1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.987 OF 2005 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL

APPEAL NOS. 988/2005, 989/2005, 990/ 2005, 991/2005

992/2005, 993/2005, 994/2005, 995/2005, 996/2005

Shree Sinnar Vyapari Sahakari

Bank Limited.

.....Appellant.

V/s

The State of Maharashtra

.....Respondent.

-----

Mr. P.B. Shah for the appellant.

Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State.

----

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J.

DATE : 6^th September, 2007

P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2.

Appellant, by these appeals, is challenging the order passed by

Trial Court on its application for return of muddemal property

whereby the learned Judge of the Trial Court by impugned order was

pleased to observe that in view of the order passed in the criminal

trial by his predecessor, it was not possible to pass a separate order

and review the order passed by the Trial Court.

3.

Brief facts for the purpose of deciding these appeals are as

2

under:-

4.

Appellant is the Bank and, at certain point of time, some of its

employees illegally and fraudulently misappropriated the gold and

currency notes which were pledged by its members and others as

security towards the loan which was taken by these members.

Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against all these employees and

they were tried by the Trial Court for various offences. During the

course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had seized

muddemal from the accused. However, in the trial, all the accused

were acquitted and none of the accused made any application for

return of the muddemal property. The Trial Court, however, while

acquitting the accused in the said judgment and order observed that

since none of the accused had filed an application for return of the

property, muddemal should be forward to the Government Mint.

Thereafter, the Bank preferred an application for return of the

property. In the said application, it was stated that the Bank had,

after the gold and currency was misappropriated by its employees,

repaid the market value of the gold to its members who had pledged

it with the Bank and, therefore, the said gold ornaments and currency

notes which were seized during the investigation rightfully belonged

to the Bank. The learned judge of the Trial Court, however, felt that,

since, while disposing the criminal case, his predecessor had directed

that the gold should be handed over to Government Mint, it was not

possible for him to review the same order. Being aggrieved by the

said order, therefore, these appeals have been filed.

5.

All these appeals can be disposed of by a common order since in

3

all these appeals appellant - Bank has filed an application for return of

the property and all accused in these cases were employees of the

Bank and the market value of gold ornaments which were pledged by

its members was repaid by the Bank. This is an admitted position.

6.

In my view, Trial Court erred in rejecting the said application

particularly when in paras 30 and 31 of the Judgment in Regular

Criminal Case No. 95 of 2001, the Trial Court has observed as under:-

“ 30. I scrupulously go through all the

record of this case. On the very face of

general muddemal (vide G.M.R. No.9/89),

it can be safely read that, it belongs to the

Sinnar Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sinnar.

Hence, that Bank deserves the general

muddemal to be returned to it. However,

as far as the valuable muddemal (vide

V.M.R. No.2/89) is concerned, on its face,

it is not at all mentioned whom it belongs

to. Throughout the trail it is nowhere

established that, from whose custody the

valuable muddemal is recovered and seized

and to whom it belongs. Even since after

commission of the alleged offence still

today i.e. within these more than 32 long

years, no one has ever came before and

applied to the Court