1 revn.243.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Revision Application No. 243 of 2011 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Applicants v/s. M/s. Suryavanshi Kirana Stores ....Respondent Mr. A.S. Shitole-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 12th July, 2011 PC: The petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and directing the release of seized stock of rice. 2. Shri Shitole appearing on behalf of petitioner vehemently submits that learned Judge has failed to take into consideration that the rice which was seized was in excess than the permissible quantity. Learned APP further submits that learned Court has also not taken into consideration that though the license for storage was from Chiplun and since the rice was seized from Karad where it was stored, the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the application. 3. Since the learned Appellate Court has protected the interest of State by directing the respondent to execute an indemnity bond as per the present market price of the seized stock of rice, I find that interest of State is duly protected. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present revision 2 revn.243.11.sxw application in the extraordinary jurisdiction. 4. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)