Vinayak A. Adhatrao v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date:

2021.09.08 14:38:49 +0530 SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.620 OF 2021 Mr. Vinayak A. Adhatrao ... Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents ...

Mr. M.V.Thorat with Mr. Amar Bodke for the Applicant. Mr. A.D.Khamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

P.C. :

Heard.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges the condition no. 3 imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur while directing return of property, i.e. vehicle, seized in the subject crime. Condition no.3 reads as under: "3 The present order shall be without prejudice to the powers of Executive Magistrate to proceed pursuant to the provisions of section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development Shivgan 1/3

and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the vehicle shall not be returned until he exhaust the power in that regard or applicant fle No Objection Certifcate of Executive Magistrate." (emphasis supplied) The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceedings under Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('Code' for short) and the proceedings under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are distinct, independent and do not overlap each other. It is submitted that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and the execution of the order passed thereunder cannot be made subject to the order passed under the Code.

Herein the learned Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. but the execution and implementation of the order is made subject to the order passed by the Revenue Ofcer under Sections 40(7) and (8) of the Code. It was not permissible. Thus, the Magistrate has committed an error in exercise of the Shivgan 2/3

jurisdiction. This error needs to be corrected and accordingly, corrected.

For the reasons stated above, the application is partly allowed and hence, following order:

(i) Emphasised, part of Condition No.3, (reproduced hereinabove) stands deleted and order is modified to that extent.

(ii) Respondents shall forthwith release the vehicle bearing registration no.MH-13 CU 9762 to the applicant, if same is not confiscated by the State in exercise of the powers under Section 48(8) of the Code. Application is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Shivgan 3/3