1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.25/2010 Applicant :- Gangubai wd/o Babarao Atole, Aged about 73 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Kurangad (Bk), Tal. Jalgaon (Jamod) Distt. Buldhana. ...Versus... Non-applicants :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Jalgaon (Jamod), Distt. Buldhana. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon (Jamod), Distt. Buldhana. 3. Vishnu Babarao Atole, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o Kurangad (Bk), Tal. Jalgaon (Jamod), Distt. Buldhana. 4. Smt. Trupti wd/o Manohar Atole Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Kurangad (Bk) Tq. Jalgaon (Jamod), Distt. Buldhana. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri N.B. Jawade, Adv. for applicant] [Shri A.S. Sonare, APP for non-applicant Nos.1 & 2] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 12.01.2010 1. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the revisional order dated 7.10.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Criminal Revision No.86/2009, 2 confirming the order in the matter of grant of supratnama under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is not in dispute that 86 quintals wheat was seized from the house of the applicant who only holds land of 6 hectares. 7/12 extract in respect of his land shows in 2 hectares wheat was sown. It is beyond imagination that in 2 hectares land 86 quintals yield can be taken. No fault can be found out with the Courts below in making the impugned orders. It is further seen that the revisional Court has specifically found that the wheat that was seized was sold and the sale proceeds received from that yield have been deposited with the Government treasury. In other words, the application for claiming the property, namely, wheat on supratnama was obviously rendered infructuous. Learned Counsel for the applicant further has made alternate claim for the payment of the value received after sale proceeds. Such prayer cannot be granted at this stage since in the trial the competent criminal Court will have to decide the eligibility of the applicant or others for the said property and then make final order regarding disposal of the property which includes payment of the money received from the sale proceeds to the person found eligible to receive. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible to accept alternate request made by learned Counsel for the applicant. In the result, I find no merit in the present criminal application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The applicant is, however, at liberty to take such steps as are available in law since learned Counsel for the applicant states that confiscation orders have already been passed. JUDGE SSW