1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 722 OF 2004 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2004 Vasant Tukaram Pawar ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicant (appellant) Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This is an application preferred by the applicant (appellant) seeking suspension of the implementation of the order dated 6.3.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, Dhule in Criminal Misc. Application No. 670 of 1993 pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004. 2 The applicant submits that learned Special Judge, Dhule 2 passed an order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 670 of 1993 on 6.3.2004, which has been challenged by the applicant in Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004 and same is pending before this court. It is also the contention of the applicant that by the said order dated 6.3.42004, learned Special Judge partly allowed the appeal and forfeited the property of the applicant/appellant to the extent of amount value of Rs.3,10,784/-. It is further the contention of the applicant that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and the applicant/appellant has very good case on merits in the appeal. Hence, the applicant submits that pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004, the effect, operation and implementation of the said order dated 6.3.2004 needs to be stayed in the interest of justice. 3 Shri R.M.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant stated across the Bar that the police personnel are visiting house of the applicant/appellant, who is 72 years old, for confiscation of the property and further submitted that if the said property is confiscated during the pendency of the appeal, the very purpose of filing of the appeal would be futile. 4 Shri S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. opposed the present application and submitted that as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Tukaram Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2005 AIR SCW 2199, Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004 itself be 3 fixed up for hearing and there is no necessity of passing any order in the present application as prayed for by the applicant/appellant therein. 5 Considering the rival submissions, since the applicant/appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by learned Special Judge, Dhule in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 670 of 1993 on 6.3.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004 which is pending for hearing before this court, the interest of justice requires that the operation and execution of the said order be stayed pending hearing and final disposal of the said appeal. Besides that, the apprehension posed by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the police personnel are visiting the house of the applicant/appellant for confiscation of the property as per the order dated 6.3.2004, which is under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004, cannot be ignored. There is no dispute that Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004 deserves to be fixed for final hearing as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, but till the hearing and final disposal of the said appeal and the operation and execution of the impugned order needs to be stayed. 6 In the circumstances, present Criminal Application No. 722 of 2004 is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A' thereof and pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004, the operation and implementation of the order dated 6.3.2004 passed by Special Judge, Dhule in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 670 of 1993 stands stayed 4 and suspended till hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2004 and the said Appeal be fixed for final hearing earlier as per directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap722.04