PURCHASER CLAIM FOR RETURN OF VEHICLE UNDER AN AGREEMENT OF SALE = the petitioner is not aware of the second respondent’s involvement in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Narketpally P.S. and as the petitioner parted with considerable amount under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.2012, if the vehicle is allowed to be in custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its value being depreciated which would case great prejudice to the petitioner.= The second respondent did not choose to enter appearance to dispute the agreement of sale, dated 21.11.2012, under which the petitioner purchased the crime lorry. Therefore, if the lorry is allowed to be in custody of the police and in the event of its value being depreciated, it is the petitioner who is going to sustain substantial loss. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to order for release of the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal; 2. The petitioner shall undertake to produce the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 as and when required by the trial Court; 3. The petitioner shall not alienate the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 or alter its physical features. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

CRLRC 168 / 2013

CRLRCSR 2460 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT A.LAXMAIAH   VS THE STATE OF A.P. PET.ADV. : RAVINDER RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: Other offences not covered above DISTRICT:  NALGONDA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.168 of 2013

ORDER:

This revision is directed against the order dated 04.01.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class dismissed the petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking return of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060.

2.       The petitioner claims to be the owner of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060, having purchased the same under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.2012 from the second respondent-D.Praveen Kumar Goud.  The said lorry came to be seized in Crime No.222 of 2012 of Nakrekal Police Station on the ground that sand is being transported without obtaining valid permission.  The petitioner moved Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2012 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal seeking for release of the vehicle for interim custody.  The learned Magistrate, having taken note of the fact that the second respondent, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, is involved in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Narketpally P.S, refused to release the vehicle for interim custody and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 04.01.2013.  Hence this criminal revision case.

3.       Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State and perused the order impugned in the revision.

4.       It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is not aware of the second respondent’s involvement in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Narketpally P.S. and as the petitioner parted with considerable amount under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.2012, if the vehicle is allowed to be in custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its value being depreciated which would case great prejudice to the petitioner.

5.       Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State supported the order impugned in the revision.

6.       The second respondent did not choose to enter appearance to dispute the agreement of sale, dated 21.11.2012, under which the petitioner purchased the crime lorry.  Therefore, if the lorry is allowed to be in custody of the police and in the event of its value being depreciated, it is the petitioner who is going to sustain substantial loss.  In that view of the matter, I am inclined to order for release of the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the following conditions.

1.        The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal;

2.        The petitioner shall undertake to produce the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 as and when required by the trial Court;

3.        The petitioner shall not alienate the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 or alter its physical features.

7.       Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

01.03.2013

Vjl/Gm