((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2009 M/s.BDH Industries Limited Applicant versus Amar Srinivas Tiwari & ors. Respondents Shirish Gupte, Sr.Counsel i/by Subodh Desai for applicant. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the original first informant. Five accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 379, 408, 411 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate by order dated 26thj August 1996 passed an order of acquittal. While passing the order of acquittal the learned Magistrate also passed an order under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("said Code" for short) directing disposal of the property. The said part of the order of acquittal dated 26th August 1996 reads thus:- ((-2-)) "Accused nos.1 to 5 are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 408 r/w 114 of I.P.C. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Property to the extent of 860 kgs. as shown in Exh.P-4 and 300 kgs. out of 370 kgs. from Exh.P-6 be returned to the accused No.3. The remaining property 70 kgs. from Exh.P-6 be returned to P.W.No.5. Property has been returned on bond to P.W.No.3. The bond is forfeited. P.W.No.3 is directed to return the property to accused no.3 and W.No.5 as per this order or to pay them in equivalent. Order as to the return of property shall take effect on the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal." 2. It appears that the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal against the said order. By judgement and order dated 10th August 1998 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal. The revision application against order of acquittal was also filed by the present applicant. The said revision application was rejected by the Division Bench for the reasons recorded in the appeal preferred by the State. It appears that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was carried to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has dismissed the special leave petition. Thus, the aforesaid ((-3-)) order dated 26th August 1996 passed by the learned Magistrate has attained finality. 3. It appears that one Amar Shriniwas Tiwari (accused no.3) made an application in the year 2004 for return of the property. The said application was disposed of by the learned Magistrate by order dated 19th August 2004. The learned Magistrate directed the applicant to pay cash amount of Rs.9,43,089/- to the accused no.3 and cash of Rs.56,911/- to PW-5. The said order dated 19th August 2004 was challenged by the applicant by preferring an appeal. By the impugned order dated 30th November 2006, the appeal was disposed of by passing following order :- "1. The impugned order dated 19.8.2004 is set aside instead of that Complainant/Appellant to act upon order dated 26.8.1996 to return the property or to pay the same in equivalent. 2. The property shown in Ex.P-4 is wrongly mentioned as 860 K.G. it should be taken as 680 KG instead of 860 Kg. 3. With these alteration appellant PW-3 is directed to comply with that order within one month from today. 4. Criminal Appeal No.315-04 stands disposed off." 4. The learned Sessions Judge has directed ((-4-)) return of property in terms of the order dated 26th August 1996 which has allegedly attained finality. The order dated 26th August 1996 passed by the learned Magistrate has attained finality by virtue of its confirmation upto Apex Court. As pointed out earlier, the said order incorporates a direction in exercise of powers under section 452 of the said code. As far as the said direction under section 452 is concerned, an appeal under section 454 of the said Code was maintainable. Such appeal has not been preferred by the present applicant. All that has been done by the impugned order dated 30th November 2006 passed by the Sessions Court is that it is held that the order dated 26th August 1996 which has attained finality should be acted upon. In view of this position, no case for interference is made out. The application is rejected. 5. As the impugned order is being confirmed, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that effect may be given to clause 2 of the impugned order. It is obvious that while implementing the order dated 26th August 1996 effect will be given to clause (2) of the impugned order dated 30th November 2006. ((-5-)) (A.S.OKA, J.) ((-6-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2008 Amar Shrinivas Tiwari and anr. Petitioner versus M/s.BDH Industrial Ltd. and ors. Respondents None for petitioner. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th April 2009 PC : 1. None appears for the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (A.S.OKA, J.)