1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5445 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2009 Akeel Ahmed Siddiqui ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Subhash Chandra Pal for the Applicant. Mr. S. H. Shaikh, A. P. P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mrs. Shrivastave for Respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 26, 2010. P.C. The Applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Alibaug in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2009 dated 13th August, 2009 thereby reversing the order passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the Application filed by the present Applicant for release of the goods in question was allowed. 2. By the impugned order dated 30th May, 2009, the Trial Court also has allowed the application filed by the Respondent 2 No.2 herein and directed the Respondent No.1 to hand over the custody of the said goods to Respondent No.2. It is the contention of the Applicant that the goods in question was commonly known as a Parai and was in fact a cutting machine. 4. The F.I.R. is registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 alleging therein that certain scrap in the factory of Respondent No. 2 was sold to the Applicant. It is the case of the Respondent No. 2 that when the Applicant came to the premises of the Respondent No. 2 on 31st July, 2008 while the scrap was being removed, he had also removed the Monel Shaft. On the last date, the parties were directed to produce the photographs of the goods in question. The same are produced by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. The same are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. From the perusal of the photographs, it reveals that by no stretch of imagination, the said goods can be said to be a cutting machine. The contention of the Respondent No. 2 which was accepted by the learned Revisional Court that the said good was a Monel Shaft required for the manufacturing activity of Respondent No.2, at least prima facie appears to be correct. In any case, the learned Revisional Court has imposed sufficient conditions so as to protect the interest of the parties. 3 3. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous. Hence, the present Application is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]