1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3127 of 2008 (M/s. Prakash Roadlines Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for Applicants. Smt. I.L. Bodade, APP for Respondent. Coram : R.M. Borde, J. Dated : 6 th July, 2010 The applicants are raising exception to the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur, in Misc. Criminal Application No.37 of 1999, rejecting their application seeking release of cash amount on supratnama. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by applicant No.1, Crime No.29 of 1999 was registered for offence punishable under Section 407 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the goods belonging to applicant No.1 were being transported in a truck belonging to applicant No.2. It appears that the goods were misappropriated while in transit by the accused and were sold. The cash amount received by the accused amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- was seized by the police. An application came to be presented by the applicants seeking recovery of cash amount during the pendency of the criminal trial. Earlier applications presented by the applicants were turned down in view of the orders passed on 16-8-2000 and 19-10-2001. An objection was raised to the rejection of the said applications by the applicants by presenting Criminal Application No.407 of 2001 before this Court. While disposing of the said application, this Court had directed respondent 2 no.2 to appear before the Trial Court. It was further directed that if respondent No.2 does not appear before the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall proceed to pass further orders. It transpires that respondent No.2 did not cause appearance before the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court, after considering the contentions raised before it, proceeded to reject the application for releasing the cash amount on supratnama. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. It transpires from the record that the name of respondent No.2, who was impleaded as party to the present application, has been deleted at the instance of the applicants in view of the order passed by this Court on 21-6-2010. It is respondent No.2 from whom the amount was recovered. In view of the fact that respondent No.2 is not a party to the present application, I do not deem it necessary to consider the instant application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the earlier applications were turned down by the Trial Court, no new circumstances are brought before the Court for calling interference in the impugned orders. The application is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected. Judge. pdl.