IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1496 OF 2008 Shri Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.A.H.H.Ponda for the Applicant. Mr.D.R.More, A.P.P for the State. Mr.Vijay Dhigreje for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th August 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned A.P.P for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. The applicant made an application under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Magistrate for return of 1 Kg of the gold seized by the police. The case of the applicant was that on 16th April 2007 he received the said gold from the 2nd respondent for manufacture of ornaments. The voucher issued by the 2nd respondent was produced before the trial Court. According to the applicant, on the same day, the said gold was handed over to the accused for manufacturing the ornaments. The accused did not return : 2 : the gold and he ran away and therefore, the present applicant filed a complaint. 3. The said application under section 451 of the said Code was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 14th February 2008. A revision application preferred by the applicant against the said order has been dismissed by the Sessions Court. 4. It appears that before the learned Magistrate even the Investigating Officer gave no objection for return of the property. The only ground on which the application was rejected is that the notice of the application was not served to the 2nd respondent who was admittedly the owner of the gold. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to a writing dated 16th December 2007 which was produced before the trial Court which was executed by the 2nd respondent in which the 2nd respondent stated that the said respondent was not having any claim over the gold. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has no objection if the gold is handed over to the applicant. The learned A.P.P on instructions of Shri Ramesh Nangare, A.P.I Juhu : 3 : Police Station stated that the 1st respondent has no objection. 6. In the circumstances, I pass following order: (i) The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set aside and the application made by the applicant for return of gold of the quantity 1 Kg seized by the Juhu police station, Bombay in C.R.No.270 of 2007 is allowed. (ii) The learned Magistrate will allow the applicant to take custody of the gold and to dispose of the same subject to executing usual bond and subject to usual procedure of taking photographs at the cost of the applicant and drawing panchnama thereof before handing over the custody. (iii) The application is accordingly allowed. (iv) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. : 4 : (A.S.Oka,J)