( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2000 Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai .. Applicant. Versus 1. Mr.D.K.Barai, Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-III, Belapur Division-I, Navi Mumbai 2. Shri Kayoor Godha 3. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.H.V.Mehta for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for respondent No.3-State. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 5th May, 2008. DATED : 5th May, 2008. DATED : 5th May, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. In case No.R.C.32(A) of 1999, respondent No.1 was prosecuted being a trap case. Thereafter raid was conducted at his residence and cash to the tune of Rs.9.25 lacs was found in his house. The applicant C.B.I. came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was holding the cash disproportionately to his known income for which a separate C.R. has been filed in R.C.No.43 of 1999. 2. One person by name Godha came forward contending that the monies lying with respondent No.1 were paid by him to respondent No.1 by way of consideration for the sale of the Flat by Mr.D.K.Barai. He, therefore, filed Miscellaneous ( 2 ) Application No.502 of 1999 in the said Trap Case. That application was heard and decided by the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay (C.B.I.) and by order dated 11.1.2000, the learned Special Judge ordered that the monies be returned to Mr Godha. That order has been implemented and Mr.Godha has received the monies. Respondent No.1 has also been acquitted in the said trap case. 3. With the aforesaid developments, I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Mehta. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.1.2000 goes to show that the learned Special Judge was convinced about the Agreement between Godha and respondent No.1 and that is how, he permitted return of money to Mr.Godha. 4. Now that the monies have been returned to Mr.Godha, I am of the view that nothing survives sofar as this revision application is concerned. 5. The learned Advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that in the disproportionate assets case, the applicant would like to raise a contention that the amount of money to the extent of Rs.9 and odd then held by respondent No.1 was not handed over by Mr.Godha to him but it was a cash held by respondent No.1 de-horse Mr.Godha and, therefore, all questions about the ( 3 ) explanation of the aforesaid cash should be left open. Mr.Mehta wanted such a clarification from this Court. In my view, in the absence of Mr.Godha before this Court, it would not be proper for this Court to pass an order as claimed by learned Advocate Mr.Mehta. At the same time, the applicant will have to be given an opportunity to move the learned Special Judge in the case where respondent No.1 is being prosecuted for holding disproportionate assets to file an appropriate application to raise whatever contentions the applicant would like to raise so that the said Court may attend both application. Hence the order :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R a) The Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Liberty is granted to the applicant to file separate application in R.C.No.43 of 1999 so as to deal with the cash which was found in the possession of respondent No.1. 6. Revision Application dismissed. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)