Telangana High Court
CRLP/15164/2013 of Alladi Ramulu Vs The State of A.p., through rep. by the P.P. on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.No.15164/2013 ORAL ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 r/w 451 Cr.P.C., seeking release of lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TW 2619 seized in Cr.No.304/2013 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, Krishna District, registered
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMARCrl.P.No.15164/2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 r/w 451 Cr.P.C.,seeking release of lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TW 2619 seized inCr.No.304/2013 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, Krishna District, registered for anoffence punishable under section 379 IPC.
The allegations in the report would disclose that on 26-11-2013 at about3 AM L.W.1 loaded the material of the companyl in the lorry. When the vehicle waschecked at the main gate by the security staff, they noticed 15 iron pieces belongingto the company which were suspected to be stolen. When the same was pointedout, the lorry driver drove the vehicle in high speed and escaped from the placealong with the lorry. Basing on the report of L.W.1, the above case came to beregistered for an offence punishable under section 379 IPC.
The petitioner who claims himself to be the owner of the vehicle filed thepresent application seeking interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that there isevery possibility of the vehicle getting damaged if the same is exposed to sun andrain. As the vehicle is the main source of his livelihood, the petitioner seeks releaseof the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the seizedvehicle is not liable for confiscation as the offence alleged to have been committed is under section 379 IPC only.
On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor though opposed thecriminal petition but did not dispute the ownership of the vehicle. According to him,the vehicle is still lying in the regular police station.
In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat[[1]]the Hon'ble Apex Courthas held that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not beallowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of thepolice stations. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody ofthe owner subject to appropriate conditions.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and takinginto consideration the fact that the vehicle is still lying in regular police station, itwould be appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle ie., lorry bearing No.AP16 TW 2619 in favour of the petitioner, on certain terms and conditions.
1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the AdditionalJudicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District.
(2) The petitioner shall produce the original RC of the vehicle before theconcerned court.
(3) The petitioner shall not sell, alienate, mortgage or alter the physicalfeatures of the vehicle.
(4) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle asand when required by the Magistrate.
The Criminal petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneousapplications, if any, shall stand closed. However, this order shall not preclude theauthorities in proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Date: 30-12-2013kmr
-----------------------------------C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
[1](2002) 10 SCC 283