IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.482 OF 2009 Shri Naved Liyakat Khalife. .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. Mr D. S. Mane, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for short. 2. It is the application for return of the cash amount alleged to be Rs. 67,000/- deposited by the applicant (original complainant) in ICICI bank accounts of the accused persons (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). According to the story of the applicant, he received mobile call on his mobile, wherein he was directed to deposit certain amount in certain account numbers on the premise that the said amount will be doubled in one day. Believing such call, the applicant deposited allegedly an amount of Rs. 85,000/- in one day in two different accounts. 3. Thereafter, he realized that there would not be any recovery of the amount as promised. This was happened sometime on 12th July, 2008. He lodged a complaint with Chembur police station for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the said two account holders. Reportedly, the said two ICICI bank accounts were directed to be freezed by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Investigation is still pending. However, both account holders (accused) are not traceable. The applicant preferred an application purported to be under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for return of his deposited money with the said two accounts. The said application was heard and rejected by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla mainly giving reason that the amount in the said accounts were not seized or produced before the Court and there was only the order of freezing bank accounts. Only on that premise the application for return of such cash amount was rejected. The said order of M.M. Court dated 19.11.2008 is challenged before this Court in the present criminal application. 4. There is certain distinction between the freezing of accounts, not giving authority to the account holder to operate the same and a situation that a particular article or any cash is seized and brought before the police station or before the Court so as to form part of the muddemal property. Otherwise, also, still, if it is considered that certain amounts are deposited by the applicant in certain accounts with ICICI bank it is yet to be ascertained whether there was any such transaction or liability for the applicant to deposit such amounts in the accounts and in fact whether the applicant can ask for the custody of any such amounts allegedly deposited by him, after withdrawing such amounts from ICICI bank account, is a question which in the opinion of this Court cannot be answered in favour of the present applicant. 5. Needless to mention that on conclusion of investigation initiated on the complaint of the applicant, appropriate steps will be taken by the concerned police station and also by the concerned Magistrate and if it is held that the applicant is entitled for any of the amounts then necessary directions can be passed. 6. Under the above circumstances, the present criminal application must fail and accordingly dismissed and disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)