Nitin Dagdu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2025)

Nitin Dagdu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (Superintendent of Police, Hingoli and Police Inspector, Hingoli City Police Station) directed to return Rs.1,90,000/- to the petitioner within one month; prayer for interest rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (Superintendent of Police, Hingoli and Police Inspector, Hingoli City Police Station) must return the seized amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the acquitted petitioner even though the Muddemal cannot be traced in police custody. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner stands acquitted and the prosecution has filed no appeal, the order for refund or return of the money to the petitioner ought to be adhered to; the seized amount was admittedly in police custody.

Ratio / Principle

Tracing in whose possession the lost property was, and who was responsible for its loss, is an internal matter of the police; the petitioner must get his amount back.

Key takeaways

Writ petition allowed partly; Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to return Rs.1,90,000/- to the petitioner within one month.ratio¶23
The petitioner's prayer for interest on the withheld amount is rejected.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; order per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.; decided 19 September 2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:26606-DB). The petitioner, original accused No.2 in Regular Criminal Case No.225 of 2006 (JMFC, Court No.1, Hingoli, decided 20.10.2015), stood acquitted under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices Act, University, Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. Cash of Rs.1,90,000/- seized from him in the alleged examination scam remained with the police; the trial court had ordered its return after the appeal period, and CriMA No.56 of 2016 was allowed on 27.07.2016, yet the Muddemal became untraceable (investigating officer ASI Tekam deceased; custody passed through PI V.G. Sontakke to PHC Ude). Revision No.18 of 2016 under S.397 CrPC was dismissed. Holding that, on acquittal with no State appeal, the refund order must be adhered to and that tracing the loss is the police's internal concern, the Court partly allowed the petition, directing Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to return Rs.1,90,000/- within one month; the prayer for interest was rejected. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

2025:BHC-AUG:26606-DB

cwp-35.24

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.35 OF 2024

Nitin S/o Dagdu Jadhav, Age-42 years, Occu:Private Job, Permanent R/o-Mogha (Bk.), Taluka-Loha, District-Hingoli. ...PETITIONER

VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Collector, Hingoli, District-Hingoli, 3) The Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, Police Headquarters, Old Council Hall,, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, City-Mumbai, Pincode-400001, 4) The Special Inspector General Office, IG Office, Nanded, 5) The Superintendent of Police, S P Office, Hingoli, 6) The Police Inspector, Hingoli City Police Station, Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS

... Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...

cwp-35.24

2

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 19^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :

Present petitioner was the original accused No.2 in in Regular Criminal Case No.225 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Hingoli, which came to be decided on 20^th October 2015. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices Act, University, Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. Before the learned Magistrate, at the time of case itself a fact was on record that an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was found with accused No.2 i.e. with the present petitioner in connection with the alleged examination scam. Seizure panchnama was also prepared and therefore, at the time of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the petitioner, he stated that it is his own amount and that should be returned to him. At the time of Judgment, a specific order has been passed that the said amount be returned to the petitioner, after the appeal period is over.

cwp-35.24

3

It appears that by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.56 of 2016 i.e. after the appeal period is over, the petitioner prayed for the return of the amount which was stated to be still with the police station. In the say, the prosecution says that appeal has not been filed challenging the judgment of acquittal, however, as regards the amount is concerned, seizure thereof was not recorded to the Muddemal register. It might have been with the investigating officer, Assistant Sub Inspector Tekam, however he expired. The Muddemal was then given to Police Inspector V.G. Sontakke, who had then given it to Police Head Constable Ude. It was then stated that it is not confirmed as to who is having possession of the said property/cash. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Hingoli, by a detailed order, allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.56 of 2016, on 27^th July 2016 and once again directed that the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- be searched and given to the applicant therein i.e. present petitioner. It appears that the present petitioner had then approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Criminal Revision No.18 of 2016, under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as there was no order of immediate payment. The Revision was dismissed taking into consideration that the order is for compliance and the revision applicant may

cwp-35.24

4

approach the learned trial Court and request for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. That was also filed as it appears, vide Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 108 of 2017 and the say has been given that it is not traceable as to in whose possession the said Muddemal was.

The fact is certain that the said amount was seized and was in the custody of police. When there is acquittal of the petitioner from the said offence and the prosecution has not filed any appeal, the order of refund or return of the money to the petitioner, should be adhered to. It would be the internal matter of the police to search, as to in whose possession the said property was, or in other words it can be said that who was responsible for the loss of the amount. The petitioner should get his amount back.

Therefore, we allow the Writ Petition partly. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are directed to return the amount of Rs.1,90,000/to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. The prayer for interest is rejected.

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

asb/SEP25