Release of property for interim custody seized in the offence under sec.406 and sec.420 and 3&4 of APPDFE Act - Interim custody order = PETITIONER RESPONDENT P.RAMESH BABU VS THE STATE OF A.P.RE P., BY ITS PP & ANOTHER = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLRC&mno=183&year=2013

Release of property for interim custody seized in the offence under sec.406 and sec.420 and 3&4 of  APPDFE Act - Interim custody order =

 “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the provisions u/s.451 and 457 Cr.P.C., the consideration is whether the property would be damaged if it is kept idle during the pendency of the trial or during the stage of investigation and whether there are any sufficient grounds for giving interim custody of the property to the petitioner.  
The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the offences u/s.406 and 420 IPC apart from the special enactment of APPDFE Act Sections 3 and 4.  
As per the section 3 of the said act, the government has to issue a G.O. for interim attachment of the property and thereafter the attachment would be made absolute. 
 In this case, respondent did not file any proceeding before the court that any interim attachment order is passed by the government in this case. 
 It is the case of the respondent that the property seized from the accused in respect of provisions of sections 3 and 4 of APPDFE Act.  
The question whether the defacto complainant was a depositor or not is a mixed question of fact and law and it is to be considered only after adducing evidence in the trial and this is not the stage to go into merits of the case. 
 As far as this petition is concerned, in view of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of APPDFE Act, there are no satisfactory grounds for giving interim custody of the property to the petitioner.  
Whether the transaction between the defacto complainant and the accused is of civil nature or criminal nature, cannot be decided at this stage, as the case is still at the stage of investigation.  Under these circumstances, I do not see any valid grounds u/s.451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for giving interim custody of the property to the petitioner.”


CRLRC 183 / 2013

CRLRCSR 2435 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
P.RAMESH BABU  VSTHE STATE OF A.P.RE P., BY ITS PP & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : MITTAPALLY SRINIVASRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.183 of 2013

 

Date:11th February, 2013


                                                              
Between:

P.Ramesh Babu S/o.P.Venkataramana
….Petitioner
           A n d

The State of A.P., CCS, WCO (Team-II), Hyderabad, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.
…Respondents
***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.183 of 2013


ORDER:


        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 17.01.2013, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1995 of 2012 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2.     The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.197 of 2012 of PS CCS, WCO Team-II, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the APPDFE Act, 1999.  
During the course of investigation, the furniture, T.V., A.C. Window machines, A.C. split machines, fans etc., came to be seized.  
The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1995 of 2012 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., seeking return of the property for interim custody. 
The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for return of the property for interim custody and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application, by order, dated 17.01.2013.  
Para.8 of the order needs to be noted and it is thus:
          “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the provisions u/s.451 and 457 Cr.P.C., the consideration is whether the property would be damaged if it is kept idle during the pendency of the trial or during the stage of investigation and whether there are any sufficient grounds for giving interim custody of the property to the petitioner.  
The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the offences u/s.406 and 420 IPC apart from the special enactment of APPDFE Act Sections 3 and 4.  
As per the section 3 of the said act, the government has to issue a G.O. for interim attachment of the property and thereafter the attachment would be made absolute. 
 In this case, respondent did not file any proceeding before the court that any interim attachment order is passed by the government in this case. 
 It is the case of the respondent that the property seized from the accused in respect of provisions of sections 3 and 4 of APPDFE Act.  
The question whether the defacto complainant was a depositor or not is a mixed question of fact and law and it is to be considered only after adducing evidence in the trial and this is not the stage to go into merits of the case. 
 As far as this petition is concerned, in view of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of APPDFE Act, there are no satisfactory grounds for giving interim custody of the property to the petitioner.  
Whether the transaction between the defacto complainant and the accused is of civil nature or criminal nature, cannot be decided at this stage, as the case is still at the stage of investigation.  Under these circumstances, I do not see any valid grounds u/s.451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for giving interim custody of the property to the petitioner.”

Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

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

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the properties seized during the course of investigation is allowed to be remained in the custody of policy, there is every likelihood of their utility being diminished and therefore, the petitioner deserves for release of the property for interim custody pending investigation.

5.     Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned in the revision case.
6.     As seen from the material placed on record, 
items 1 to 19 are furniture items, which include electronic items; 
Item No.20  is the receipt books; 
Item No.21 is the car bearing No.AP 09 CL 4666.  
The said car is stated to be hypothecated to Mahindra and Mahindra, Kukatpally.  
Item No.22 is Apple Laptop and Item No.23 is the passport No.K.1423638; Item Nos.25 and 26 are bank account pass books.  
Item Nos.1 to 19 and 21 can be released to the petitioner for interim custody subject to certain conditions. With regard to the other items, I am of the view that they cannot be released to the petitioner for interim custody at this stage.

7.     Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of  ordering release of the following items to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and on further condition that the petitioner shall secure a consent letter from the Mahindra and Mahindra, Kukatpally, which financed the petitioner for purchasing the car. 
The petitioner shall not alter the features of the properties nor create encumbrances over them. 
The petitioner shall produce the properties as and when required by the Court.
1) Computers – 15 Nos.
2) Tables – 5 Nos.
        3) Chairs – 50 Nos.
        4) Plastic Chairs – 30 Nos.,
        5) Tea Pai – 2 Nos.
        6) Sofa Sets – 2 Nos.
        7) Cane Sofa set 3+2 one set sofa type chairs – 6 Nos.
        8) UPS 5 KV – 3 Nos.
        9) 2 KV UPS -1 No.
        10) Big Table – 3 Nos.
        11) Plain Tables – 3 Nos.
        12) Tea Machine – 1 No.
        13) Reception counter – 2 Nos.
        14) Fax Machine – 1 No.
        15) Side table – 4 Nos.
        16) T.V.     - 1 No.
        17) A/C. Window Machine – 4 Nos.
        18) A/C. Split Machines – 6 Nos.
        19) Fans    - 10 Nos. and
        Item No.21: Car bearing No.AP 09 CL 4666.

The petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application before the trial Court for release of the premises which is stated to be seized during the course of investigation.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Date:11th February, 2013.
cs



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 















 

 

Criminal Revision Case No.183 of 2013

 





Date:11th February, 2013


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.