IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1024 OF 2008 Laxman Nanbhau Bangar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. V. A. Bangdiya, for the Applicant Mr. A. S. Shitole, AGP, for the Respondents-State CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 8th April, 2009 P. C. . Heard. 2. This application is preferred by the Applicant for return of the amount of Rs.48,370/- which was seized at the time of personal search of the accused-applicant who was prosecuted and convicted under Sections 7 read with 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 2500/- was trap money and amount of Rs.48,370/- was found on the person of the accused- applicant at the time of personal search. So, this amount is to be returned to the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the operative order of the Judgement of the learned Special Judge regarding disposal of the property including amount of Rs.48,370/-. -2- 4. The learned prosecutor opposed this application contending that this application be decided at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. 5. Operative part of the Judgement and order dated 18.8.2008, is to be seen. While deciding the Application for the return of property the learned Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act has correctly considered whether the property claimed by the party or the accused forms part of the proceedings or merely seized during the proceedings. On query, the learned prosecutor admitted that the amount of Rs.48,730/- is not a part of the bribe or trap money. If this is so, then this amount is unconnected with the “property” of the case. Hence, it is to be returned to the Applicant/original accused. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-