1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO. 1464 of 2009 Ramchandra Shankar More ... Petitioner (Orig.Accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents (Org.Complainants) Shri R.S.Alange, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. A.A.Mane, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 30th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent No.2, who was the complainant, lodged a report on 3.9.2000 that at about 7 p.m., the complainant along with two others was proceeding from Pune Solapur Road for delivery of milk. At that time, the accused came on his M-80 Moped, parked it and then started abusing the complainant in filthy language. He caught the color of the complainant, tore his pocket and took away his milk supply diary and cash of Rs.3,000/- from his pocket. The accused went away on Moped along with cash and diary. The case was registered under Section 394 IPC against the accused and after investigation, he was charge- 2 sheeted. The seizure of several articles, including the cash from the accused was admitted. Finding some discrepancies in the evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused by a judgment dated 8.3.2006. However, the trial court directed that the Muddemal property i.e. cash amount of Rs.3,000/- be returned to the complainant. The order of acquittal was not challenged by the prosecution. However, the accused filed criminal Appeal No.29 of 2006 in respect of the order about return of cash. According to him, as the cash was seized from him and as he was acquitted, it should have been returned to him. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition. 3. On perusal of the Judgments of both the Courts, and particularly of the Sessions Court, it appears that even though the accused had admitted seizure of the amount from him in the panchnama, he had never claimed that amount to be his own. Even in the statement under Sec. 313, he never claimed that it was his own money. He was given an opportunity to examine himself or any defence witness on oath. However, he did not examine either himself or any witness and thus he never came forward with a statement that amount which was seized from him actually belonged to him. As the accused has been acquitted, it will not be appropriate to comment on the said judgment, but it appears that the trial Court had acquitted him by giving benefit of minor discrepancies in the evidence of the 3 complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly noted that the petitioner had never claimed that money to be his own either in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or by giving evidence on oath. In view of these circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)