crwp178.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2011 Anant s/o Pandurang Mule, Age 59 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Sy. No.229/2, Shri Gajanan Society, Khandoba Mal, Bhosari, Pune 39 ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer, Police Station Beed Gramin Tq. Beed, District Beed ...Respondent ..... Mr. V.S. Undre, advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent-State ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 23RD MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT:- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission itself. 2 By the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r.w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is owner of vehicle bearing No. MH-14-BA-1554, which was seized in connection with C.R. No. 99 of 2010 registered with Beed Rural police station at Beed, seeks return of the said vehicle. It appears that the petitioner crwp178.11 -2- initially had applied for return of vehicle before the court of learned J.M.F.C. at Beed. However, the said application came to be rejected by learned J.M.F.C. The said order came to be challenged by way of Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Court at Beed. The said Revision application No. 40 of 2011 was rejected vide order dated 25.2.2011, which is impugned in the present criminal writ petition. 3 It is submitted across the bar that the petitioner is owner of vehicle and he has nothing to do with offences, in which the vehicle is seized. He has also drawn my attention towards reasoning of the revisional court while rejecting criminal revision. It is submitted that revision was dismissed solely on the ground that vehicle is involved in number of serious crimes. Hence, even though order of return of vehicle was passed by this court in criminal writ petition No. 1169 of 2010 vide order dated 18.1.2011, which is annexed at page 36 of this writ petition, revision came to be dismissed. 4 Learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State opposed the present writ petition for return of vehicle solely on the ground that vehicle is involved in number of serious crimes. 5 Perused the order dated 18.1.2011 passed by this court in criminal writ petition No. 1169 of 2010. While deciding said writ crwp178.11 -3- petition, the issue that vehicle was involved in number of serious crimes was also considered and thereafter order came to be passed. Learned A.P.P. was fair enough to submit that after said order came to be passed by this court on 18.1.2011, the vehicle was not involved in any crime, as the petitioner has not approached to the police station for return of vehicle. If the applicant have approached the police station, concerned police station Officer should have complied with the order passed by this court. In view of this observation revisional court observed that vehicle is involved in other crimes and passed the order that return of vehicle to the petitioner will be risky. In my opinion, the order passed by revisional court is not proper order, as prior to the said order, this court has passed order for return of vehicle to the petitioner. 6 Considering above aspects, writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, order passed in criminal revision No.14 of 2011 dated 25.2.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause “A” and “B”. Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. *****