1 revn683-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 683 OF 2009 Mohd. Ashif Islamuddin Shaikh .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents Mr. K.H. Holambe Patil for the applicant Mr. S. A.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-state Mr. R. S. Tripathi, for respondent no.2 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 29 th March, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. This is a criminal revision application filed by the applicant- original accused for return of property i.e. Cash of Rs67,400/-. The applicant was charged and tried u/s 420, 380, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint of his wife who is respondent herein, for the alleged offence of theft and cheating. He was acquitted by the trial Court. However, the applicant felt aggrieved by the order of trial court to the extent of direction to return the property/money which was passed in favour of the respondent- original complainant. The order passed by the learned Addl. Chief 2 revn683-09 Metropolitan Magistrate, 2 nd Court dated 20 th May2009, reads thus: Accused Mohd. Asif Islamuddin Shaikh is hereby acquitted under Section 255 (i) Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under section 420, 380, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code His bail bond stands canceled. The seized cahs amount of Rs.67,400/- be returned to the complaint after appeal period is over.” The appeal bearing Criminal appeal No. 167 of 2009 filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court at Sewere challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sewere by an order dated 14/10/2009, which reads thus: “ Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 2. Order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai on 20/5/2009 in C.C. No. 0200304/PW/2007 for return of seized cash amount of Rs.67,400/- to the complaint is hereby confirmed.” 3. The Learned counsel for the complainant-original respondent supported the order impugned so also the order passed by the appellate Court. On the point of return of property, there is some discussions. Merely because the applicant is acquitted of the offence, it does not make him entitled to retain the amount which was found to have been deposited in his account by him after committing the alleged offence. Moreover, nothing is pointed out from the record that during the course of trial the applicant-accused 3 revn683-09 raised a claim to the amount when his statement was recorded during trial under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant-accused will not get right to claim the property merely because he is acquitted but he must have raised such claim during the trial. No claim can be granted unless it is stated before the Trial Court or even before the appellate Court. Moreover, I do not find any pleading made in this application about his independent source of money to which is he raising a claim. It is stated that applicant, after committing theft, deposited said amount in the bank and therefore complainant was given money. 4. In the above view of the matter, therefore, no perversity or illegality found in the findings recorded by the impugned order. No interference in the order of the of return of property. The applicant failed to establish his claim. The application is dismissed summarily at the stage o of admission with no order as to costs. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )