Disposed

E. Natarajan, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2019WP/20215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the seizure of a vehicle used in a theft case, the Single Judge held that the police had the authority to seize the vehicle during investigation. The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and a mandate for the police to produce the vehicle before the Magistrate within three days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. The respondent was directed to produce the seized vehicle before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within three days, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for interim

E. Natarajan, Vs the State of Ap — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.20215 of 2019

¶4

This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, questioning the seizure of the vehicle bearing No.TN 20 BP 7062 of the petitioner without following the procedure under statutes, and declare the same as illegal and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent police have no power to seize the vehicle in terms of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 04-09-2019 and therefore the very seizure itself is illegal. But, as seen from the material placed on record by the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.164/2019 on the file of Tada Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, is registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 and 120-B IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation Act) Act, 1957, Section 3 PDPPA and 9-B(1) MMR and it is pending for investigation. The vehicle was seized as it was used for the cognizable offence of theft, which is punishable under Section 379 IPC. Therefore, the vehicle is in the custody of respondent police as on date.

¶6

When a crime is registered, during pendency of investigation in the said crime, for the relief of interim custody, procedure to be followed is only under Section 451 Cr.P.C in case the vehicle is produced before the Magistrate. But such action of the respondent police cannot be questioned since this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when they are directed to seize the vehicle, as it was used in commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the police have no authority to seize the vehicle, while deciding present petition, where a limited question was raised.

¶7

The learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by another Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15952 of 2018, dated 16-10-2019, but the learned Single Judge did not consider the purport of the relief prayed for in the petition, and the relief granted in that Writ Petition is otherwise, consequently, I am unable to pass an identical order more particularly when it is not on merits. Therefore, I am unable to issue any direction to the 2^nd respondent while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of the vehicle, granting liberty to this petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 451 Cr.P.C for grant of interim custody, in case the vehicle is produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. For any reason, the vehicle is not produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, the 2^nd respondent is directed to produce the vehicle before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within three (03) days from the date of this order enabling the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. On filing such application, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, is directed to dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner within a week thereof.

¶8

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶11

Date: 13-12-2019.

¶12

Note: Furnish C.C by 16-12-2019. B/o.

¶13

¶14

¶15

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.20215 of 2019

¶17

Date: 13-12-2019 Note: Furnish C.C by 16-12-2019. B/o. IS

E. Natarajan, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Natarajan, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Addagalla Gopalakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Narra Sarasawathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Divya Jyothi Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Saikam Jayachandra Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Duppalapudi Satyanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

J Bhuvaneswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh