Bombay High Court
Pramila Parshram Rawale vs The State Of Mah on 2 August, 2024
1 1010-Cri.Revn.368-05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1010 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 368 OF 2005
PRAMILA PARASHRAM RAWALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. C. C. Deshpande h/f Mr. C. R.
Deshpande And V. S. Tayde.
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr. D. J. Patil.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 02.08.2024
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the respondent-State.
2. The applicant has impugned the order of learned 2 nd Ad-
hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, dated 05.09.2005,
passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.33 of 2005.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
crime was registered against the applicant. In that crime, the
liquor bottles were seized. The Court had released those bottles
on supratnama under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. Then, the
prosecutor called the bottles released to the applicant for
identification before the trial. It was noticed that instead of
2 1010-Cri.Revn.368-05.odt
released bottles, few other bottles were produced. Hence,
another crime was registered against her. The applicant has
been acquitted of both crimes.
4. The facts of the case were that crime bearing No.28 of
1994 was registered with Dondaicha Police Station in which
her husband was accused. Therefore, another crime, No.80 of
1994, was registered with Sindkheda Police Station against the
applicant's husband and the Court Clerk. Both cases were
turned into acquittal. Thereafter, the applicant moved an
application to the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court has
observed that the application was vague. The judgment
delivered in Sessions Case No.2 of 1998, dated 08.05.2003,
does not mention any directions for returning or disposing of
the property produced in question. It has been further observed
that the order of the Sessions Court, dated 08.05.2003 passed
in S.T. Case No.2 of 1998, is binding on the parties as yet not
challenged despite having sufficient knowledge to the
applicant and there were no directions for return of the
property to the applicant in the said judgment. Therefore, the
application is not legal, proper and maintainable in law. The
applicant does not disclose the specific date of the cause of
3 1010-Cri.Revn.368-05.odt
action to file such type of application before this Court, nor
state under what law provisions the application was filed.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued
that the applicant owned the seized muddemal property. The
accused, including her, have been acquitted in both trials. Since
the order about the disposal of the property of the crime was
not passed under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C., the impugned
order is erroneous.
6. Learned APP supports the impugned order.
7. The finding of the learned Adhoc District Judge reveals
that after the conclusion of the trial, the order for disposal of
the muddemal property was not passed. Section 452 of the
Cr.P.C. provides when the Court does pass an order for delivery
of the property suo motu, a person claiming to be entitled to
the possession of the seized property on the production of title
document may apply for releasing such property, and the Court
may pass the order for delivery of the property.
8. The facts of this case were very peculiar in the earlier
crime, the muddemal i.e. the liquor bottles were delivered to
the applicant. This means that the Court was satisfied that she
was entitled to possession. However, when the Court ordered
4 1010-Cri.Revn.368-05.odt
to produce the muddemal released to her, some bottles were
not the same. Therefore, another crime was registered, and
those bottles were seized again.
9. However, the question is whether the stock found in the
godown was legally kept or not. For that purpose, the Court
has to examine the judgment of the first crime and the findings
on the point of legal possession of the applicant. That
judgment is not on record. Hence, learned counsel for the
applicant is directed to place a copy of that judgment on record
with any other material showing that the applicant had
intimated the excise department about the stock of the liquor
in the said godown and he has the accounts to satisfy that it
was kept legally there.
10. Stand over to 27.08.2024, at 2.30 p.m.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
