Purushottam Sahebrao Deshmukh v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Risod Tah Resod Dist Washim
16-CriWP-1030-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2025 (Purushottam Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. R.B. Dhore, Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents/State. .....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DECEMBER 15, 2025 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 276/2025 By present application, the applicant is seeking to dispense with filing of typed copy of faint, shabby and hand written pages of chargesheet. 2] In our view, it will be in the interest of all the concerned that legible copies are filed that would facilitate the Court as well to decide the issue. 3] The application is, accordingly, rejected.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1030/2025 4] The petitioner has approached this Court with following substantive prayer :
"a) Hold and declare that the action of Tahsildar, Risod thereby sending the vehicle owend by the petitioner to the respondent Police Station, Risod and further custody of the vehicle with Police Station officer, Police Station Risod is against provisions of subsection (1) of section 48 (8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and is without jurisdiction."
5] As could be seen, the petitioner is challenging action of Tahsildar, Risod, sending the vehicle
16-CriWP-1030-2025 owned by the petitioner to the respondent - Police Station, Risod. This action has been taken in terms of Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "the Code").
6] The respondent - Tahsildar, Risod, vide communication dated 15/1/2024, issued in favour of Police Station, Risod, has instructed the police to keep the vehicle in Police Station pending proceedings under the provisions of the Code. The said communication has been not challenged.
7] Nonetheless, the action apparently is taken under the provisions of the Code. It's a different matter that whether the vehicle under question can be kept in custody of Police Station pending proceedings. There may be reason why the Tahsildar has instructed the concerned police to keep the vehicle in custody.
8] Rule 18(21) of Chapter XVII of The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, provides that petition arising out of an order passed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, shall be heard by Bench of Single Judge.
9] The Registry shall examine the issue, and list the petition before appropriate Bench.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/12/2025 16:49:05