* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2073 OF 2007 Ravindra Chabildas Shah ...... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent ======== Mr.Sudhir Haldi, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for State-Respondent. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. The petitioner carries on business of selling jaggery in the market yard at Pune. A complaint vide C.R.No.279 of 2006 was filed against him for commission of the offences punishable under Section 420, 467 IPC and Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 65 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 3(b) of the Jaggery Regulation Use Order, 1958. During the course of investigation, the police seized and attached 7 trucks loaded with about 75 tonnes jaggery, valued at Rs.7,00,000/-. The jaggery seized is kept in the custody of the * 2 * police. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the said jaggery and hence entitled to receive the same. He had earlier filed an application before the District Magistrate. However the same was not considered. He then preferred second application under Section 467 Cr.P.C. to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 7th Court, Pune. That application was rejected vide order dated 25th June, 2007. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 548 of 2007. That Revision Application also came to be rejected by the Sessions Court by its order dated 24th September, 2007. 3. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the correctness and legality of the orders passed by both the courts rejecting his application for custody of the seized article by the police. 4. In its first impugned order the trial court rejected the application for custody of jaggery accepting the prosecutions' case that the contraband seized was not jaggery fit for human consumption. It was black jaggery unfit for human consumption. Since, the applicant does not have a license to possess such jaggery, the court refused to hand over custody of the same to the petitioner. The court also considered the provisions of Bombay Molasses Rules, 1955 that any person who is the purchaser of molasses desires to possess and sell molasses should hold * 3 * license issued by the Collector under the said Rule. Since the petitioner does not hold a license for possessing molasses, he was not entitled to receive the contraband. It was contended by the petitioner before the Sessions Court that what was seized by the police is not established to be molasses. It is described as black jaggery by the police. There is no restriction for holding the said jaggery and therefore the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. However, the Sessions Court rejected the application holding that the petitioner does not possess any license to possess or sell molasses and hence is not entitled to receive the contraband. 5. Mr.Haldi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have committed a serious error of jurisdiction, in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to receive property as he does not hold license for keeping and selling molasses. It is submitted that there is no material whatsoever before the court to establish that the contraband seized was molasses and not jaggery. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner does not hold license for keeping and selling molasses. However, that fact is not relevant since it is not the case of the prosecution that what was seized by the police was molasses. The prosecution describes the contraband as black jaggery. The petitioner holds license under the Maharashtra Gud and Khandsari Bills Final Order * 4 * 1963 issued by the Tahasildar, Dahanu for the sale of gud. It is obvious that this license is to keep and sell edible gud i.e. the jaggery which is to be kept for human consumption. The petitioner does not hold any license for any other type of jaggery. Therefore, he is not entitled to receive the jaggery seized. As per the prosecution, the black jaggery seized by the police is required to be disposed off under the provisions of Section 101 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, after obtaining orders from the court. The police had not yet obtained the order of the court as regards the disposal of the black jaggery. 7. In the circumstances, the orders passed by the courts below are required to be confirmed not on the basis of want of license for molasses but for the reason that the license held by the petitioner is not for holding and selling non-edible jaggery. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]