IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2009 Shaikh Iqbal Ahmad Aziz .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Karnik for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 02nd February 2009. : 02nd February 2009. : 02nd February 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate for the applicant in support of this application under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant filed a private complaint against the 2nd to 4th respondents making allegation of commission of offence under sections 406, 420 and 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the applicant, he alongwith the 1st accused were carrying on a business in a partnership. The 1st accused was holding the land on which premises of hotel were constructed. According to the case of the applicant, the partnership firm was carrying on business of running the said hotel. (2) 2. The case of the applicant is that on 19th October 1997, 1st to 3rd accused broke open the premises and took away valuable movable property worth Rs.02,00,000/- and books of accounts and other documents. The case of the applicant is that though a lease was executed in his favour in respect of the land, without his consent, the land was transferred by the 1st accused in favour of a third party. The learned trial Judge passed an order of acquittal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the terms and conditions incorporated in the Deed of Partnership. He invited my attention to the legal notice forming part of the compilation. According to him the said legal notice shows that leasehold rights were created by the 1st respondent accused in favour of the applicant in respect of the land. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the learned trial Judge has not considered the material terms and conditions of the Deed of Partnership, documents on record and notes of evidence and that the impugned order is perverse. (3) 4. I have perused the impugned judgment. I have also perused the copies of the deposition. The applicant in his deposition stated that the 1st accused had executed a lease in his favour in his capacity as a partner of the said firm for a term of 51 years. He stated that the lease has been registered on 01st April 1991. He stated that on the basis of the said lease, loan of Rs.05,20,000/- was obtained by the partnership firm from the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation. 5. Perusal of the Deed of Partnership shows that there is no reference to the fact that the immovable property was treated as a part of the assets of the firm. The documents on record show that the 1st accused had purportedly terminated the lease granted in the year 1991. The crux of the allegation in the complaint filed by the applicant is that the property was unauthorisedly sold by the 1st accused. 6. The learned trial Judge has observed that admittedly the 1st accused was the owner of the property who sold the same to the accused no.3. The learned Judge also pointed out that the lease on the basis of which the applicant was claiming rights was determined by the 1st accused by sending a notice. (4) 7. Considering the fact that the 1st accused was admittedly the owner of the property, in absence of any evidence to show that the property was treated as the asset of the partnership firm, the view taken by the learned Judge appears to be a probable view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. In the circumstances, no case is made out for grant of leave. Application for leave is rejected. It is made clear that observations made in this order are only for limited purpose of deciding the prayer for grant of leave. No observation made herein shall be construed as any adjudication on the rights of the parties relating to the property in dispute. (A.S.Oka,J)