bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1056 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1056 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1056 OF 2008 Mrs. Gemma Castelino ... Applicant v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Dinesh Tiwari for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The applicant has filed the present application against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai, on 15.3.2008 refusing to return the vehicle seized by the Excise Department, to her. According to the applicant, the vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing No.MH-04-BQ-513 was seized from the possession of respondent No.2 who is her son. The jeep was seized on that very day i.e. 24.8.2007. The applicant states that she owns the jeep and it has been transferred to her name on 5.9.2007. 2. The applicant has submitted in her application for return of the vehicle that since she is the owner of the 2 jeep, it should be returned to her for her personal use. She states that she is not involved in the offence allegedly committed by her son and therefore she is entitled to the return of the Scorpio. 3. Both the Courts below dismissed the application as well as the revision by observing that the transfer of the vehicle in the applicant’s name took place after the incident on 24.8.2007. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the vehicle need not be retained with the police as the applicant is the only claimant. He submits that the vehicle was sold to the applicant on 3.7.2006. However, the requisite formalities were to be completed and ultimately it was transferred to the applicant’s name on 5.9.2007. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Milind Milind Milind Prabhakar Rokade v/s State of Maharashtra & anr., Prabhakar Rokade v/s State of Maharashtra & anr., Prabhakar Rokade v/s State of Maharashtra & anr., reported reported reported in 2003 All M.R.(Cri.) 1941, in 2003 All M.R.(Cri.) 1941, in 2003 All M.R.(Cri.) 1941, wherein this Court has, in the fact situation of that case, returned the property to the person from whom it was seized. 5. An affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector, State Excise, P-1 Division, Mumbai Suburban, indicating the circumstances in which the vehicle was seized. 3 6. However, there is no dispute on the fact that the vehicle stands in the name of the applicant today. There is also no dispute that there is no other claimant for the vehicle. 7. In these circumstances, in my view, the following order should meet the ends of justice:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R The Scorpio jeep No.MH-04-BQ-513 shall be returned to the applicant on the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not part with the possession of the vehicle or create third party rights in respect of the vehicle or alienate or encumber the same in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The appearance of the vehicle will not be changed. (iii) The vehicle will be produced whenever required either by the police or by the Court. 4 (iv) An undertaking to comply with the aforesaid conditions shall be placed on record before the learned Magistrate before the property is returned to the applicant. 8. Criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.