1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 2690/2009 Gunwant Shyamraoji Mahajan ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S.O. P.S.Wani & anr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 22 nd JULY, 2009. After the argument of the learned counsel was over and I commenced dictation of the order, in the midst, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that he may be given time of about half an hour to take instructions as to whether his client would be interested in withdrawing this application. In view of this peculiar request, dictation of the order is deferred till 1.00 p.m. JUDGE 1. Heard. 2. The present applicant is facing charge under Section 498-A, 406, 504 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Wani. 2 In the course of investigation, certain ornaments i.e. six items came to be seized from Vivek Mahajan, husband of present non applicant no. 2. The present non applicant no.2 and said Vivek, who happens to be son of the applicant got married and subsequently First Information Report came to be lodged against Vivek and present applicant and others. The present applicant filed an application for return of those ornaments below Exh.-48 in in Regular Criminal Application No. 97/2006. A similar application was made by non applicant no. 2 and at present the said application is marked as O.M.C.C. No. 57/2008. Both these applications came to be disposed of by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani by order dated 15.04.2008 and the ornaments as listed in the order were ordered to be handed over to non applicant no. 2 under bond in the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- with certain other terms and conditions. This order became subject matter of Criminal Revision Application No. 8/2008 inasmuch as the present applicant instituted Criminal Revision No. 8/2008 against the order passed by learned Magistrate as mentioned above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3 Pandharkawda, by order dated 25.03.2009 dismissed the revision i.e. to say confirmed the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 15.04.2008. This application is filed against the aforesaid order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 15.04.2008 as well as learned Additional Session Judge dated 25.03.2009. 3. I have heard Mr. Jaltare, learned Advocate for applicant and Mr. Yengal, A.P.P.for the State. 4. In the course of investigation, the present applicant was about to be arrested and according to the present applicant a threat was administered that the present applicant should arrange to purchase the ornaments as mentioned in the report filed by non applicant no. 2-Dhansharee and the present applicant treated with it as obligatory upon him to produce said ornaments and according to the present applicant, he purchased the ornaments from a goldsmith Parasmal Premraj Saraf, on the very day of the proposed arrangement i.e. how the ornaments came to be seized in the name of his father. 5. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant. 4 Learned Advocate for the applicant for the purpose of satisfying the Court that the ornaments were purchased by him, produced an invoice dated 28.04.2006 issued by Parasmal Premraj Saraf and in support of the case that the said ornaments were purchased and that the applicant had means to purchase the said ornaments, it is sought to be contended that one Baburaoji Panghate arranged for the funds that is how the ornaments were purchased. 6. It is to be noted that the marriage between Vivek and non applicant no. 2 had taken place. It is nobody’s case that not a single ornaments was handed over to Dhanashree at the time of marriage. The said Dhanshree claimed that the said ornaments are her Streedhan and that the said ornaments have been recovered from the custody of Vivek. 7. The question is whether the Courts below have considered the record in proper perspective and have arrived at proper conclusion. In my view, the answer is affirmative for the following reasons. 8. It is to be noted that the applicant is retired Government servant and he claimed that the ornaments 5 worth Rs. 1,13,000/- came to be purchased purely to satisfy the demands of police and to show that the said ornaments are brought in as record to satisfy the wishes and directions of the police officer. In my view, the said stand put up by the applicant cannot be accepted straightway. After handing over the ornaments to the police and consequent arrest, no grievance is made by the applicant by raising complaints to the superior police officer that the concern police Officer administered threat compelled the applicant to deliver the police large quantity of arrangements meaning to raise Rs. 1,13,000/- solely to see that the said ornaments are brought on record and create a case in favour of non applicant no. 2. It is not the case of the applicant that funds were raised by the applicant as such it is clear that the applicant did not have means to purchase the said ornaments at the relevant time. It is the case of the petitioner that the funds were raised from one Baburaoji Panghate. Except stating the name of the said Baburaoji Panghate in the reply, which is on record being reply dated 14.06.2006 to the application filed by non applicant no. 2 no particulars are mentioned as to who is 6 this Panghate, what is his avocation, in what way he is related to the applicant to make arrangement of such a substantial amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- only for asking. The case put up by the applicant cannot be accepted and the one presented before the Court just to deprive the real owner namely non applicant no. 2, of the property. To that extent both the Courts have passed an appropriate order. 9. By way of last point, it was submitted by learned Advocate for the applicant that there is no reason to return the ornaments to non applicant no. 2 and as such ornaments can remain in Courts custody so that at the time of disposal of the case further and appropriate orders can be passed so that the applicant’s claims are not prejudiced and that the non applicant no.2 may not misuse these ornaments. 10. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the submission cannot be accepted because to keep ornaments in the police custody or in the court’s custody and deprive the legitimate claim of non applicant no. 2 would be contrary to the interest of non applicant no. 2. On perusal of the impugned order it is seen that sufficient 7 care is taken to see that the return of the ornaments is secured and that ornaments will be made available at the time of passing of final orders, for disposal. From that angle also no defect is observed in the impugned order. 11. In these circumstances, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order. The application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE l;kahale