1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.763 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2005 Anil Kumar Srilal Parekh .. .. Applicant/Appellant (Orig.Accused) v/s. State of Mah. .. .. Respondent AND Tejpal Joggilal Podar .. Applicant None for Applicant. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for State. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 16th December 2009 P.C. : 1.This Criminal Application is taken out by the owner of the various movable properties which were dropped from his residence by the accused in Sessions Case No.241 of 2003. The accused came to be convicted by the learned 8th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 15.2.2005. In the order of conviction and sentence itself, the learned Judge directed all the muddemal properties, as per the list, Exhibit-10, Article-A and Article-B, to be returned to the Applicant herein. 2.The Applicant is shown to be a very senior citizen of 84 years. He is appearing in person. He has not been 2 able to appear in Court. His Application is seen and the instructions are obtained by the learned APP from one Salim Y. Patel, HC. No.3812/G.O., Gamdevi Police Station, Court Carcoon. Annexure-A to the Application, is the list of articles shown to be tendered by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.241 of 2003. These were the articles which were robbed from the house of the Applicant. The Applicant is the owner of the articles. The learned Sessions Judge has directed these articles to be returned to its owner in the order dated 15.2.2005. The articles are lying in the Sessions Court at Sewree, where the order was passed. 3.It is surprising how the Investigating Officer (IO) has not carried out that order. It is for the IO to call upon the owner to collect the articles which are directed to be returned to him. The owner of the articles, who is the complainant in the case, is not expected to know the order that is passed since it is the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, who prosecutes the offence. Hence after the order is passed, the owner must be informed of the order. That having not been done, the articles have not been returned to the owner. 4.The accused has filed an Appeal being Appeal No.414 of 3 2005. In this Appeal, the Applicant, who is the owner of the muddemal properties, has made this Application. The Application deserves to be granted. The Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station shall cause the articles mentioned in the list, Exhibit-10, as well as Articles A and B, to be returned to the owner of the articles, who is the Applicant in this Application and who was the complainant in the case of robbery. 5.The Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court, shall see that this order is complied. The learned APP shall report compliance of this order on 5th January 2010 at 3 p.m. 6.The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)