1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.480 OF 2009 Harish s/o Laxmandas Gurani, age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o C/o Sagar Lodge, Bashir Gunj, Beed, Tq. & Dist.Beed. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.B.R.Warma, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. For Respondent-State. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 11 th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1 Heard Shri B.R.Warma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.H.Dighe, learned A.P.P. For the Respondent-State. 2 Application tendered by the petitioner in pending criminal prosecution seeking return of property alleged to have been seized by the police authorities in Crime No.3107/2007 came to be rejected by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, on 03.09.2007. Revision tendered by the petitioner, being Criminal Revision Application No.65/2007, has also been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, on 07.01.2008. The concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are subjected to challenge in this petition presented under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 3 Petitioner came to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 3107/2007 for violation of provisions of Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. During raid, the property in question i. e. Video Carine i. e. Video Coin Box and other articles, alleged to have been used for the purposes of gambling, were seized by the police authorities. The petitioner, in his application for return of the property, contended that nature of the property, being an electronic item, is likely to be damaged if same remains in the custody of police authorities. It has also been contended that petitioner will not make use of the property for commission of offence again and is prepared to tender an undertaking in that regard. 4 The trial Court was not convinced with the reasons set out in the application, as such, rejected the application. While rejecting the Revision Application, Revisional Court has observed that the petitioner does not possess any license to use the Video Coin Box. It has also been argued by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Revisional Court that the petitioner will apply for the license. The Revisional Court has observed that in case petitioner gets license for using Video Coin Box, he may apply for return of the property once again. 5 This is not a fit case for granting indulgence in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected summarily. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criwp48009