1 10.wp.3608-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3608 OF 2010 Uday Kalu Shetty. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Advocate a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R. Laxman, Advocate i/b. M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for Orig.Complainant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 25th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. By this Petition, the communication sent by the Police Sub Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Unit-I, Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai dated 23.2.2010 to M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd., has been assailed. The said communication is purportedly issued under Section 105 of Code of Criminal Procedure as is mentioned at the top of the communication. The nature of directions issued by the Police Sub Inspector to M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd., by no standard can be said to be one covered by Section 105 of the Code. Learned A.P.P. PPD 2 10.wp.3608-10 submits that it is a clerical mistake in the communication. The Section ought to be Section 105-E of the Code which forms part of the amended Chapter VII-A of the Code which has come into effect from 20th July, 1994. Even if this contention is to be taken forward so long as the flat referred to in the communication is not in possession of the Petitioner, the question of seizure or attachment of the property referred to therein is itself doubtful. 2. Realizing this position, learned A.P.P. on instructions submits that the concerned Police Sub-Inspector intends to withdraw the communication dated 23.2.2010 (at page-27), and instead proceed against the petitioner including in respect of Flat No.702 in "PARAMOS" Apartment, Vasant Lawns, Pokharan Road No.2, Ghodbunder, Thane (E) in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, the Petition would stand disposed of in view of the above stand taken by the learned A.P.P. leaving all other options available and permissible in law to be adopted during course of investigation against the Petitioner or the movable and immovable property of the Petitioner in accordance with law. Which proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the concession given by the Police Officer through learned A.P.P. in 3 10.wp.3608-10 the present Petition or any observations made by us in the earlier part of this order. 4. Petition is disposed of on above terms. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)