Website pertaining to the pending cases, submit that the said case is still pending. 3. This Court, while issuing notice to the respondents on 13.07.2006, directed that the status-quo as on the date of the order of this Court, be maintained. Mr. Mantri categorically submits that the concerned truck is in the possession of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. It is confirmed by the learned Advocates representing the respective sides that Regular Criminal Case No.308 of 2006 is pending before the learned Magistrate at Aurangabad. 5. The order of status-quo passed by this Court is in force for practically 10 years. Proceedings before the learned Magistrate are pending from the year 2006 towards. Ends of justice, in my view, would be met, if the order of this Court is continued for a period up to 23.12.2016 with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the pending cases in between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the truck mentioned above within the said time span. 6. As such, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the Regular Criminal Case No. 308 of 2006, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably on or before 23.12.2016. Needless to state, all the litigating sides shall extend cooperation to the learned Magistrate and shall refrain from seeking adjournments on frivolous grounds. 7. Rule is discharged.