Sec.457 Cr.P.C. for Release of the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 24 AJ 6358 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Authorities.= LAVURI BALAJI VS THE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLRC&mno=830&year=2013

Sec.457 Cr.P.C. for Release of the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 24 AJ 6358 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Authorities.=
The trial Court returned the said petition on 09-04-2013 holding that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 
2.  It would appear that the trial Court proceeded under the assumption that the case was under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and that it lacked jurisdiction in view of the prohibition under Section 46E of the A.P. Excise Act. =
whether the case is filed under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act or under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act.  The trial Court then shall have to decide the case on merits if the case is not under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act but it is under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act. 
In the event, the petitioner is not covered by the provisions of the Excise Act, the trial Court shall also consider whether there is prohibition for exercising powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if the case is under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act.

CRLRC 830 / 2013
CRLRCSR 12819 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
LAVURI BALAJI  VSTHE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTARESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  NALGONDA
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.830 OF 2013

ORDER:

The vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP 24 AJ 6358 was seized by the Prohibition and Excise Authorities.  
The petitioner moved a petition before the trial Court under Section 457 Cr.P.C.  
The trial Court returned the said petition on 09-04-2013 holding that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 
2.  It would appear that the trial Court proceeded under the assumption that the case was under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and that it lacked jurisdiction in view of the prohibition under Section 46E of the A.P. Excise Act. 

3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act and not under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and that Section 46E of the Excise Act has no application. 

4.  Therefore, it is for the trial Court to consider whether the case is filed under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act or under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act.  The trial Court then shall have to decide the case on merits if the case is not under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act but it is under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act. 

5.  Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of return, dated 09-04-2013, of the trial Court is set aside.  The matter is remitted to the trial Court and the trial Court shall reconsider the application of the petitioner on merits.  In the event, the petitioner is not covered by the provisions of the Excise Act, the trial Court shall also consider whether there is prohibition for exercising powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if the case is under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act.  The trial Court shall dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 

5.  The miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this revision shall stand closed.
______________
K.G. SHANKAR, J
April 26, 2013.

 

Note:


Furnish CC in three days.

B/O.

KTL


           

           

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.