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:19^th 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:19^th February, 2013.

cs

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Revision Case No.355 of 2013

 

Date:19^th 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