1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 454 OF 2011 MAHADEO DAULATRAO KATKAR ..VERSUS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH P.S.O., P.S., NANDURA, DIST. BULDHANA Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. J. Shinde, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 29 th AUGUST , 2011 . Heard Mr. R. J. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. By the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, dated 12.11.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2009, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Cass, Nandura, dated 01.07.2009 in Misc. Criminal Application no. 42 of 2009. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant moved an application for released of a vehicle Maruti Car bearing No. AR-04/2262 seized in Crime No. 136/2009 registered at Police Station, Nandura, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 171 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. In short the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is 2 that the applicant being the owner of the vehicle in question, was entitled to receive the possession of that vehicle under the application moved by the applicant under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was the case of the applicant that the vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Car bearing No. AR-04/2262 was purchased by him and was being used for his personal use. The applicant was using the vehicle for his daily use. As the applicant was facing financial problem due to attachment of the vehicle, the applicant sought for release of the vehicle and offered an undertaking to execute an Indemnity Bond that the applicant would not alter or alienate the vehicle and would produce the same as and when directed by the Court. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material produced by the applicant in the form of documents, found that the document produced by the applicant was the Notarized document. The learned Magistrate also found that there was change in the engine number and chassis number and the same were different from the numbers in the police papers. There was no document such as Registration Certificate etc. In view of the difference in the engine and chassis numbers, a doubt was raised by the prosecution agency. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that there were certain alterations/corrections in the Notarized document produced by the applicant. The learned Magistrate further found that a story was put forth by the applicant that the vehicle was purchased from one Shaikh Rajjak Shaikh Raheman. The learned Magistrate also found that Shaikh Rajjak is one of the accused persons in the crime and there was nothing to show that the applicant was the owner of the car. The learned Magistrate further found that no genuine document was 3 produced on record and everything creates a serious doubt and ultimately rejected the application. The applicant then filed a Revision Application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. The revisional Court also considered the material and more particularly the material from the registration authority and found no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. On hearing the learned counsel for the applicant as well as perusal of the orders of the Courts below, I find that the material was considered by the Courts below in its proper perspective. No genuine document in support of the claim for releasing the vehicle was produced by the applicant on the contrary whatever documents were produced in support of the claim, were found suspicious in the nature of alterations of the Notarized documents. No fault can be found with the observation of the Courts below that the applicant was unable to show his lawful ownership over the vehicle. The application is devoid of merits and deserves no interference at the hands of this Court. In the result, the criminal application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale