0707appln3611.09.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3611 OF 2009 (Vasudeo Onkarrao Gode Vs. The State of Maharashtra & 2 others) ........................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S. G. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. I. L. Bodade, A. P. P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. A. B. Mirza, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. ....... CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 07TH JULY, 2010 Heard the respective Counsel for the parties. The applicant-complainant in the instant criminal application is raising exception to the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below in respect of disposal of property during the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate. The trial Magistrate, on consideration of the application tendered by both the parties, i.e. the complainant and the accused, directed that the property involved in the offence be handed over to the accused subject to final decision of the trial. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate was subjected to challenge in a revision presented to the Court of Sessions bearing revision applications No. 21/2009 and 22/2009, which also came to be dismissed by the revisional Court. I have perused the impugned order passed by both the Courts below. The property in question was recovered from the custody of the accused. One of the accused is daughter of the complainant. Both the accused are related as husband and wife. On 0707appln3611.09.odt 2/2 consideration of material placed on record, the trial Magistrate has exercised discretion in granting interim custody of the articles in question to the accused. It is urged by the Counsel appearing for the applicant herein that one of the accused i.e. daughter of the complainant has made statement while in custody to the effect that the disputed property belongs to the complainant. It is thus, contended that the statement made by one of the accused while in custody can be taken into account for consideration while granting interim custody of the articles to the applicant. A reliance is placed on a judgment in the matter of Jagmohansingh s/o Lakhbirsing Gill Vs. State of Maharashtra & another reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 118. I have perused the judgment. The observations made in the cited judgment are in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case appearing before the Court. Moreover, the question before the Court was with regard to the disposal of the property at the time of conclusion the trial. In the instant matter, merely interim custody of the articles is given to the accused and there are sufficient safeguards provided in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for. The application is devoid of substance and the same is rejected. JUDGE wwl