1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3568 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2009 DEELIPSINGH LALSINGH WADHWA V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri K.C.Sant, Advocate for the applicant and Shri V.D.Godbharale, APP for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 16.6.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Applicant was accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.46 of 2003, along with others. He came to be acquitted on 22.7.2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, vide clause (iii) of the operative order, directed to preserve the muddemal property being SPR No.69 of 2008 and VPR No.4 of 2008 for trial of absconding accused - namely; Pawan @ Panya Rameshwar @ Durgaprasad Sharma. This clause (iii) appears to have been incorporated while exercising powers under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant has assailed this part of the judgment by 2 filing Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2009, which has been admitted on 22.1.2010 and pending for final disposal. 3. In the present application, the applicant has made two prayers. They are of interim nature. Vide prayer clause (b) muddemal property - Article No.SPR 69 of 2008 i.e. a gun - is sought to be returned. 4. Shri Sant, learned Advocate for the applicant took us through Exhibit "A" to this application. It is report of the Shirpur Police Station dated 13.2.2003. Shri Sant, learned Advocate seeks interim relief i.e. return of the gun, in view of this report. 5. On notice issued by this Court, affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the State sworn in by Shri Sudam Bhujabal, Police Inspector, Shirpur Police Station. Shri Godbharale, learned APP points out from this affidavit in reply that District Magistrate, Khargaon District (Madhya Pradesh) had issued a license to hold this gun in favour of the applicant. However, said license has not been renewed after 31.1.2007 and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the return of property. Further, the crimes registered against the applicant have been detailed in this affidavit in reply. A statement has also been made in the affidavit that the applicant has been involved in many criminal cases, he has criminal antecedents and if the gun is returned to the applicant, he will create a nuisance to the public. It is also contended that the background 3 of the applicant is anti social and apprehension of dis-advantage in case of return of the muddemal property is expressed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the statements made in the affidavit in reply and further considering the fact that the appeal filed by the applicant is pending, we are not inclined to allow this application. 7. In the result, the application stands rejected. No order as to costs. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl