ALKA SHIVRAM FATING Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. K.B. Zinjarde for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for respondent No. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of part of the property seized by police during the course of investigation of Crime No. 130/2012 of Hudkeshwar Police Station, Nagpur. The investigation of the case started from recording of First Information Report of Vipin Shivram Fating, aged 36 years. Vipin Fating was staying at Plot No. 13, Old Subhedar Extension, Behind Kamble Nursing Home, Nagpur-24 along with his family members. The alleged incident had occurred on 5th July, 2012 in the afternoon. The complainant Vipin Fating and his wife were out. His son had gone to School. His grandfather Mansaram Tulshiram Barjurkar, aged about 82 years, his maternal aunt Smt. Lata Rambhau Shaniware, aged about 50 years and daughter Adhira, aged about 9 months were at home. The incident had occurred during the course of the day. It is the case of prosecution that respondent No. 2 Lata, who is real sister of petitioner Smt. Alka Fating, was staying with the complainant at above said address. It may be stated here that the petitioner is mother of complainant Vipin Fating. During course of the day, theft of valuable ornaments worth Rs. 3,70,000/- had taken place. First Information Report was recorded against unknown persons.

(3.) During course of investigation, it was revealed that respondent No. 2 had committed theft of the property. The property has been recovered by the police during the investigation. Part of the property recovered by the police is claimed by the petitioner and rest of the property is claimed by daughter-in-law of the petitioner, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 539/2012. The charge-sheet has been filed and an application was made by the petitioner for grant of custody of seized ornaments during the pendency of trial. The petitioner claimed 4 Gold Bangles weighing 70 grams and 2 Bentex Bangles weighing 55 grams. It may be stated here that Bentex Bangles are not made of pure gold. The petitioner stated in her application that the value of property was about Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate after hearing the petitioner and Investigating Officer rejected the application on the ground that the description of the property seized by the police did not tally with the property claimed by the petitioner and that the petitioner had not been able to produce documents in support of her claim.