CRLP/14635/2024 of The State of Telangana Vs Manja Saki on 6 October 2025

ORDER:

Challenging the order, da|ed24.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.p.No.562 of 2024 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, this Criminal Petition is preferred by the State.

2. Heard Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. By the impugned order, interim custody of the crime vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-17-9479 was granted in favour of the respondent-accused No.3, subject to certain conditions.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that all the accused have illegally removed the trees in the reserve forest land with the help of crime vehicle. The crime vehicle was seized under the cover of panchanama and the same is liable to be confiscated as per Section 44 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967. However, the Sessions Court, without considering the same has granted interim custody of the crime vehicle in favour of the respondent. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.

-tl

\

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent subntits that the petitioner ir; the owner of the crime vehicle. The Forest Offi:er has directly seized the crime vehicle without issuing any prior notice to the respondent and without any intimation to the Magistrate concerned, contrary to Serlion 44 (2-A, 2-8,2-C and 2-D) of the Telangane Forest Act, 1967 (for s;hort the 'Act'). There is no mention about the resllondent taking away thre forest produce or timber, tools, ropes, chains boats, vehicles or cattle or any other property belongs to the forest. The learned t\/agistrate has rightly passed the impugned order and the same cannot be interfered with. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. A perusal of the impugned order discloses thal the Sessiorrs Court granted interinr custody of the crime vehicle to the responrlent by imposing certain conditions, holding that the Forest Officer did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under Section 44 of the Act, while seizing the crime vehicle ;rnd it has the jurisdiction to release the crime verhicle in favour of the relspondenl as per the said provision.

7. lt is settled principle that retaining seized vehicles in Police Stations or under judicial custody for prolonged periods or till the conclusion of the trial serves no meaningful purpose. Such vehicles often suffer damage due to negligence and exposure, resulting in depreciation of value and utility. Granting interim custody, with appropriate conditions to ensure pro(luction of the vehicle as and when required, strikes a balance between the rights of the parties and the need to preserve the property. 8' rn view of the above, this court is of the considered view that there is no irregarity or infirmity or irregurarity in the impugned order warranting interference, and hence, the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY s STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

To, TPK/PSL

1. The lAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

2. Two CCs to the pUBLtC PROSECUTOR, tiigh Corrt at Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRt ATTHANABOTNA RAMA RA5 Advocate 1beUC1

4. Two CD Copies (our)

\ I HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 /1 .. t. : ,-/// o.-_ ' ,1.'.:.: 10 wT 2w

ORDER

CRLP.No.14635 o12024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED '. {.-. \: . -. ,r a:.i _.^, ., : -r.:::,:-:::-_-=__-