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