-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 2008 Gagubhai Wajabhai Kothiwar : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent ... Mr.Viresh Vishwanath Purwant for the petitioner. Ms S.V.Gajre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. For the reasons which are set out in this order, the Writ Petition need not be kept pending. 3. A tanker allegedly owned by the petitioner has been seized by the police in connection with an offence registered under sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. An earlier application made by the petitioner in the year 2005 for custody of the said tanker was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, on 27.2.2006, a report was submitted by the Addl. Collector, -: 2 :- Solapur, to the concerned police station. On the basis of the said report, a fresh application for custody of the tanker was filed by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the said application was rejected on three grounds. The first ground is that the earlier application made by the petitioner was rejected in the year 2005. The second ground is that the petitioner has not filed any original documents for establishing his ownership and the third ground is that confiscation proceedings have been initiated. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the present application was filed by the petitioner on the basis of change of circumstances brought about by the report submitted by the Addl. Collector. He submitted that the petitioner is relying upon only those documents which form part of the charge-sheet. He submitted that till today, proceedings for confiscation of the tanker have not been initiated. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor seeks time to ascertain whether any such proceedings have been initiated. 5. On a plain reading of the impugned order, the application made by the petitioner could not have been rejected on the first two grounds. In the application made by the petitioner, specific reliance has been placed -: 3 :- on the report submitted by the Addl. Collector in the year 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner is relying upon no other document, save and except the documents forming part of the charge-sheet. He submitted that the documents forming part of the charge-sheet are in the custody of the concerned Investigating Officer. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.4.2007 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Misc. Application No.122 of 2006 is restored to the file of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate will ascertain whether confiscation proceedings have been initiated. If no such proceedings are initiated, the learned Magistrate will decide the application afresh on its own merits. However, if it is found that confiscation proceedings have already been initiated, the application shall be kept pending till the conclusion of the said proceedings. 7. The Petition is disposed of. A.S. OKA, J.