1 Cri.W.P. No.1045/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1045 OF 2009 Somnath s/o Shankar Faske, Age 36 years, Occu. Shephered, R/o Aurangpur, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Baburao s/o Bhagwanrao Dhengule, Age 51 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Naigaon, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 3. Govind s/o Vishwanath Ranmare, Age 22 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Aurangpur, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 4. Vishwanath s/o Tatyaba Ranmare, Age 66 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Aurangpur, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 5. Shrikrishna s/o Tatyaba Ranmare, Age 54 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Aurangpur, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. 6. Sopan s/o Tatyaba Ranmare, Age 50 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Aurangpur, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. ..... RESPONDENTS 2 Cri.W.P. No.1045/2009 ..... Shri S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Shri V.M. Chate, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19th January, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner impugns the common judgment and order dated 30.7.2009 in Criminal Revision No.123/2008 and 124/2008, recorded by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Ambajogai. 2. The learned counsel, while criticizing the order under challenge, informed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power and jurisdiction to entertain the revision in terms of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In order to stress his point, the counsel has relied to the judgment of Prakash Tarachand Sakhre Vs. Ashok Pundlikrao Wajge and another (2001 CRI.L.J. 3024) and to the matter of 1991 Mh.L.J. 1371 – relevant paragraph 12 which reads as under : “In my view, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has merit and has to be accepted. As pointed out by Gadgil, J., in Ghafoor Bhai’s case (supra), an order may be passed under section 457 of the Code purely at the stage of investigation or even after the charge sheet had been filed, but before the property was actually produced before the Courts during the 3 Cri.W.P. No.1045/2009 trial. In the latter case, any order passed by the Magistrate must necessarily be an interlocutory order subject to the final orders to be passed after the trial has concluded.” 3. Both the judgments would not be applicable to the facts of present case as in those of the matters the matter was relating to disposal of seized property and the Courts observed that revision was not maintainable. In this case, seizure of the property was based on search warrant that the seizure was contemplated in terms of Section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Acceding to the same was questioned before the revisional Court. That apart, the orders which are challenged before the revisional Court, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had its finality as by the said orders, the applications in Criminal Case No.239/2008 were disposed of. Consequently, I hold that filing of revision by the respondent was in tune with the legal position. No infirmity could be addressed. 4. The short point involved is, whether the writ petitioner is able to make out that the 22 ewes and 2 rams which were allegedly stolen belonged to him and whether they were removed from his custody having found in possession of Raghu Mane. Raghu Mane in his affidavit, in unmistakable terms illustrated that the 22 ewes and 2 rams were handed over/ entrusted to him by present respondent Baburao Bhagwanrao Dhengule for the purposes of 4 Cri.W.P. No.1045/2009 grazing on sharing basis on 10.4.2008 by documentation to this effect being so entered between him and Baburao (respondent herein). He has accounted the events that had taken place on 21.9.2008 when the police from Yusufwadgaon came with the present petitioner Somnath to his village and made enquiries about the 22 ewes and 2 rams which he was holding for and on behalf of the respondent. The conduct of the police officer coercing said Raghu to put him in fetters made him to put thumb impression on a blank paper and thereafter he filed affidavit dated 29.9.2008 specifying the details. 5. The record illustrate, four applications were moved by present applicant seeking search against number of persons against the so called theft of his 22 ewes and 2 rams and search warrant therefor. In one of the warrants he did not disclose the names of the persons who could possess 22 ewes and 2 rams allegedly belonged to the petitioner herein. The exercise that has carried by the order under challenge without notice to the lawful owners/ the respondent herein resultantly caused error which was apparent on the face of record. No perversity in the order of learned District Judge. Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE