interim custody of the vehicle - As per the entries in the certificate of registration, the petitioner is the registered owner. Allowing the vehicle in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of the value of the vehicle being diminished. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 29T 1662 to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to the following conditions:- 1) The petitioner shall furnish bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad; 2) The petitioner shall place an undertaking before XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad to the effect that he shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle bearing No. AP 29T 1662; 3) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the trial Court as and when directed. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.85 of 2013


(Dated: 22-01-2013)

Between:

Mohammed Akthar
Mallepally, Masab Tank, Hyderabad
….Petitioner
           A n d

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
It’s Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P
…Respondent

































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.85 of 2013


ORDER:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 16-01-2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.326 of 2013 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed under Section 451 read with Section 457 Cr.P.C.

2.     The petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 29T 1662.  The vehicle came to be seized in connection with Crime No.487 of 2012 of Begumpet P.S., registered for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.  The petitioner approached     XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for release of the vehicle for interim custody by moving Crl.M.P.No.326 of 2013.  The learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle till completion of investigation, by order dated 16-01-2013. Hence this Criminal Revision Case.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.     There seems to be no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle.   The petitioner placed on record Photostat copy of the certificate of registration issued by the Additional Registering Authority, RTA West Zone, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.  As per the entries in the certificate of registration, the petitioner is the registered owner.  Allowing the vehicle in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of the value of the vehicle being diminished.   In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 29T 1662 to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to the following conditions:-
1)                The petitioner shall furnish bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad;
2)                The petitioner shall place an undertaking before XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad to the effect that he shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle bearing No. AP 29T 1662;
3)                The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the trial Court as and when directed.

5.     Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission.
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.22-01-2013

RAR


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.