1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICTION NO. 515 OF 2009 Sameer Suresh Pai @Langda Pai .. Applicant Versus The state of Maharashtra (Kanjurmarg Police station in C.R.No.57/2003) .. Respondent Shri santosh Deshpande for the Applicant Shri J. P. Kharge, APP for the State CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 11th September, 2009 J U D G E M E N T 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. This revision application is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2009 passed Learned Additional Sessions Judge in Appeal No.211 of 2008, confirming the conviction, but sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mumbai convicted this applicant accused under Section 380 of the Indian Penal code sentencing rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.350/-. 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant accused has submitted that the learned sessions Judge has erred in confirming the sentence of conviction. The Sessions Judge ought to have considered that the property i.e. Gold chain was not produced before the court during the trial. Moreover, nobody has seen this accused while committing theft and the discovery Panchanama was made at the Police Station. 5. Learned APP has submitted that the police have seized and sealed the golden chain pursuant to the discovery panchanama and the said chain was identified by the original complainant and it was returned to the complainant by the Court during the trial and hence there is no deviation from the procedure laid down for the seizure. 6. Non sealing and non production of gold chain i.e. stolen property was one of the grounds in this revision application. However, it is seen from the records that the chain which was discovered and seized under the panchanama was sealed and produced before the court and subsequently returned to the original complainant. Moreover there is no challenge on the identification of the gold chain. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the case of 3 Ramanand Vs. State of MP reported in 1995 (4) CLR page 333. In this case of murder, the articles i.e. axe, clothes seized from the accused were not duly sealed and they were sent to the laboratory. He has also relied on Audumbar Manohar Pandive Vs. The state of Maharashtra, reported in 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 532). In the said case, the accused was held guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that if weapons are not kept in sealed condition till they were sent to chemical analyst, then the presumption can be drawn that the weapons might have been tampered with after the recovery. Both theses rulings are not applicable in the present case because in the present case there was seizure and sealing of the articles. 8. On the point of Panchanama, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on Laxman Baban Wagh & others Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 All MR (Cri) 165, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that both, the memorandum panchanama and discovery panchanama should not have been have been prepared and signed at the police station itself but discovery panchanama should have been prepared on the spot. In the said case, the panchanama was prepared on the bonnet of the Jeep of 4 the Police and signatures were obtained at the Police station. In the present case, no such evidence is brought through the Panchas. The panchas did admit that they have signed at three to four places in the police station, but in the chief it is specifically mentioned that the memorandum panchanama was prepared after the seizure of the gold chain. Therefore, it can not be concluded that the panchanama was not drawn at the spot. Moreover, the contents in the panchanama were admitted by the panchas and are proved. The learned Sessions Court has discussed in details the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly held that the accused has committed theft and confirmed the conviction. I do not find any illegality in the said order, hence, no need to interfere with the same. In the result, the revision application is dismissed. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-