IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.163 OF 2009 Basvantrao Shivsharanappa Garadshetty -Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mrs Shubhangi Choudhary i/b V.V. Purwant Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 4th April,2009. DATED : 4th April,2009. DATED : 4th April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Perused papers. 2. Heard learned A.P.P. Mrs Shinde, for the State and Ms. Shubhangi Choudhary h/f Mr Purvant for the applicant for some time. Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions. However, considering the issue involved which is a meagre in the present matter, it is being taken up today for hearing and final orders. 3. It is a matter in which the Tata Sumo bearing vehicle No.KA-32/M-4795, owned by the present applicant is used in commission of the offence of kidnapping a small boy of about five years old of the original complainant. It also appears that after kidnapping of the boy vehicle was speeded away and in that event it met with accident and such accident case is also pending against the accused persons including accused no.4. Allegedly, according to the present applicant said Tata Sumo vehicle was given on hire to accused no.4 and as such the present applicant is not aware of use of such vehicle in any offence and as such asked for return of the vehicle by making an application at Exh.7 before the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2008. The said application was preferred under the provisions of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the muddemal property i.e. Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. KA-32/M-4795. 4. On going through the material produced before this Court and considering prima facie involvement of the said vehicle in commission of offence and noticing its requirement for the identification and also knowing involvement of the said vehicle in an accident, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order dated 6.3.2008 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge Solapur rejecting the application for return of property. As such, there is nothing to allow the present criminal application which is purported to be under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, the present application is dismissed and disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)