1 CriWP No.650/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.650/2011. 1) Atmanand s/o Ramchandra Bhakt Age: 32 Yrs., occu. Service/ Lecturer, R/o MG Road,Jalna. 2) Harshanand s/o Ramchandra Bhakt Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o MG Road, Jalna. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through In-Charge Police Officer, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna. 2) The Superintendent of Police, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.NR Shaikh, APP for State. ----- CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & A.V.POTDAR,JJ. DATE : 4th August, 2011. ORAL ORDER (Per:P.V.HARDAS,J.): 1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to produce the seized 2 CriWP No.650/2011 property as per the list in Regular Criminal Case No.284/2001 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. 2) It appears that on an application moved by the petitioners, the trial Court had directed the Police Inspector of Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jalna to produce the seized articles. It further appears that the police station filed its reply before the Trial Court, contending that on account of short-circuit in the electric-wiring, the clothes (i.e. the Muddemal) were destroyed. It also appears that the respondents have now produced the stick and an iron-rod. 3) Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, makes a grievance that the respondents have not produced two swords which are alleged to have been seized. 4) Since the Trial Court is already seized of the offence and the trial is pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna and the trial court has already exercised its jurisdiction and has issued certain orders, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition. The Trial Court in its communication, which is annexed to the petition at Exhibit-M dated 25.11.2010, indicates that the Trial Court 3 CriWP No.650/2011 had communicated to the Police Inspector of Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jalna that in the event the aforesaid order was not complied with, necessary action under the Contempt of Courts Act, would be initiated. That is an additional ground for not interfering in the present petition. 5) The petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy of filing appropriate application before the Trial Court. The petitioners, therefore, may avail the aforesaid remedy. While dismissing the petition, we grant liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the trial court, seeking enforcement of the order of the trial court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid liberty. (A.V.POTDAR,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) bdv/