Release of vehicle involved in Excise offence = the Auto bearing Reg.No.AP-20-V-8415 along with the stocks i.e, 12 bags of black jaggery each containing 50 kgs., which was seized in P.R.No.654/2012-13 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Warangal Rural, shall be released to the petitioner for interim custody on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases at Warangal and subject to production of all the documents relating to the vehicle in question. The petitioner shall also undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court and also undertake not to change the physical features or physical state of the vehicle and not to alienate the same in any manner in the meanwhile.


CRLP 436 / 2013

CRLPSR 1667 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
D. RAVI KUMAR,  VSTHE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD.,
PET.ADV. : KASI NAGESWARA RAORESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.)DISTRICT:  WARANGAL
FILING DATE:  22-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  23-01-2013  ANC
REG. DATE    :   22-01-2013LISTING DATE :  23-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU    

 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU


CRIMINAL PETITION No.436 OF 2013



ORDER:
         

The petitioner filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 read with 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Station House Officer, Warangal Rural Prohibition and Excise Station, Warangal District to forthwith release the Auto bearing Reg.No.AP-20-V-8415 along with the stocks i.e, 12 bags of black jaggery each containing 50 kgs., which was seized in P.R.No.654/2012-13 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Warangal Rural.

2.       Heard both sides.

3.       In SUNDERBHAI 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 and unattended in the premises of the Police Stations. The petitioner claims to be owner of the vehicle and the stocks in question.  Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

4.       Hence, the Auto bearing Reg.No.AP-20-V-8415 along with the stocks i.e, 12 bags of black jaggery each containing 50 kgs., which was seized in P.R.No.654/2012-13 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Warangal Rural, shall be released to the petitioner for interim custody on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases at Warangal and subject to production of all the documents relating to the vehicle in question. The petitioner shall also undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court and also undertake not to change the physical features or physical state of the vehicle and not to alienate the same in any manner in the meanwhile.

5.       The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed.  Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

Date: 23.01.2013
Note:- Furnish C.C. tomorrow
                           B/o
                      AMD/MAR

 

 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 











 

 

 


CRIMINAL PETITION No.436 OF 2013








DATE:23.01.2013





AMD



[1] (2002) 10 SCC 283

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.