..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.547 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ..Petitioner. Versus Shri.Samir Karimkhan Keshwani. ..Respondent. .... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Khokhawala & Ms.Megha Puralkar, Adv. for respondent No.1. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st December, 2008. DATED : 1st December, 2008. DATED : 1st December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned APP for the petitioner - State of Maharashtra and the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 orig.accused. 2. The respondent is facing prosecution in a case under Section 65(f) and 70 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The said case pertains to C.R. No.200 of 2007 registered with the State Excise Department, Dahanu. 3. The prosecution case is that on information ..(2).. being received that the respondent had stored and illegally concealed molasses/black jaggery, on 5.10.2007 raid came to be conducted and jaggery came to be seized. The value of the seized property is approximately about Rs.95,000/-. 4. An application came to be preferred by the respondent before the learned Magistrate for return of the property which was seized. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, he approached the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 22.2.2008 returned the jaggery to the applicant on executing bond. Being aggrieved by this order, this Petition has been preferred. 5. The material in the present case shows that the jaggery was purchased by the respondent from APMC, Latur, Maharashtra. Circular dated 2.1.2003 issued by Commissioner State Excise Department, Maharashtra State, Bombay states that if gur is purchased from agricultural produce market committee (A.P.M.C. in short) no action is contemplated. In circular dated 31.10.2003 issued by the Commissioner, State Excise, Maharashtra, Bombay it is observed that action will ..(3).. be taken against the black jaggery imported from Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh etc. and no action will be taken against manufacturer within Maharashtra State. There is no material to show that the jaggery was imported into Maharashtra. Moreover, from the record it appears that the applicant purchased jaggery through A.P.M.C. Latur, Maharashtra on 29.9.2007 through Amol Traders, Latur. In such case, it cannot be imagined that the public body i.e. A.P.M.C. Latur will openly sell black jaggery or not edible gur to the traders. So prima facie it appears that the applicant has purchased edible gur having total sugars ranging from 70.0 to 95.0 as per the Gur (Regulations of use) Order 1968. The gur was seized when it was in the truck. So it cannot be said that the applicant was found selling the gur to the manufacture of intoxicant. 6. No doubt it is the contention of the Excise Department that the accused was also found in possession of navsagar which can be used for manufacturing illicit liquor. However, as far as Navsagar is concerned, there is no prohibition to ..(4).. possess the same under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Moreover, it is seen that the property involved is of perishable nature. The sample thereof has already been taken. Looking to the contents of the circulars which are reflected above and the fact that the property involved is perishable in nature, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge returning the property to the respondent. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)