Chandrashekhar S/O. Mohanlal ... vs The Commissioner Of Police, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10638 Bom

                                                                964-appln-825-2020.odt
                                       (1)


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2020
                             IN REVN/242/2001

            CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. MOHANLAL WARMA
                              VERSUS
       THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AURANGABAD AND ANR
                                  ...
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bharuka D.S.
              APP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.M. Kagne
                                  ...
                                       CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : 13th OCTOBER, 2022

PER COURT:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The applicant has been acquitted by the Adhoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in an Appeal No.75 of 1997 by order

dated 11.05.2001. Against the said judgment, the applicant had

preferred the revision bearing No.242 of 2001 challenging the non

return of the golden rings seized from his shop. Unfortunately,

nobody attended the case; hence, the Court dismissed the revision for

non removal of office objections on 02.08.2002. Since then, no

action was taken and after 6390 days, the present application is

moved for restoration of revision petition.

3. The grievance of the applicant is that 37 golden rings

were seized but those were not returned to him by the Court. The

operative order of the learned Magistrate reveals that he directed to

return 3 golden rings weighing 10 grams each to the present

964-appln-825-2020.odt

applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in its order, in para

20, has specifically observed that the golden ornaments weighing 110

grams and 490 miligrams were seized. However, in the present case

only 3 golden rings weighing 10 grams were produced before the

Court as stolen property.

4. Having regard to the observations recorded by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that entire property seized by

the police was not produced before the Court. Therefore, the Court

has correctly not passed orders about the same. However, learned

counsel for the applicant is seeking direction to the police to produce

the remaining seizure Muddemal. The Court is of the view that the

property which has not been produced in the trial by the police, the

Court cannot pass any such orders. The other property might have

been shown seized in the similar crime. Learned counsel wanted to

go through the provisions of law about legal remedy available to him.

Time granted.

5. List the matter on 24.11.2022.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed//