{1} Cri. Application No.3294/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3294 OF 2011 Gorakshnath Vishvanath Kurhe APPLICANT Age-40 years, Occ-Agri R/o Kharwandi, Tq-Newasa, Dist-Ahmednagar, VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through P.I. Rahuri Police Station, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar ....... Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3 rd October 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Present application is directed against the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in {2} Cri. Application No.3294/2011 Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.63/2011, rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking release of his vehicle bearing No. MH-17/T-7267. 3. Perusal of the record shows that the vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.308/2007 registered with the Rahuri Police Station. The said offence was registered against in all 16 accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 302, 149, 427, 341 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said vehicle was seized on the allegations that the same was used in the commission of the offence. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No.7/2008. It further appears that vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2010, learned trial court acquitted all the accused of all the charges from the said Sessions Case. 4. It is mandatory for the trial court to pass requisite order for disposal of the property, which was seized during the investigation. Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the order for disposal of the property at the conclusion of the {3} Cri. Application No.3294/2011 trial. Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads thus- “452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the court, engaging to restore such property to the court if the order made under subsection (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459. (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.” 5. Clause 4 of the order passed in Sessions Case No. {4} Cri. Application No.3294/2011 7/2008 reads thus- “4. The muddemal articles produced before the Court, being worthless, shall be destroyed. The muddemal article pick up van of Mahindra Company bearing registration No.MH-17, T-7267 shall be returned to its registered owner on executing bond of Rs.5,00,000/- it it is not required in any other crime. The order regarding disposal of muddemal articles is to take effect after the appeal period is over.” 6. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the petitioner has furnished the requisite bond, as directed in clause-4 of the order. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the application seeking release of the vehicle has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the appeal filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of the accused, has been admitted and pending in this Court. 7. Remarks were put by the IO on the application moved by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle, which speaks a lot. The IO, in his say has made it clear that the vehicle in question was not produced before the trial court even during the trial. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as per the order dated 26.08.2010, rendered in Session Case No.7/2008 the vehicle has to {5} Cri. Application No.3294/2011 be returned to its registered owner. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Merely because the appeal is admitted against the judgment of acquittal, does not mean that the vehicle to be detained and kept idle in the police station for an indefinite period. In the premise, the application deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The vehicle in question be returned to the petitioner on his giving undertaking to produce the same as and when required. As the petitioner has already executed a bond of Rs.5,00,000/-, it is not necessary that the petitioner to furnish fresh bond. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/criapln3294-11