Per Bilal Nazki, J.:

There are various applications filed. One of the application is for contempt being Contempt Petition No. 203 of 2008 alleging violation of the orders of this court passed on 06.05.2008. No respondents have been named in the application. Only State of Maharashtra at the instance of Uran Police Station and State C.I.D. have been shown as respondents. No contempt can be initiated in these circumstances. Therefore, this application is dismissed.

2. The another application is filed for intervention being Appellation No.166 of 2008 by the persons who claimed to be students. Since we have heard and are disposing of the main matter itself, these students may approach the Magistrate concerned, if they so choose.

3. The application being No. 183 of 2008 has also been filed for intervention. Since the main matter is being disposed of, no further orders are necessary on this intervention application.

4. The main writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 24.5.2007 which was upheld in the revision filed by the Petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 26.12.2007. All these orders have been assailed in this writ petition.

5. We have our own doubts whether this Writ Petition can be entertained in view of the fact that the Sessions Judge and the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a revision and it is for the parties to decide about the court they opt for. Once the party opts for the revision before Sessions Judge, it will not be possible for us to entertain another revision in the name of the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But we are leaving this question open at present because we have heard the parties on merit.

6. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued for more than half an hour, when we asked him to complete his argument within ten minutes, he did not argue further. Though he argued the matter again in reply. His main argument is that under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. there is no power with the police to seize immovable property. In this case, he relied on various judgments of various High Courts.

7. Section 102 lays down as under :

"102(1) -Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion

of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer, acting under sub section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the court (or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation) he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same."

8. The seizure by the police in the present case has been effected in the circumstances mentioned by the court below in their orders. The facts as narrated in the order of the learned Sessions Judge are as follows :

. When there was F.I.R. filed against the Petitioner, it was registered and it was lodged as C.R. No. 3 of 2007 in Uran Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 406, 418, 420 read with 34 I.P.C. The offence had taken place allegedly during the period July 2004 and 4.1.2007. The student who filed the complaint had alleged that he had taken admission for S.W.T. (Specialized in Welding Technology). The said course was a three years course and out of three years, two and half years course would be conducted by the College and remaining six months course would be cond