Remanded

Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2008APPLN/1496/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained an application for return of 1 Kg of seized gold. With the owner having no objection and the Investigating Officer having given no objection, the court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the return of the property subject to bonding and panchnama.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; application for return of 1 Kg gold allowed; custody granted subject to bond and panchnama.

Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1496 OF 2008

¶4

Shri Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar
Vs.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Anr... Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.H.H.Ponda for the Applicant.
Mr.D.R.More, A.P.P for the State.
Mr.Vijay Dhigreje for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶9

DATE : 04th August 2008.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, learned A.P.P for the 1st respondent and the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶12

2.The applicant made an application under section
451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the
learned Magistrate for return of 1 Kg of the gold seized
by the police. The case of the applicant was that on
16th April 2007 he received the said gold from the 2nd
respondent for manufacture of ornaments. The voucher
issued by the 2nd respondent was produced before the
trial Court. According to the applicant, on the same
day, the said gold was handed over to the accused for
manufacturing the ornaments. The accused did not return

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

the gold and he ran away and therefore, the present
applicant filed a complaint.

¶15

3.The said application under section 451 of the
said Code was rejected by the learned Magistrate by
order dated 14th February 2008. A revision application
preferred by the applicant against the said order has
been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

¶16

4.It appears that before the learned Magistrate
even the Investigating Officer gave no objection for
return of the property. The only ground on which the
application was rejected is that the notice of the
application was not served to the 2nd respondent who was
admittedly the owner of the gold.

¶17

5.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
invited my attention to a writing dated 16th December
2007 which was produced before the trial Court which was
executed by the 2nd respondent in which the 2nd
respondent stated that the said respondent was not
having any claim over the gold. The learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent has no objection if the
gold is handed over to the applicant. The learned A.P.P
on instructions of Shri Ramesh Nangare, A.P.I Juhu

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

Police Station stated that the 1st respondent has no
objection.

¶20

6. In the circumstances, I pass following order:

¶21

(i)The impugned judgments and orders are quashed
and set aside and the application made by the
applicant for return of gold of the quantity 1
Kg seized by the Juhu police station, Bombay
in C.R.No.270 of 2007 is allowed.

¶22

(ii)The learned Magistrate will allow the
applicant to take custody of the gold and to
dispose of the same subject to executing usual
bond and subject to usual procedure of taking
photographs at the cost of the applicant and
drawing panchnama thereof before handing over
the custody.

¶23

(iii) The application is accordingly allowed.

¶24

(iv) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

(A.S.Oka,J)

Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Bharat Thadeshwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramesh v. Pai . Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another .

Dr.Gangadhar Narayan Joglekar Vs Dr.Sharad Purushottam Pathak and Anr.

Kishore Hariram Thakkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Iqbal Harun Dalla . Vs Smt. Tabassum Abdul Sattar and Anr. .

Ashok Gangwani Vs Michael Poshan Furtado and Ors.

Pentappa Erappa Gaddam and Anr. Vs Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul and Anr.