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 CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1513 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1513 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1513 OF 2008. Shri Ashok Ramlal Sharma. ..Petitioner. versus Shri Vishnu Dattatraya Taware & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JULY,2008. : 25TH JULY,2008. : 25TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. On oral prayer made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the order dated 24th July 2008 is recalled and the petition is restored. The petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 323, 447, 504, 506, 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation made by the petitioner in the complaint is that, on a platform in front of his hotel premises, the accused persons brought an iron cabin and have kept the iron cabin on the said platform. An application was made under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner seeking a direction against the police to seize the said cabin and remove it to the police station. In the alternative, it was prayed that the cabin may be broken into pieces and the pieces may be - 2 - kept at the police station. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. A revision application filed by the petitioner for challenging the said order was dismissed by the Sessions Court. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by holding that the learned Magistrate cannot invoke the power under section 102 of the said Code in this case. He, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application under section 102 of the said Code. In the alternative, it is submitted that the police officer may be directed to make panchnama of the said cabin. 3. It is not necessary to go into the question of the powers available to the learned Magistrate. The prayer in the application made by the petitioner was for removal of the cabin to the police station. The second prayer was for breaking the cabin into pieces and for keeping the pieces with the police station. Such a prayer could not have been acceded to by the learned Magistrate. The prayer which is made in the alternative by the petitioner is not made - 3 - before the Courts below. 4. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]