Mangeshi Mohan Pitale v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Sr. Police Inspector, Amravati

0704revn96.16 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2016 (Mangeshi Mohan Pitale vs. The State of Maharashtra) ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant.

Shri P.S. Tembhre, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

---------- CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : APRIL 7, 2017 Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for applicant, and Shri Tembhre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

By this criminal revision application, applicant seeks to challenge order dated 26/5/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati granting vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-30/AA4932 on supratanama to her on her depositing Rs.1 lakh with the Court with other conditions not to transfer the vehicle, etc.

The vehicle is found involved in the offences under Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Amravati.

Shri Tembhre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, has opposed the application contending that huge amount running into crores of rupees is involved in the present crime and valuation of

0704revn96.16 2/2 Rs.1 lakh as calculated by learned Additional Sessions Judge is in fact lower than the cost of vehicle mentioned in the seizure panchanama.

Seizure panchanama reveals that valuation of said vehicle is shown as Rs.3 lakhs approximately. Learned Counsel for applicant states that same was calculated in the year 2013 and now since vehicle is lying idle with Police, it has deteriorated and its cost is also reduced and thus, amount of Rs.1 lakh is prayed to be reduced.

I am not impressed with the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for applicant for the reason that learned trial Court vide impugned order has already estimated value of the vehicle much lesser than what is stated in the seizure panchanama. Even otherwise, within span of two and half years, cost of vehicle cannot be reduced to less than Rs.1 lakh as contended on behalf of applicant. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the criminal revision application and hence, the same is dismissed.

JUDGE khj