Allowed

Psumarthi Siva Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2021CRLRC/794/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Supreme Court allowed the petition to grant interim custody of seized gutka and tobacco products to the petitioner. Although FSL reports were awaited, the Court held that the petitioner's ownership was undisputed. Possession was ordered subject to executing a bond of Rs.40 lakhs as a condition of delivery.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 15.11.2021 is set aside; possession of seized property delivered to petitioner on condition of executing a bond of Rs.40 lakhs with one surety.

Psumarthi Siva Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.794 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 15.11.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2021 in Crime No.137 of 2021 of Vetapalem Police Station, Prakasam District passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole wherein the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the property i.e., gutka and other prohibited products, was dismissed.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the seizure of the subject tobacco products in connection with Crime No.137 of 2021 of Vetapalem police Station, Prakasam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), Sections 58, 59 and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short “FSS Act”) and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”), the petitioner has approached the Court below seeking return of case property, but the same was dismissed on the ground that as the samples were forwarded to laboratories and FSL reports are awaited, the Court has not opted to order interim custody of the case property to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly as per the mediators report the subject property was seized from the petitioner and when there is no rival claimant in respect of the property so seized from the petitioner, ownership over the property need not be established.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below without considering Clause (2) of Section 452 Cr.P.C, has erred in dismissing the petition.

¶9

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶10

It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:

¶11

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property .

¶12

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

¶13

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

¶14

As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when there is no dispute about the ownership over the seized property, the Magistrate may order delivery of the property to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit. In the present case, transportation or possession of tobacco products do not

¶15

¶16

constitute any offence as held by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5421 of 2019 and batch.

¶17

Admittedly, even as per mediators report the subject property was seized from the possession of the petitioner while he was transporting the same. There is no rival claim on behalf of any third party. Therefore, in the light of the above contentions, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interim custody to the petitioner, however on certain conditions, as the value of the seized property is around Rs.50.00 lakhs.

¶18

Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 15.11.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, is set aside. The possession of the property that was seized from the petitioner in connection with crime No.137 of 2021 of Vetapalem Police Station, Prakasam District is ordered to be delivered to him on condition of his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/(Rupees Forty lakhs only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

¶19

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

¶20

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶21

Date :03.12.2021 KA

Psumarthi Siva Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Psumarthi Siva Satyanarayana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Lova Raju Vs Kinthali Sairam Manikanta

A.Ramesh Gandhi Vs the State of Andhra Prdesh

Vadavalli Anand Kumar Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Rayudu Naresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gogulamudi Roja Rani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vattipalli Bhagya Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh