Dismissed

S. Venkata Subbaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2021CRLRC/226/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., Justice Kanne ganti dismissed the petitioner's appeal to secure interim custody of a seized vehicle. The High Court held that conflicting versions regarding ownership and the timing of the registration transfer prevented a determination without a full trial, thus the lower court's dismissal of the Section 457 application was sustained. All p

What the court decided

AI extract

S. Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.226 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 21.10.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1402 of 2020 in C.C.No.140 of 2019 by Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa District wherein the petition filed under Section 457 (1) Cr.P.C. for release of vehicle was dismissed.

¶5

The case of the petitioner in brief is: The petitioner has purchased Hyundai I-10 car bearing No.AP 31 B 9550 from one M.Venkatarami Reddy for valid consideration and paid major part of the amount. The said M.Venkatarami Reddy agreed to deliver the subject car and transfer R.C. after payment of balance amount. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that the car was seized by the Police. When the petitioner contacted M.Venkatrami Reddy, he informed that there was theft of car by one Chennam Vamsidhar Reddy and he assured that he will transfer the R.C. in the name of the petitioner by issuing no objection so that the petitioner could approach Court seeking custody of the car. Accordingly after receiving balance sale consideration said M.Venkatrami Reddy has issued ‘no objection’ and transferred R.C. in the name of the petitioner. 3. Subsequently the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1402 of 2020 seeking interim relief, but the Court below has dismissed the petition vide docket order dated 21.10.2019 by observing that the car was seized from the custody of Chennam Vamsidhar Reddy who is accused/respondent No.2 therein who purchased the car for valid consideration from M.Venkat Rami Reddy by using the money that

¶6

¶7

was alleged to have been stolen from the house of the complainant. Whereas the version of the petitioner is that the subject car was stolen from M.Venkata Rami Reddy and the Court below has also observed that the petitioner is being cheated by M.Venkata Rami Reddy and if his version is true, the money stolen from the complainant is yet to be traced out. The complainant has also filed Crl.M.P.No.2744 of 2019 seeking interim custody of the vehicle. It is also observed that the petitioner got the car transferred in his name though he was aware that the vehicle is in Police custody and the version of the petitioner is contradictory to the record filed along with the charge sheet. Therefore it was held that without conducting trial it is very difficult for the court to determine as to who is the owner of the property. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision.

¶8

Heard Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that R.C. stands in the name of the petitioner in respect of the car which is of the year 2008 as the same was purchased from M.Venkat Rami Reddy, as such there cannot be any dispute with regard to the ownership of the car and it is settled law that pending proceedings the owner of the vehicle is entitled for interim custody under Section 457 Cr.P.C. As such this petition may be considered.

¶9

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this revision petition and submits that the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition and does not require interference of this Court.

¶10

This Court is not able to appreciate the contention of learned counsel with regard to the ownership of the subject vehicle. While dismissing the petition, the Court below had clearly observed that as

¶11

¶12

per the statement of the accused, he had committed theft of amount from the house of the complainant and with that money he purchased the car, whereas the petitioner’s case is that he has purchased the car from M.Venkata Rami Reddy. But, the R.C. of the subject car was transferred in the name of the petitioner after the seizure of the vehicle and when it is not in the possession of said M.Venkata Rami Reddy. Therefore, a doubt arises about the ownership of the subject car. As such the Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and does not necessitate interference of this Court as it is a well considered order. Hence, this revision deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶14

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are

¶15

closed.

¶16

____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶17

Date : 19.03.2021 IKN

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

dismissed

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.226 of 2021

¶22

19.03.2021

¶23

IKN

¶24

S. Venkata Subbaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S. Venkata Subbaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of A.P. Vs Sri Janumabanti Bhujanga Rao

Tatta Srinu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanjay Parcha at Sanju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Krishna Murthy Vs G Lakshmi

Gulivindula Harish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dalari Yedukondalu, Vs Mis Shri Ram City Union Finance Vinukonda.