JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. This bunch of Cri. Revn. Applications can conveniently be decided and disposed of by this common Judgment; since these Cri. Revn. Applications are arising out of the common Judgment and Order dated 11th April, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1/2001 to 11/2001, filed by present applicant. Mr. Hari Shripat Patil, Junior Engineer working with Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Ranala, Dist. Nandurbar lodged First Information Report with Taluka Police Station, Nandurbar on 30th July, 2000 alleging that, Line Helper- Bhika Mali informed to him that, aluminium wire which were on the poles of M.S.E.B., Vatbare, approximately 2000 fts. was missing. Hence, he went to the spot and noticed that 2000 fts. wires and 3 topes of cut-outs in the D.P were missing. Accordingly, he filed First Information Report. On the basis of said F.I.R., CR No. 80/2000 was registered with Taluka Police Station, Nandurbar. After necessary investigation, police authority submitted the charge sheet against the respective persons culminating into following criminal cases:-- "Criminal Case Nos. 194/2000, 200/2000, 202/2000, 206/2000, 207/2000, 208/2000, 209/2000, 210/2000, 218/2000, 219/2000 and 220/2000." 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Nandurbar framed the Charge. He delivered judgment on 9th January, 2000 and acquitted all the accused persons. While acquitting the accused persons from the charge of offence punishable U/Section U/Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate directed to deliver the muddemal property to the M.S.E. Board. 3. After the acquittal of the accused persons in respect of the criminal cases and after passing the order to deliver the muddemal property to the M.S.E. Board, by the learned Magistrate, the applicant felt aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the return of the muddemal property to the M.S.E. Board, therefore, he preferred different appeals before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nandurbar. Those were registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1/01 to 11/01. Those Criminal Appeals were heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and by the common order, those Criminal Appeals were dismissed on 11th April, 2001. 4. Sum and substance of argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that, since property was seized from the possession of the applicant, the court below ought to have passed appropriate orders to deliver the said property in his favour. 4. Sum and substance of argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that, since property was seized from the possession of the applicant, the court below ought to have passed appropriate orders to deliver the said property in his favour. He submitted that, no proper enquiry was conducted by the learned Magistrate as envisaged U/Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. It is to be noted that, during pendency of the trial may be for short period, no application was moved by the present applicant requesting the court to deliver seized muddemal property to him during pendency and in continuation of the trial. It is to be noted that, in criminal case i.e. Criminal Case No. 200/2000 present applicant was examined as prosecution witness, in which he has admitted that, he did not produce the aluminum ingots to the police nor at any point of time, police visited his shop. Thus, basic fabric of the applicant claiming that muddemal property was seized from his possession, is cut into pieces by the applicant himself. Further from his evidence, it is clear that, he was knowing about the pendency and trial of above criminal cases before the learned Magistrate. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned appellate court has not considered the aspect that the learned Magistrate has not conducted the proper enquiry. It is to be noted that, even before the appellate court, no document was filed by the present applicant in order to show his ownership over the aluminium wire and ingots. The learned lower appellate court has observed the same in the impugned judgment. 7. Since the applicant is claiming that the seized property be returned to him, burden lies on his shoulder to prove his ownership over the seized property. The applicant could have produce the necessary document before the appellate court and demonstrate that he is entitled for possession of seized muddemal property. In view of the fact that during pendency of the trial, the applicant failed to put forth his claim about the possession of seized property and even at the appellate stage also no documents were filed on record to show his title over the seized muddemal property, this court is unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the owner of seized property. Further the learned appellate court has observed in his Judgment and Order that the applicant has not disclosed in the appeal memo about filing of Writ Petition before this court. In the Writ Petition claim for return of property was made and it was later on withdrawn. Though Mr. Warmma, the learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the appeal, Writ Petition was withdrawn and mainly said Writ Petition was against the atrocity committed on him by the police however, fact remains that the applicant was unable to substantiate his claim for return of the property to him in absence of any documentary evidence to show that, he is the rightful owner of the said property. No good ground is made out for interference. Cri. Revn. Appln. sans merit and those are dismissed. Rule discharged. Order passed by the appellate court is hereby confirmed.