1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 225/2006 Kamal Kishore Maniklal Bhattad vs. 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders of directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders Mr.S.B.Bhutada, Advocate, for petitioner. Mr. Nitan Sambre, Public Prosecutor respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. None for Respondent No. 2 Coram : A. P. LAVANDE & R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 29th April, 2010. 1. Heard Mr. Bhutada, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Nitan Sambre, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. None for Respondent No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner who was the complainant in a Criminal Case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed against one Sandip Harsh, Respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 preferred revision application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nagpur, against the interim order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, to whom the revision was made over, called for the original record of the criminal case. 2 3. During the pendency of the revision application, there was theft of the Courts' record including the original record in the case filed by the petitioner against respondent no.2. The first information report was filed by an official of the Sessions Court to the Police Station. Thereupon the investigation was taken up. The incident of theft of Muddemal Property from the premises of the District Court at Nagpur, occurred on 29th September, 2008. 4. In this petition, the Court passed orders from time to time, calling upon respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 to file affidavits, which have been filed. Reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 discloses that investigation is still in progress. 5. On 22.4.2010, on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, pursis has been filed, stating that guards have been employed for protection of the court buildings at Nagpur during night time. 6. In view of above, we do not propose to keep the petition pending. We expect, respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 to provide adequate security to the Court buildings at Nagpur, so that, in future, the incidents of theft of Muddemal Property do not occur. The Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 shall carry out the investigation in the report filed concerning theft of Muddemal Property in the Court with all earnest and take the investigation to its logical conclusion. 3 7. Mr. Sambre, Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 assures this Court that all steps will be taken to investigate the crime in question. We accept the statement made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, Criminal Application No. 2914/2006 also stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit