drp {1} CWP No.763/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.763 OF 2010 1. Narsingrao Mohanrrao Pawade PETITIONERS Age-55 years, Occ-Agri & Business R/o 38, Bhagyanagar, Nanded 2. Nilkanthrao Mohanrao Pawade Age-50 years, Occ-Agri & Business R/o Ganesh Nagar, Nanded 3. Sanjay Vinayakrao Pawade Age-40 y ears, Occ-Service R/o Phulenagar, Nanded 4. Prakash Sahebrao Pawade Age-45 years, Occ-Service, R/o Chaitanya Nagar, Behind Sowbhadra Mangal Karlaya, Nanded 5. Mandhukar Sahebrao Pawade Age-40 years, Occ-Agri, R/o Near S.B.H.Workshop Corner Sanmitra Colony, Nanded VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through Police Station Shivajinagar, Nanded ....... Mr. B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.R.Ingole, APP for respondent State ....... drp {2} CWP No.763/2010 [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 21.02.2009 passed by Special Judge (MPID) Aurangabad below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.185/2008. It is also prayed to direct learned Special Judge to decide the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 185/2008, expeditiously. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent State has appeared and filed affidavit in reply. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It appears that MPID Case No.2/2006 is pending before Special Judge, Aurangabad, which is filed against Sanchayani Savings and Investment Ltd., and an offence at Crime No.143/2002 was registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Nanded. It also appears that the petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.185/2008, before learned Special drp {3} CWP No.763/2010 Judge requesting for return of property i.e. the premises where said Sanchayani was carrying on its business. It appears that an order came to be passed below Exhibit-1 u/s 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the Special Judge that the articles seized are stored in the said premises and unless some alternate arrangement is made, the final order cannot be passed. It is also observed by the trial court that for that purpose say of the accused persons is also required and therefore order, to issue notice to the concerned accused, was passed. 6. Admittedly, as per the contentions of the petitioners, that the predecessor of the petitioners had entered into lease agreement with the said Sanchayani and the said company was in possession of the said property as lessee and this property was sealed during the course of investigation. While passing the order on the application for return of property, it was necessary for the trial court to hear the concerned persons, who claim their possession over the said premises. In the premise, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse and it is the prerogative of the Court to decide as to who are the proper persons to whom notice is necessary to be issued. Considering this aspect, relief, so far as it relates to prayer clause “A”, cannot be granted to the petitioners. However, so far as relief at prayer clause “B” is concerned, as now it is disclosed in the affidavit in reply that the articles stored in the premises are removed by the police, there is no impediment to pass any order on the application of return of property, moved by the drp {4} CWP No.763/2010 petitioners. 7. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The trial court is directed to hear and dispose of the application No. 185/2008 within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order, in accordance with law. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cwp763-10