1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2456 OF 2010 Keshav S/o.Shamrao Pawar, Age-48 years, Occu-Contractor, R/o.Gajanan Colony, Shahunagar, Beed, Ta.Dist. Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.J.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 30/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant, owner of the vehicle MH-23-A-7028 which was seized in connection with CR No.24/2010, registered with Patoda Police Station of Dist. Beed, as involved in the offence punishable u/s. 395 of The IPC, assailed the judgment and order passed in Cri.Rev.36/2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed dated 02/06/2010. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the 2 applicant and learned APP, perused the record and proceeding as well as the impugned order. It appears that initially application was moved for return of vehicle u/s. 457 of The Cr.P.C., which was turned down by learned J.M.F.C. Patoda, which order was challenged in the Criminal Revision No.36/2010, before the learned Sessions Judge, Beed. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge in para no.7 of the impugned order that as the CR in which the vehicle in question was seized by Patoda Police Station, is triable by the Court of Sessions, hence refused to entertain the application. Concurrent with the view taken by the learned J.M.F.C. Patoda, it appears that the criminal revision was turned down for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment including the observations in para no.7. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge, have not considered the merits of the matter, whether the owner of the vehicle is entitled for the vehicle in question involved in the said offence or not. If the order is not passed on merits, then the order is nullity in the eye of Law. In view of this, it is necessary to allow the application but to remit the matter back to the learned Sessions Judge to decide it on its own merit, within the stipulated period. In view of this, order passed in Cri.Rev. No. 36/2010, dated 02/06/2010 is hereby quashed 3 and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge to decide it on its own merits within the period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of this order. Learned Sessions Judge to decide the revision afresh within the stipulated period, and not to influence with the observation of this Court. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri-appl-2456-10