M/S. Panjwani Trading Company Thr. Shri. Aziz S/O. Sadruddin Panjwani v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station House Officer P.S. Tahsil Nagpur And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.76/2017 M/s. Panjwani Trading Company, thr. its Partner Shri Aziz s/o Sadruddin Panjwani ..vs.. State of Maharashtra thr. PS House Officer, P.S.Nagpur and anr. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Ms N.A.Dhamani with Mr. A.H.Dhamani Advocate for applicant Mr. T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for non applicant-State CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :

AUGUST 16, 2017 Today the matter is listed since the non applicant no.2-Sanjay Keshaorao Makode is not served. It is not in dispute by the applicant and also by the State represented by Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. that the non applicant no.2-Sanjay is absconding since last more than 20 years and in spite of the efforts taken by the State, he could not be traced out.

By filing the present revision, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Nagpur dated 17.03.2017. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed on behalf of the present applicant to release the seized cash of Rs.29,000/- together with the interest accrued thereon lying in the Fixed Deposit with Oriental Bank of Commerce at Nagpur on executing his personal bond and undertaking. The said application stands rejected by the learned Magistrate in view of the

order passed by this Court on 13.12.1984 (Coram: H. W. Dhabe, J.) in Criminal Application No.777/1984. During the course of hearing, it is revealed to this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Court has fixed the criminal case for recording the evidence.

This Court on 13.12.1984 has passed the following order:

"Heard Parties. The cash amount of Rs.29,000/- be returned to the complainant subject to condition that he shall furnish bank-guarantee for the said amount to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C. and on his undertaking to pay back the amount if it is ultimately found that the above cash amount belongs to the accused."

Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that in the year 1984, this Court has directed the present applicant that he is entitled to get back his amount of Rs.29,000/- after furnishing the bank guarantee. In view of the aforesaid specific direction given by this Court, now it is not open to the applicant to get his amount released from the Court on his execution of the personal bond. In fact the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate has already passed the order by which it was directed that the amount of Rs.29,000/- shall be paid to the present applicant on he furnishing the bank guarantee.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed on behalf of the applicant for releasing the amount on execution of the personal bond. However, ends of justice can be achieved by directing the learned Magistrate to decide the criminal case in accordance with law within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court and decide the issue of the amount.

In the meanwhile, if the applicant furnishes the bank guarantee then in that event also the amount lying with the Bank shall be handed over to the present applicant.

With these directions, the criminal revision is disposed of.

JUDGE kahale