1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 5664 OF 2009 Smt. Kantadevi Jagdishlal Lamba. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. B.K. Darda for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the Respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 04th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant and perused the concurrent orders on the application made for return of property. 2. From the record it is clear that the jewellery articles have been handed over from the shop of the complainant Rajiv Arjun Das Tolani. In such circumstances, pending the trial and by imposing appropriate conditions, the same have been returned to the jeweller/original complainant. 3. I do not see any error apparent nor perversity disclosed in the order of the Courts below. The concurrent orders are based on the materials produced before the Trial Court and more particularly the reply given by the present Petitioner. This is not a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction either. It is not as if the Petitioner is remediless. If she has any claim in respect of the subject articles, she is at liberty to pursue it in accordance with law. The Application is dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) 2