1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 632 OF 2010 (Mohammad Imroz Raees Mohd Hameed .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Rizwy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri C.N. Adgokar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 20TH JANUARY, 2011. Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur thereby rejecting the application for releasing the amount to the tune of Rs.7,32,900/-. The brief facts of the matter are that the amount to the tune of Rs.7,32,900/- was recovered from one vehicle namely Tata Indigo bearing registration No. MP-28/C-4094 in the course of vehicle checking. The driver and other person in the vehicle were unable to give any plausible explanation towards the amount and they stated that the amount belongs to the owner of Paramount Traders. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant is the proprietor of M/s. Paramount Traders who is running the business of scrap material which is the only source of his livelihood. He further submits that on receiving the information that the police authorities have registered the case No.4/2010 under Section 4(1)(a)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner immediately rushed to the Police Station with the documents such as tax invoices, payment vouchers etc. for release of the amount. But, the police authorities informed him that he has to approach to the Court. The petitioner, therefore, moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, by presenting Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1280/2010 for releasing 2 the cash amount on supratnama under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was rejected solely on the ground that the documents filed by the petitioner/applicant were the photocopies and the vouchers of tax department etc. are neither authenticated nor certified. He further submits that the petitioner is possessing the original tax receipts/vouchers and he is ready to place the said documents before the Court to substantiate his claim. He further submits that there is no counter claim made by anybody for release of the said amount. Learned Counsel further submits that the amount was of the petitioner and as the petitioner is a small businessman, he has raised that amount out of his sources. He further submits that now the petitioner is facing financial difficulties as there are demands from the financial institutions and as the amount which is sought to be released by the petitioner, if not released, the petitioner would face serious financial difficulties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits as the petitioner is approaching to this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court by exercising inherent powers, if allowed the petition by giving an opportunity to file fresh application before the Court along with the documents, would meet the ends of justice. Reply is filed by the learned APP on behalf of the respondent/State. Learned APP strongly opposes the petition and supports the order impugned. On considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the impugned order shows that the application was rejected on the ground that the documents produced by the petitioner were photocopies and no certified copies were placed on record. It is also revealed that there is no counter claim made for release of the amount. I find considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to place on record the material to substantiate his claim 3 along with the application to meet the ends of justice by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also by giving an opportunity to hear the opposite party, i.e. State, no prejudice would cause to the interest of the State. In the result, the petitioner is permitted to approach the learned Magistrate with the relevant material. Learned Magistrate to consider the application on its own merit and pass appropriate order without being influenced by the observation of this Court. The petitioner to approach before the learned Magistrate within a period of two weeks from today and the learned Magistrate to decide the application as early as possible. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE *rrg.