Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the property for interim custody. = The petitioner approached the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli by moving petition being Crl.M.P.No.279 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the property for interim custody. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate refused to entertain the petition by order dated 28.02.2013. Hence this Criminal Revision Case.= The petitioner failed to place on record any material to show that he is a businessman authorised to deal in black jaggery. The very accusation against the petitioner is that he secured black jaggery for being used in preparation of I.D liquor. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is a businessman authorised to deal in black jaggery, he is not entitled to seek release of the black jaggery for interim custody.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.487 of 2013

ORDER:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the return endorsement dated 28.02.2013 of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Sathupalli on a petition being Crl.M.P.No.279 of 2013 filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking return of 2600 kgs of black jaggery worth Rs.20,000/- seized in Crime No.22 of 2013 of Aswaraopet  P.S., Khammam District registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of  A.P.Excise Act, 1968 for interim custody.

2.     The Station House Officer,  Aswaraopet  P.S seized 2600 kgs of black jaggery  during investigation in Crime No.22 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of A.P.Excise Act on 7.2.2013 under the cover of  a panchanama.  The petitioner approached the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli by moving petition being Crl.M.P.No.279 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the property   for interim custody.   The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate refused to entertain the petition by order dated 28.02.2013.  Hence this Criminal Revision Case.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a businessman and if the property is not released to the petitioner for interim custody, there is every likelihood of it’s utility being diminished.  

5.     The petitioner failed to place on record any material to show that he is a businessman authorised to deal in black jaggery.  The very accusation against the petitioner is that he secured black jaggery   for being used in preparation of I.D liquor.   In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is a businessman authorised to deal in black jaggery,  he is not entitled to seek  release of  the black jaggery for interim custody.

6.     Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission.
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
Dt.18-03-2013
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.