Bombay High Court
Sonali Nimish Arora vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 September, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:27326
1 of 3 14-APL-1164-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1164 OF 2023
Sonali Nimish Arora ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr ...Respondents
------------
Ms. Sonal Parab a/w P.K. Sanghrajkar, i/b Rajeev Sawant &
Associates, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for State/Respondent.
------------
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER 2023
PC :
1. By way of this Application, the Applicant is challenging
the order dated 1st September 2023 passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate 68th Court, Borivali, Mumbai in C.C.
No.6800412/N/2023 whereby, the Investigating Officer was
directed to handover the interim custody of the documents seized
under panchanama dated 12th January 2016 to the Respondent
No.3 herein Mahendra Chande who was the authorized person of
Ferrani Hotels Pvt Ltd.
Digitally
signed by
ASHWINI
ASHWINI JANARDAN
JANARDAN VALLAKATI
VALLAKATI Date:
2023.09.15
17:59:23
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that this
+0530
Ashwini V
2 of 3 14-APL-1164-2023
order is passed pursuant to the provision of Section 457 of Cr.P.C.
She submitted that she has approached this Court directly without
filing Revision Application before the Sessions Court on the
apprehension that the order would be treated as an interlocutory
order. However, at the same time, she referred to a judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D'damas Jewellery
India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others as reported in
2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1781. I have considered this judgment.
The paragraph 8 of this judgment reads thus;
"8. As regards the delivery of property to any
person entitled for possession thereof, it will stand
on the same footing as that of disposal of the
property. In case of such delivery of property, it
would be only after ascertaining the right of the
person claiming to be entitled to have possession
of such property. Obviously, therefore, the Court
will have to decide the issue relating to the right
to possess and accordingly deliver the property to
the person who is entitled to possess the same.
Being so, such an order deciding the issue
regaining right to possess the property cannot be
said to be an interlocutory order. For that purpose,
such an order would be amenable to revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code."
This judgment was passed in consideration of Section
457 of Cr.P.C. as to whether such order can be termed as an
3 of 3 14-APL-1164-2023
interlocutory order. Since the order was passed after recording in
the operative part that, the property was given to the person who
was entitled to have its possession, therefore, as per paragraph 8
referred to hereinabove, the order would not be an interlocutory
order. Hence Revision Application would be maintainable.
3. In view of this, learned Counsel for the Applicant prays
for withdrawal of this Application with liberty to approach the
Court of Sessions by filing Criminal Revision Application.
4. Liberty is granted. The Application is allowed to be
withdrawn with such liberty. After such Revision Application is
filed, it shall be decided in accordance with law as early as
possible.
5. The Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
