1 APL 42.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2011 Hari Mittal Yadav. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. M.K. Kocharekar i/b. M/s. Rajeev Sawant & Assoc. for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 12th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel Mr. Kocharekar for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has challenged the orders of the learned Commissioner of Police dated 12th January 2011, whereby the premises of the Applicant has been sealed and he is even not permitted to deal with the same or lease out. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits, it is not in controversy that the Applicant is owner of the premises. This has been so pointed in a reply dated 17.4.2010 and also authorities were informed on 13.7.2010 that the premises was given under the leave and licence dated 1.6.2009 to Mr. 2 APL 42.11.sxw Umesh Yadav, who allegedly conducted a brothel in the licence premises. The Applicant had no control over the activities carried by said Umesh Yadav. He is not a conductor within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. 4. I have perused the record in respect of Criminal Case No.LAC 39 of 2009 (CC No.526/PW/2010), in which evidence of Michael Rozario and Police Officer Sudesh Ajgaonkar was recorded. Perusal thereof including the panchnama, it is explicit, the Petitioner Hari Mittal Yadav do not surface at the time of raid or at the time of illegal activities being allegedly carried on the premises. 5. In view of above position, legal position as indicated in the matter of Dhansingh Gopal Chauhan V/s. State of Maharashtra (2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 500), the Applicant cannot be branded to be a conductor in respect of premises in question and consequently, the order of sealing the premises, naturally calls for interference. However, it is clarified that the Applicant will not lease out the premises to any person upto 31st January 2012. 6. If the Applicant desires in between to lease out the premises, he will apply to the learned Commissioner of Police or the other Authorities in terms of Section 18 of the said Act and the authorities independently shall consider the same on its own merits. 3 APL 42.11.sxw 7. With the above observations, the order of the learned Commissioner of putting the seal over the property dated 12th January 2011 is quashed and set aside. 8. With the above indicated riders, Application allowed as above. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)