JAGANNATH BAPU SHIRSAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2000-3-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: AURANGABAD)
Decided on
March 17,2000
JAGANNATH BAPU SHIRSAT
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
EICHER MOTORS LTD. V. MOHAMMED YUSUF G.NADAF [REFERRED TO]KISHAN PANDURANG KAGDE V. BALDEV SINGH GIAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRAKUMAR J.HANDA V. DILAWAR KHAN ALIJ KHAN [REFERRED TO]
NILKANTH PRASAD RAI JAI KRISHNA DEBI SINGH TANSUKH RAI JAIN RAM SANEHI SINGH NAWALKISHORE LAL ROAD TRANSPORT CO DHANBAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SWALLEH VS. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SINGH VS. NURAHMED [REFERRED TO]
U KARIYAPPA VS. P SREEKANTAIAH [REFERRED TO]
HAN MOHAN SHIVHARE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SRINIBAS SAHU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
T NARAYANASWAMY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAJU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
JULIO ALIAS FRANCIS K BUGDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-5] [REFERRED TO]GH MOHIDIN RATTHER VS. SHAMEEM AHMAD WANI [LAWS(J&K)-2005-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI TEJABHAI BARIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPESH BABULAL SETHIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)HEARD Shri R. B. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel for petitioner; Shri D. V. Tele, learned A. P. P. for respondent No. 1 and Shri K. D. Bade Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
(2.)A vehicle, tempo bearing No. MH-16-B-708 was admittedly owned by the present petitioner. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. The petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Pathardi on 29th October, 1998 contending therein that the vehicle was forcibly taken away by the respondent No. 2 from the custody of the driver. On the basis of said report, a Crime No. 192 of 1998 under section 379 of Indian Penal Code has been registered. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Officer was also informed about theft of the vehicle.
(3.)THE said vehicle was found parked in front of the office of Regional Transport Officer. The vehicle was subject matter of theft and, therefore, the Police Officer seized the vehicle on 16-11-1998.
(2.)A vehicle, tempo bearing No. MH-16-B-708 was admittedly owned by the present petitioner. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. The petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Pathardi on 29th October, 1998 contending therein that the vehicle was forcibly taken away by the respondent No. 2 from the custody of the driver. On the basis of said report, a Crime No. 192 of 1998 under section 379 of Indian Penal Code has been registered. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Officer was also informed about theft of the vehicle.
(3.)THE said vehicle was found parked in front of the office of Regional Transport Officer. The vehicle was subject matter of theft and, therefore, the Police Officer seized the vehicle on 16-11-1998.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.