1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.407 OF 2008 Pushpa Shridharrao Pangarkar ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents Mr.Abhinandan B. Vagyani, Advocate, for petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard advocate for petitioner. The petitioner applied under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for return of Gold bar allegedly purchased by her on 7th May, 2005 from a Jeweller by the name M/s.Kaka Gold. 2. An offence was registered under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Bund garden Police Station, Pune against one Dr.Prakash Wamanrao Mahindre by 2 Anti Corruption Bureau. During the search of the house of the accused on 12th May, 2005, the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau seized a Gold bar weighing 1 Kg bearing No.889016 under a Panchanama dated 12th May, 2005. The petitioner is the elder sister of the wife of the accused and the petitioner is a resident of Beed. The petitioner claimed custody of the Gold bar on the ground that she is the owner of the said Gold bar. The said application was opposed by the Anti Corruption Bureau contending that apart from the trap case, investigation is in progress as regards the other case registered against the same accused for holding disproportionate assets. By the impugned Order dated 11th July, 2006, the learned Special Judge rejected the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that invoice of M/s.Kaka Gold as well as extract of the cash book produced by the petitioner on the record of the trial Court is sufficient evidence of the fact that the said Gold bar was purchased by the petitioner. He submitted that even according to the Anti Corruption Bureau, seizure of the Gold bar has been made in a trap case and not 3 in the other case and seizure is itself is illegal. He pointed out that marriage of the petitioner's son was scheduled on 16th May, 2005 and the Gold bar was purchased by her on 7th May, 2005. He submitted that subject to appropriate conditions, custody of the Gold bar ought to have been handed over to the petitioner. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The learned Trial Judge has rightly held that only on the basis of the receipt/invoice issued by M/s.Kaka Gold, the Gold bar seized cannot be linked with the Gold bar purchased by the petitioner from M/s.Kaka Gold. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the seizure panchanama a number inscribed on the Gold bar has been set out. However, I find that in the Invoice issued by M/s.Kaka Gold, there is no reference to the said number. The case of the petitioner was that she purchased the Gold bar on 7th May, 2005 as marriage of her son was scheduled on 16th May, 2005. The learned Judge has accepted the case made out by the learned A.P.P that when the marriage was scheduled on 16th May, 2005, the purchase of the Gold bar on 7th May, 2005 for preparation of ornaments cannot be 4 accepted. In absence of any prima facie material produced by the petitioner to show that the Gold bar seized by the Anti Corruption Bureau was purchased by her from M/s.Kaka Gold, the Court was justified in passing the impugned Order. Unless the petitioner prima facie proves her title to the Gold bar, she has no locus to challenge the legality of seizure. No case for interference is made out. It is further clarified that the observations made in this Order are only for limited purpose for considering the merits of the challenge to the impugned Order and no adjudication has been made on the rights of the petitioner. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this Order. (A.SOKA, J.)