Shaik Nagul Meera v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 340 OF 2021 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 40"1 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Order dated dated 2710512021 in Crl.M.P.No.374 ol 2021 in Crime No.90 of 2021 (SHO, Koheda P.S, Siddipet District) on the file of the Court of the Honorable lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Husnabad, Karimnagar District Between:

Thammanaveni Raju, S/o.Odaiah, Aged about 25 years, R/o.Gundlapally Village, Ganneruvaram Mandal, Karimnagar District Occ. Driver, .....PETITIONER/PETITIONERYOWNER OF CASE PROPERW/A. 1 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana At Hvderabad rhrough s H'o ' Koheda 1.1:.*=rro*oENT/RESpoNDENT

2. Chandraiah Modumpally, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged about 44 years, Police Officer Koheda P.S, Koheda, Siddipet District.

.....RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINT fA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1 st respondent to release the seized Vehicle of the petitioner i.e., LMV, Ashok Leyland Ltd., Vide No.TS-08-UD-5463, Chassis No.MB1AA22E2HRA718'10, Engine No.AHH027557P, pending disposal of the above Revision in this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.34O of 2O2l ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.374 of 202 1 in Crime No.9O of 2021, on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Husnabad, Karimnagar district.

2.

The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.374 of 2020, before the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad, for return of the case property which is Ashok Leyland Model 2017 bearing registration No. TS-08-UD-5463 which was seized in Cr.No.9O of 2021 by the Koheda Police. Since the property is involved in another crime and it is pending before learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, the learned I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad, vide impugned order dated 27.O5.2O21, dismissed the petition. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is not released, he would be put to irreparable loss. He further submits that if the vehicle is exposed to air, sun and rain, there is every possibility of the vehicle getting damaged and hence, seeks interim custody of the vehicle.

4.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor though opposed the petition, but did not dispute the ownership of the vehicle.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in JAGTAR SINGH, SON OF DHYAN SINGH V STATE OF RA"IASTHANI, KISHORE KITMAR CHOUDHURY V STATE OF ORISSA Z ANd WAISH AHMED V STATE OF WESiT BENGAL 3 , wherein the High Courts of Rajasthan, Orissa and Calcutta, released the vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, on certain terms and conditions. Further, in sunpNppnsHAl AMBALAL DESAI v STATE oF GUJARAT +, the Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicle seized during investigation, it should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the Police Station. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

6.

Since there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and having regard to the principles laid down by the various High Courts and Apex Court in the decisions stated supra, I am inclined to grant interim custody of Ashok Leyland Model 2017 bearing No. TS-08-UD-5463' which was seized in Cr.No.90 of 2O2l by Koheda Police Station, in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions: | 2Ol7 Law Suit (Raj) 2379 1 2Ol7 Law Suit (Ori.) 240 r 20 l9 Law Suit (Cal.) 22 n (2002) 10 scc 283 +. *

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,O00/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad.

b) The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle in the Court. However, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the registration certifrcate to the petitioner so that no inconvenience is caused to him while using the vehicle.

c) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required either by the Investigating Agency or by the Court and also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/.CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR G"

To, sEcTtoN oFF|CER //TRUE COPYII \

1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Husnabad, Karimnagar District

2. The station House officer, [9tgo." police. station, Koheda, Karimnagar District

3. One CC to Sri Ravi Kumar VadlakonOa, eAvotat6 tOpUCl'

4. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court foilde sGtd of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies -

6. One Spare Copy gbr $,- \

HIGH COURT DATED: 1710612021 TA 14:

e ti 2 I JrlN 2021 oo o l,

ORDER

* s .k o CRLRC.No.34O ot 2021 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE b