VIJAY DASHRATH PANDAGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) A letter received from the petitioner was treated as writ petition by this Court. Grievance of the petitioner is that there was a theft in his house and Criminal Case No.16/2005 under Section 379 was registered against the accused-Bhagwan. In that criminal case, the accused was acquitted and by operative part (3), the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 1, Chikhali directed the State Government through Collector, Buldhana to compensate the complainant i.e. the present petitioner for the loss of gold necklace weighing 17.950 gm. from the custody of the Police Station concerned where it was kept as muddemal property. That judgment was delivered on 12.02.2013 but none bothered to implement the said operative order in respect of the complainantpetitioner.

(3.) We have issued notice pursuant to which affidavitinreply has been filed by the District Collector, Buldhana. We quote relevant paragraph (4) from his affidavit, which reads thus: