CRLRC/2553/2014 of G. Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

The present revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 ofCr.P.C. questioning the docket order dated 14.11.2014 passed inCrl.M.P.No.1567 of 2014 in Crime No.323 of 2014 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, wherein and whereunder the petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to release the vehiclebearing registration No.AP 24 W 5346 was dismissed.

The facts in issue are as under:

On 15.10.2014, on instructions from his officers, the MandalRevenue Inspector, Choutuppal along with his staff and with theassistance of the Police, rushed to the outskirts of DharmojigudemVillage on NH 65 road and stopped a lorry bearing registration No.AP 24W 5346, which was proceeding towards Hyderabad from Choutuppalside. On inspection of the lorry, they found the lorry was transportingthe sand without necessary documents or waybills and hence the lorrywas seized. Basing on the said seizure, the above case came to beregistered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that thepetitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, was not present at the time ofthe alleged incident and that his driver has misused the vehicle. Hesubmits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicleidle at the Police Station.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor though opposed theapplication did not dispute the ownership of the vehicle.

A perusal of the material placed before this Court would indicatethat a petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the vehicle was dismissed.

I n Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat[[1]],the Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicles seized during investigation,they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused andunattended in the premises of the police stations. Therefore, the vehiclehas to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject toappropriate conditions.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and theprinciples of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision statedsupra, I am inclined to grant interim custody of the lorry bearingregistration No.AP 24 W 5346 seized in crime No.323 of 2014 ofChoutuppal Police Station, Nalgonda District in favour of the petitioner onthe following conditions :

i)The petitioner shall execute a personal bond forRs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with onesurety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with onesurety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

ii)The petitioner shall produce the originalregistration certificate of the vehicle in the Court.registration certificate of the vehicle in the Court.

iii)

The petitioner shall give an undertaking toproduce the vehicle as and when required by theCourt and also give an undertaking not to alienate,encumber or alter the physical features of thevehicle.Court and also give an undertaking not to alienate,encumber or alter the physical features of thevehicle.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at theadmission stage.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in theCriminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

_________________________

31.12.2014

skmr

[1]2002 (10) SCC 283

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR