drp {1} CWP No.1154/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1154 OF 2010 Sandhya Rajesh Patil PETITIONER Age-40 years, Occ-Household & Self Employment, R/o Town Center, CIDCO, Aurangabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad 2. The Senior Police Inspector, Jawahar Colony Police Station, Aurangabad ....... Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.D.Rakh, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26 th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned APP accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2. drp {2} CWP No.1154/2010 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition, under Article 227 and section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of condition No.7 imposed by Additional Sessions Judge-1 Aurangabad while allowing Criminal Revision No. 245/2010. The said revision was preferred by the petitioner seeking return of property. 4. It is urged that after hearing the concerned parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the application of return of property in favour of the petitioner, however, erroneously imposed a condition No.7, which reads thus - “7. The investigating officer will take out the photographs of the said ornaments by appropriate photographer. He will take signatures of the complainant and accused and himself on the said photograph in presence of the officer of the Court so the drp {3} CWP No.1154/2010 identity of the ornaments cannot be changed later on or cannot be changed.” 5. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is imperative to obtain bond from the person to whom the property is returned, so that the same can be produced as and when required and ordered by the Court, yet obtaining the signature of the complainant and accused is uncalled for. 6. After hearing the parties, in my opinion, the condition No.7 imposed in order dated 16.11.2010, is improper, and hence needs to be modified suitably. The condition No.7 in the order dated 16.11.2010 be read as follows : “7. The investigating officer will take out the photographs of the said ornaments by appropriate photographer. He will sign on the said photograph in presence of the officer of the Court so the identity of the ornaments cannot be changed later on or cannot be changed.” 7. Accordingly, the present petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute as indicate above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A11/cwp1154-10