Disposed

K. Sreenivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2020WP/17077/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of a seized vehicle used in a crime under the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Acts. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to entertain the petitioner's application for the vehicle's release within a two-week time limit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to decide on the release application within two weeks.

K. Sreenivasulu, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.17077 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking three reliefs. (1) Declaration that the registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.156 of 2020 against the petitioner under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, as illegal; (2) set aside the show-cause notice, questioning the validity of show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.3 as to why the vehicle that was seized in connection with the said crime should not be confiscated and (3) seeking direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the said vehicle towards interim custody to the petitioner.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶5

At the time of hearing this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing the first two reliefs relating to declaration that the registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.156 of 2020 against him as illegal and also the other relief seeking declaration that the show-cause notice issued for confiscation of the vehicle as illegal. Therefore, he would submit that he is only pressing for third relief to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for release of the vehicle that was seized in connection with the above crime.

¶6

The record reveals that the 2^nd respondent-Station House Officer of Bukkapatnam Police Station of Ananthapur District

¶7

¶8

registered a case in Crime No.156 of 2020 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act. The 2^nd respondent has seized Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 39 W 6839 in connection with the said crime. The petitioner, who is claiming to be the owner of the said vehicle, states that he has initially filed an application before the 3^rd respondent, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ananthapuram, for release of the said vehicle to him towards interim custody and as the same was returned, then he has filed an application before the 4^th respondentSuperintendent of Police, Ananthapuram, Ananthapur District for release of the said vehicle, but the same is not considered and entertained.

¶9

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 4^th respondent-Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram, Ananthapur District to consider and entertain the said application, if any, filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle and dispose of the same according to law, by fixing a time limit to that effect.

¶10

Since the crime was registered under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act also, the competent authorities to consider the request of the owner of the said vehicle that was seized in connection with the said crime for release of the said vehicle towards interim custody, are both Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and also the Superintendent of Police as per amended provision under Section 46 of the A.P. Excise Act.

¶11

¶12

As it is stated that the application is now pending consideration before the 4^th respondent-Superintendent of Police, Anathapuram, Ananthapur District, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to him to dispose of the said application within the time fixed by this Court.

¶13

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4^th respondent- Superintendent of Police, Anathapuram, Ananthapur District, if no confiscation order is already passed, to consider and entertain the application filed by the petitioner before him seeking release of the vehicle, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or from the date on which the copy of this order is placed before him by the petitioner, by passing an appropriate order according to law to that effect. In case, if the 4^th respondent is inclined to order for release of the vehicle towards interim custody, the same is to be ordered to be released on furnishing the immovable property of either the petitioner or of the third party, as security for release of the said vehicle. No costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶15

____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶16

Date : 08-12-2020 ARR

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.17077 OF 2020

¶20

Date : 08-12-2020

¶21

ARR

K. Sreenivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sreenivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukka Kanaka Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gandluru Nageshwaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammula Sivannarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Muralidhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, Vs Adothu Beemudu

Gandluru. Idayatulla, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh