1 Cri.WP No.32/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.32/2011 (Sow.Amruta w/o Kailas Dabhade Vs. The State of Mah.) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr.VR Langhe, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 7 th March, 2011. ... 1) Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. Rejection of return of property/gold is questioned. 2) The petitioner herein lost her gold­ornaments while she was travelling on 15th August, 2008, giving rise to registration of F.I.R, vide Crime No.I­302/2008. While police authorities were carrying investigation, they stumbled upon a female suspect, based on disclosure statement, discovery of gold was made, but not in the original form of ornaments allegedly belonging to the petitioner. It was melted ingot/Laggad and could not be the Ornament. 3) The learned Judge, seized with the matter, did not acceede to release the gold block, aggrieved by which, the petitioner moved before the learned Sessions Judge, where she did not yield any result and faced rejection. 4) The Counsel submits that the trial is concluded; it is not so. The trial is yet to commence. The Counsel submits that the Investigator accepted that the gold belongs to the complainant, it is also not so (page 13). 5) Reference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Ashok s/o Bhivsan Patil Vs. State of 2 Cri.WP No.32/2011 Mah. ( 2009(1) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 445) is not applicable to the present case as in cited case, after acquittal, the property was claimed by the complainant, as the acquitted accused did not stake claim to the property. The learned Judge, seized with the matter, did not entertain such prayer and consequently, in the revision before this Court it was so allowed. 6) It is primarily not yet established that the gold belongs to the petitioner herein, still she insists for its custody, in spite of identity itself is questioned. Value of gold is inconsequential. Consequently, the order and the discretion exercised by both the courts need not be challenged. 7) Taking survey of above facts, writ petition is sans merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/