IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2009 MS. GABRIELE STANDMULLER ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., ... Respondents Ms. Nilofar Saiyed and Shri K. Poulekar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Shri J. Vaz, Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 29th September, 2009 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and the learned Government Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.2. Reply filed is supported by affidavit of G. M. Malik, Assistant Commissioner of Customs(P), Customs House, Marmagoa. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner refers to the Judgment of the Special Judge for NDPS, Greater Mumbai, in Special Case No. 163 of 2007 dated 13th May, 2009. Apart from the acquittal of the present Petitioner, Clause (i) of the Order directs the return of the valuables seized from the locker of the Corporation Bank in the name of the accused on 29th May, 2007, at Exh. 68 in that proceeding. Clause (iii) of the Order further directs return of the passport of the accused produced at Exh. 27 by retaining xerox copy thereof. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that inspite of this Order, the Petitioner(Accused) could not get the valuables seized from the locker No.57. Therefore, the petition, seeking writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to return the property/articles seized vide panchanama dated 29th May, 2007 from locker No.57 of the Corporation Bank Marmagoa at Goa. From the reply affidavit, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, points out that issue of filing of the appeal is pending consideration before the competent authority. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner fairly concedes that the appeal can be filed in accordance with the provisions of law, and for that matter, the time available is till the first week of November, 2009. Apart from the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition by the Foreign National, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, we are of the opinion, that the competent Court, has already returned the valuables by paragraph 4 of the Order. In view of the matter, in our view, there is no point in entertaining and keeping this Writ Petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.