(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, .. Appellants through the Collector, (Original defendant Aurangabad, nos.1, 2 and 5 ) & 2 others. versus M/s. Mohanlal Bhagwandas Choksi & .. Respondents Co., 113, Zaveri Bazar, Bombay-400 002, (Original plaintiff A registered partnership firm through & Defendant Its partners :- nos.3 and 4 ) Sureshkumar s/o. Vasantlal Choksi & .. Appeal abated as 3 others. against respondent no.2. ....................... Mrs. B.R. Khekale, Assistant Government Pleader, for the appellants. Mr. K.R. Korhale, Advocate, for respondent no.1 (Absent). Appeal abated as against respondent no.2 as per court's order dated 7-5-2009. ........................ (2) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 26TH MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Mrs. B.R. Khekale, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants. 2. The decree in favour of the plaintiff, seeking recovery of gold bar weighing 435.500 gms. or its value of Rs. 1,75,000/- and cash Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, by order dated 20th August 2001, was challenged by the State in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/2003 and the learned first appellate court, on re-appreciating the facts, dismissed the State's appeal. Thus, the concurrent findings are questioned by the State. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader informs, the gold bar seized by the Police Officers from the shop of the plaintiffs were indeed returned to the complainant in the criminal case, being Crime No. 29/94, registered at Jawahar Nagar Police Station and consequently, there could not be a liability on Police to remit the gold or the price thereof, to the plaintiffs. (3) 4. The courts have analyzed the evidence of the plaintiff and exhaustively dealt with the high handed action of the Police Officers when they stormed of the plaintiff at Mumbai and in spite of explanation offered, the Police Officers under the garb of their power, did not agree to the contention of the plaintiff and forced them to have substitute gold which was in the form of bars and got it from the plaintiffs. Such exercise by the Police Officers was proved before the court on evidence. There could not have been return of the gold seized from the plaintiff to anybody else as it was taken charge from the custody of the plaintiff for which they had valid receipt shown to Police and which was to the knowledge of the concerned Police Officer. The decree and consequent judgment in First Appeal, which is in tune with the record, does not warrant any interference. 5. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/697sa