Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kavita Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.40520/2020
Smt. Kavita Yadav vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 19/10/2020
Shri Prakash Bararu, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anoop Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard through video conferencing.
Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.256/2020 registered at Police Station Phoop, District Bhind for offence under Sections 379, 414 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, on 19-8-2020, when dumper bearing No.MP07HB8314 was stopped, it was found that on the strength of suspicious e-TP No.2000991756, Gitti was being transported, therefore, the driver was asked to disclose his name. Therafter, the driver of the dumper was directed to take the dumper to the police station, however, the said driver escaped after jumping from the vehicle. On 21.8.2020 when the record of Phoop Toll Plaza was checked, it was found that on the basis of same e-TP, Gitti was also transported on 17.8.2020. Thus it was found that on the strength of an e-TP, which was valid for one trip, Gitti was being transported for the second time.
2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.40520/2020 Smt. Kavita Yadav vs. State of M.P. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact the dumper belongs to a Partnership firm and the applicant is a sleeping partner of M/s Kavita Stone Industries. To substantiate his submissions, the applicant has filed a copy of the partnership deed, according to which the applicant has been projected as sleeping partner. It is further submitted that one more case of a similar in nature has been registered against the applicant and after considering the partnership deed, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 28.9.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.34869/2020 has prima facie held that the applicant is the passive partner/helping partner.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that in fact the applicant was involved in committing theft of royalty by illegally transporting the Gitti on the strength of an e-TP which was already utilized by the petitioner on earlier occasions.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is the case of the applicant that earlier she was the proprietor of M/s Kavita Stone Industries. However, on 31.1.2020, the said proprietorship firm was converted into partnership firm with 10% share of the applicant and it is mentioned in the said partnership deed that the applicant would be the sleeping partner. It is not out of place to mention here that the said partnership deed is not a registered 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.40520/2020 Smt. Kavita Yadav vs. State of M.P. deed. As per Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act, no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered. Further there is one identical mistake in the Partnership Deed. On all the papers, there is an overwriting on the date. This overwriting on all the pages of unregistered partnership deed by the Notary cannot be said to be a co-incidence. Furthermore, it was the case of the applicant that she was the proprietor of M/s Kavita Stone Industries and was the owner of 16 dumpers. It is beyond imagination that any proprietor would voluntarily reduce his/her share in the partnership firm to 10% thereby giving up her 90% ownership in the property. Further, the remaining two newly addeded partners are not family members of the applicant, and there is nothing on record to show that how much of wealth was contributed by them. Thus the partnership deed appears to be a suspicious document, which will be required to be proved by the applicant in the Trial. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to the applicant has ignored these important factual as well as the legal aspect of the matter. Accordingly, this Court cannot rely upon the unregistered partnership deed, according to which, the applicant is said to be a sleeping partner.
4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.40520/2020 Smt. Kavita Yadav vs. State of M.P. According to the prosecution case, on the strength of one e-TP, Gitti was being transported on different dates. Thus it is a clear case of not only the theft of royalty but also that of transportation of of committing theft of Royalty as well as of transportation of illegally manufactured Gitti.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case where the applicant is the proprietor of M/s Kavita Stone Industries, and the dumper belonging to the said Industry was found in illegal transportation of illegally manufactured Gitti, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok) ALOK KUMAR 2020.10.20 10:46:51 +05'30'