interim custody of vehicle , the criminal court has jurisdiction under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 to pass orders for release of vehicles for interim custody. 5. Indisputably, the petitioner is the owner of the Scorpio vehicle bearing No.MH 45A-8313. If the vehicle is kept in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its being exposed to natural decay.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.355 of 2013

 

Date:19th February, 2013



Between:

Navanath Jagannath Dhupade S/o.Jagannath Dhupade
….Petitioner
           A n d

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through SHO, Proh. & Excise Station, Sangareddy, Medak District.
…Respondent
***

































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.355 of 2013


ORDER:


        This Criminal Revision Case has been taken out under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Navanath Jagannath Dhupade seeking release of Scorpio vehicle  bearing No.MH 45A-8313, for interim custody, which has been seized on 14.12.2012 by the excise police in Crime No.505 OF 2012-13 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Sangareddy, Medak District.

2.     The petitioner is the owner of the Scorpio vehicle  bearing No.MH 45A-8313.  He approached the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offence at Sangareddy, Medak District, for interim custody of the vehicle by moving an application vide Crl.M.P.No.299 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C.   His application came to be dismissed on 13.02.2013 for want of jurisdiction.   Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4.     The issue involved   in this Criminal Revision Case is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in  Smt. Karri Venkamma v.  State of A.P.[1],  Dharavath Sreenu v.  State of A.P.[2] and A.Tata Rao v. State of A.P[3].  This Court, in the above-referred cases held that the criminal court has jurisdiction under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 to pass orders for release of vehicles for interim custody.

5.     Indisputably, the petitioner is the owner of the Scorpio vehicle  bearing No.MH 45A-8313.  If the vehicle is kept in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its being exposed to natural decay. 

6.     In that view  of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed with a direction to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy, Medak District, to release the Scorpio vehicle  bearing No.MH 45A-8313, to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to the following  conditions:-
1)     The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy, Medak District.
2)     The petitioner shall not alter the features of the vehicle.
3)     The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle or create encumbrances over it.
4)     The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required either by the trial Court or by the authority under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act.


_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Date:19th February, 2013.
cs



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 















 

 

Criminal Revision Case No.355 of 2013

 





Date:19th February, 2013




[1] Crl. Petition No.8083 of 2008 dated 17.12.2008
[2] Crl. Revision Case No.1818 of 2010, dated 6.10.2010
[3] Criminal Revision Case No.256 of 2010, dated 11.2.2010

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.

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.

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