1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2098 OF 2008 Lalshankar Chaubisa ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 2008 Laxmilal Champalal Jain ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. Law Global for Petitioners. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 28TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. By these petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the Orders of the learned 1st Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Palghar, refusing to release the muddemal property in favour of the Petitioners. The muddemal property comprises of about 9900 kgs. of copper wire. In the course of investigation, 2 this copper wire was recovered from the Petitioners who are in the scrap material business. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen on the basis of the documents at Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ that the copper wire was purchased by the Petitioners and the bills which show that the properties have been purchased from the different dealers. According to the learned counsel the bills are ample evidence of the fact that property was legally purchased by the Petitioners in the course of business. In any case, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioners the property which the Petitioners purchased and was seized from them is of a different description than the one which is required by the police. 3. The learned APP on the other hand points out from the Affidavit of one Babasaheb Banda Bedre – Assistant Police Inspector that when the property was recovered from the Petitioners, no explanation was given by them from 2004 till the filing of these petitions. According to the deponent the documents are fabricated. Without going through the question of fabrication, I am of view that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error of law in holding that the Petitioners have not established that they are the owners of the property. Moreover, at this stage, it cannot be said that this property is even otherwise different from the property which was 3 required by the police for investigation. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the Petitioners that the property can be released to the Petitioners and sample of the wire can be retained for the purpose of trial. The Petitioners having not established a prima facie right to the property, Orders of the learned Sessions Judge do not call for any interference. The petitions are dismissed. 4. Needless to say that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge are prima facie and shall be restricted to the impugned orders. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)