..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.417 OF 2008 Emami Limited. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Counsel, Mr.Vishal Maheshwari, Mr.Devesh Juvelkar, Advs. i/b. Khaitan & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 24th October, 2008. DATED : 24th October, 2008. DATED : 24th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is a company. The prayer of the petitioner is that the premises No.503, 5th Floor, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 053 which have been sealed by the police be de-sealed and returned to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the said premises. 3. The above referred premises has been sealed by the Oshiwara police station in C.R. No.51 of 2008. The said case is mainly under Sections 420, 406, 468 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that ..(2).. one Padmini lodged FIR against one Sachin Girish Shah. The prosecution case is that the said Sachin defrauded some persons including the complainant. The said Sachin Shah had taken the premises of the petitioner on leave and licence basis on 1.4.2005 for a period of 33 months and the said agreement was to expire in the end of 2008. However, on 1st June, 2007 Sachin Shah surrendered the premises back to the petitioner as he was unable to pay the further rent. After the FIR was registered as Sachin Shah was earlier using the premises of the petitioner as office premises, the said premises came to be seized by the police. It is seen that accused Sachin Shah had not bought these premises from the petitioner or anyone else. Sachin Shah was not the owner of the premises but he had used these premises for a temporary period after taking it on rent from the petitioner. Admittedly, the premises belong to the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is involved in any way in the offence. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to pass directions to de-seal the said premises and return the premises back to the petitioner. The said to be done by 21st November, 2008. It would be open to the investigating agency to take away the property lying in the said premises. 4. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of ..(3).. accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)