Release of Vehicle involved in accident = The case of the prosecution is that the said vehicle was involved in an accident attracting Section 304-A IPC and was therefore seized. The petitioner’s case, on the other hand, is that he is dependent for his livelihood upon the vehicle and the same should be released into his custody. = Plying the vehicle without the original documents would be in violation of law. Therefore, return of the lorry without the original documents would serve the petitioner no purpose. Further, once the petitioner executes a bond of Rs.5 lakhs, this Court finds the insistence upon a surety unnecessary. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed directing return of the lorry bearing No.WB-23-B-4334 to the petitioner on execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The original documents pertaining to the lorry shall also be returned to him. The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the Court below that he will not alienate, transfer or change the nature of the vehicle till the disposal of the case.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.240 of 2013

Date: 10.01.2013

Between:

Sri Sanjay Kumar Mittal @ Sanjay Mittal
… Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent








































HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.240 of 2013

ORDER:

          The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, FAC-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, in the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in Crl.MP.No.1713 of 2012 in Crime No.65 of 2012 of Bitragunta Police Station. 
          The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No.WB-23-B-4334.  The case of the prosecution is that the said vehicle was involved in an accident attracting Section 304-A IPC and was therefore seized.  The petitioner’s case, on the other hand, is that he is dependent for his livelihood upon the vehicle and the same should be released into his custody. 
          The prosecution alleges that the petitioner’s vehicle was parked negligently at the scene of the offence and that due to this negligence, the driver of the other lorry met with his death.
          Admittedly, the petitioner’s lorry was stationary at the time of the accident.  Taking note of these facts, the Court below directed return of the petitioner’s vehicle on execution of a self-bond of Rs.5 lakhs with one surety and further directed that certified copies of the original documents may be given to the petitioner, as the original documents could not be returned until the filing of the charge sheet.  It is these conditions that the petitioner is aggrieved by.
          Given the facts of the case, this Court finds the conditions imposed are rather onerous.  Plying the vehicle without the original documents would be in violation of law.  Therefore, return of the lorry without the original documents would serve the petitioner no purpose.  Further, once the petitioner executes a bond of Rs.5 lakhs, this Court finds the insistence upon a surety unnecessary. 
          The criminal petition is accordingly allowed directing return of the lorry bearing No.WB-23-B-4334 to the petitioner on execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.  The original documents pertaining to the lorry shall also be returned to him.  The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the Court below that he will not alienate, transfer or change the nature of the vehicle till the disposal of the case. 

____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J

Date: 10.01.2013.
ES

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.