Uttam vs The State of Maharashtra

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—Heard learned counsel for Petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1. For deciding the issue raised in this Petition, no notice is necessary to Respondent No. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

The present Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against dismissal of the discharge application filed by the Petitioner-accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Special Case No. 15 of 2013.

Learned counsel for Petitioner is submitting that First Information Report, bearing Crime No. 11 of 2008 was filed at Police Station, Bardapur on 27th February, 2008 against the Petitioner, his brother and others by one Balasaheb Pandhari Gandle, for the incident of the same day i.e. 27th February 2008, occurred at 13.30 hours. The counsel submits that on the same day, the brother of the Petitioner had also filed First Information Report bearing Crime No. 12 of 2008 in the same Police Station for the incident of the assault and robbery, against Balasaheb Pandhari Gandle and others. His submission is that these were cross complaints. According to the counsel, the Petitioner, however, was not present at the time of incident, and on 28th February, 2008 General Manager of the Natural Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd., has issued certificate in favour of the Petitioner that the Petitioner, on 27th February 2008, was working at the factory concerned from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. The learned counsel submits that on this basis, the Petitioner had filed discharge application but the trial Court has wrongly rejected the said application.

On the last occasion, the learned A.P.P. had been directed to get it clarified from the investigating officer, whether the certificate from the employer has been produced before the investigating officer in the course of investigation and what has happened to the report lodged by the brother of the Petitioner. Now the learned A.P.P. has submitted that certificate relied upon by the Petitioner, was not produced during the investigation and as far as regards the complaint filed by brother of the Petitioner, non cognizable final report has already been submitted.

I have gone through the Petition. Observations recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in the order dated 21st January, 2014 are perused. Additional Sessions Judge took note of the medical certificate, which shows that the complainant Balasaheb had five injuries on his person. The Additional Sessions Judge relied on the statements of witnesses to the effect that accused No. 5 - Uttam More (present Petitioner) had arrived at the scene of offence and had participated in commission of offence. Learned counsel for Petitioner is submitting that out of the witnesses concerned, Sunil Pandhari Gandle is brother of the complainant Balasaheb and the other witness Chandrakant Gopinath Gandle appears to be cousin brother of the complainant. Thus, according to the learned counsel, such witnesses cannot be relied on.

The Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the accused Petitioner has taken plea of alibi and that burden of proving alibi is on accused Petitioner and it will be matter of merit which can be decided at the time of trial. The Additional Sessions Judge found that, at present juncture it cannot be said that the allegations against the accused No. 5 - Uttam More, Petitioner, are groundless. I do not find any reason to disagree with the Additional Sessions Judge on this count. The plea of alibi can be proved at the time of the trial. There is no substance in the present Writ Petition to either invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction or inherent powers, to discharge the Petitioner and for him to quash the proceedings.

For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.