Telangana High Court
CRLP/15408/2013 of Ullengula Srinivas Vs The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P. on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.No.15408/2013 ORAL ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 r/w 457 Cr.P.C., seeking release of auto bearing registration No. AP 36 TB 0122 seized in Cr.No.340/2013 of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the
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.
Arguments
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMARCrl.P.No.15408/2013
ORAL ORDER:
The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 r/w 457 Cr.P.C.,seeking release of auto bearing registration No. AP 36 TB 0122 seized inCr.No.340/2013 of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District, registered for theoffences punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1965 and sections171(e), 188 and 211 IPC r/w 212 and 228 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994.
The allegations in the report would disclose that on 18-7-2013, L.W.1 left Jangaon Police Station for conducting vehicles check at theoutskirts of Jangaon town. While conducting routine check, they noticed a vehiclebearing registration No.AP 36 TB 0122 coming from Jangaon to Choudaram. Whenthe auto was stopped, the persons traveling in the auto ie., A-2 to A-5 tried toescape from the spot. L.W.1 apprehended A-2, 3 and 5. The accused are allegedto have confessed that they have come to Jangaon for purchasing liquor from theshop of L.W.4 for distributing the same to the voters. On search, the raid partynoticed 10 cartons of OC quarters bottles, one carton of Haywards 5000 beerbottles in the auto. Basing on the said search and seizure, the above case came tobe registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner filed anapplication under section 457 Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle,the same was returned by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the said courthas no jurisdiction to release the said vehicle.
The petitioner submits that he is the owner of the vehicle and there is everypossibility of the vehicle getting damaged if the same is exposed to sun and rain. Asthe vehicle is the main source of his livelihood, the petitioner seeks release of thesame.
On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor though opposed thepetition but did not dispute the ownership of the vehicle. According to him, thevehicle 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 the police 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, amd 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., auto bearing No.AP36 TB 0122 in favour of the petitioner on certain terms and conditions.
1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One lakh fifty thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction ofthe Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, Warangal 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: 30-12-13kmr
-----------------------------------
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
[1](2002) 10 SCC 283