1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3128 OF 2009 Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.P. Bhosle, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 12th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- At the request of Mr. Venegaonkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the name of Respondent No.2 is deleted as a party Respondent to the Petition. 2. Under challenge is the order by the District Judge-13 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.361 of 2009, refusing to modify the terms and conditions on which the property viz. currency notes have been returned to the Petitioner. 3. The only argument canvassed before the Revisional Court and reiterated before me is that the Trial Court could not have imposed the condition directing the Petitioner to give a bank security. That is nothing but a direction to give a security in the sum/amount returned in the form of a Bank Guarantee. That is a condition which is onerous and amounts 2 to rejecting the application. More so, when the prosecution has no objection to the return of property. The second condition which is impugned before the Revisional Court and this Court is the direction that the cash amount should not be disposed off but should be produced at the time of evidence if directed by the Court. 4. Mr. Venegaonkar submits that if the article in question is currency notes and if it is directed to be returned, then, such condition and more particularly, production of the same notes at the trial defeats the very purpose of allowing the application. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR (2003) S.C. 638 Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s. State of Gujarat, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines under which upon details of the articles like currency notes be included in the panchnama drawn and on photographs or article being identified otherwise, the same can be returned. 5. The learned APP states that there was no objection to the return of the notes but the conditions imposed are fair and just so as to ensure a proper and effective trial. 6. The learned Judge seems to be unaware of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has, in this decision observed that with regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is of no use keeping the same in police 3 custody for years till the trial is over. The seized articles can be handed over after preparing detailed and proper panchnama of such articles and taking photographs. All such articles can be produced at the time of trial after giving proper security. 7. In these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court would have directed that the currency notes could have been returned after a complete and proper panchnama and on furnishing the necessary indemnity bond and taking photographs/other acknowledgment so as to identify the currency notes. That would have ensured smooth and proper trial. 8. In the circumstances, this Petition is allowed. The conditions as aforementioned in the Trial Court’s order are substituted with the direction that the currency notes be returned on execution of the indemnity bond and after complete and proper panchnama is drawn and the articles are identified by a photograph or by other Advance Technology with all details. On such course being taken, the articles be returned to the Petitioner. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)