IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2727 OF 2006 Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Raja Thakare i/by Mr.Shreeram Shirsat for the Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 01st September 2008. P.C.: . Heard submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.P.P for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant states that all concerned respondents have been duly served. 2. The order dated 25th July 2006 passed by this Court records the statement of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is prepared to furnish a bank guarantee of the amount that will be mutually agreed as the cost of the property for its return to the applicant pending the hearing of the case. Further statement is also recorded in order that if the accused : 2 : are acquitted, the applicant will not have any objection for giving them an option either to take the articles or get the bank guarantee encashed. The said order records that pending service of notice to the accused, if the accused intend to take the possession of all the articles in terms of order dated 26th June 2006 they may do so on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned A.P.P has stated that none of the accused have taken benefit of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court. He states that the concerned Investigating Officer has instructed him to make the said statement. 3. My attention has been invited to the application made by the applicant for return of property. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is not interested in taking custody of the articles which are mentioned in clause (a) of paragraph 3 of the said application. He states that the applicant is interested in taking custody of articles and cash mentioned in clauses (b) to (e) of paragraph 3 of the application. He states that the said articles are worth Rs.01,72,896/-. 4. None of the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 6 have come forward to take the property till today. None of : 3 : them have appeared for raising an objection to the prayer made in this application. In the circumstances, the prayer made in this application deserves to be granted. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant accepted that a statement of the advocate for applicant has been recorded in order dated 25th July 2006 that the applicant is prepared to furnish a bank guarantee for cost of the property. He pointed out that the said statement was made by the concerned advocate on instructions of an officer of the applicant. He states that the applicant had not instructed the said officer to give such instructions to the advocate for the applicant and later on the said officer has been removed from service. He, therefore, submitted that instead of bank guarantee, the applicant be directed to furnish security. The aforesaid prayer cannot be accepted. Relying upon the statement made by the advocate for applicant on instructions of the concerned officer, this Court issued notice on this application. Whether the said officer was instructed or not is matter between the said officer and the applicant. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The applicant shall be entitled to custody of : 4 : articles and cash more particularly described in clauses (b) to (e) of paragraph 3 of the application dated 07th March 2005 filed by the applicant before the learned Magistrate subject to condition of the applicant furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.01,72,900/-. (ii) The articles shall be released to the applicant after applicant furnishes bank guarantee for the aforesaid amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. Apart from furnishing bank guarantee, the applicant will have to give an undertaking that in the event the accused are acquitted, the applicant will bring back the property subject to the directions which may be issued by the Court. The applicant will also furnish usual bond recording that articles will be produced before the concerned Court as and when required by the concerned Court. (iii) Parties and concerned trial Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. : 5 : (iv) Application is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.Oka,J)