Allowed

Smt. Chesetti Jay Durga, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2022CRLRC/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal revision and set aside the high court order dismissing the petition for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The court held it appropriate to grant custody subject to conditions given the risk of vehicle damage during investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; vehicle ordered to be given to petitioner with self bond, sureties, and undertakings on conditions specified.

Smt. Chesetti Jay Durga, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.94 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short “CrPC”), is filed against the Order dated 30.09.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.392 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, in crime No.1 of 2020 of Thottambedu police station, whereby petition filed under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC seeking interim custody of Verna car bearing Registration No.AP 39K 0006, was dismissed.

¶5

A case in crime No.1 of 2020 Thottambedu police station was registered as against one Chesetti Rambabu, who is husband of petitioner herein, for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC, basing on a report lodged by one Sudarsan Mundlaputi, who is Manager Liasoning of M/s. Greenpanel Industries Limited. The allegations are the accused, being Quality Control in-charge of the said company, approved inferior

¶6

¶7

quality Resin by receiving amounts illegally from the Resin Suppliers, by cash as well as through bank transactions of himself and his relatives, and recommended payment to the suppliers and and acquired financial gain, illegally and unlawfully, and with the said amount, he purchased the subject car in the name of petitioner, who is his wife, and also purchased one house site admeasuring 211.11 square yards situated in Jaggampeta village and Gram Panchayat,East Godavari district under registered sale deed bearing document No.5173 of 2018, dated 14.12.2018. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the vehicle can be released only on completion of trial and that it is not appropriate stage to decide the said petition since the crux involved in the offence has to be decided only after full fledged trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶9

that the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicle and that if the vehicle is exposed to sun and air, it

¶10

¶11

gets damaged. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court, if the vehicle is ordered for interim custody. He placed reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat¹ .

¶12

The offence alleged is punishable under Section 408 IPC. Truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided during the course of investigation and trial. Admittedly, petitioner herein is the owner of the subject vehicle. If the vehicle is exposed to sun or air keeping in police station or court premises, unused, there is every possibility of the same getting damaged. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the vehicle can be ordered to be given for the interim custody of the petitioner, however, by imposing certain conditions.

¶13

In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The subject vehicle

¶14

1 AIR 2003 SC 638

¶15

¶16

viz.Verna car bearing Registration No.AP 39K 0006, is ordered to be given to the interim custody of the petitioner-

¶17

(a) on her producing the Original R.C. and executing a self bond for the value of the subject vehicle to be assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti;

¶18

(b) on her executing an undertaking that she would not alienate the said vehicle or transfer its ownership or change any physical features of the vehicle; and

¶19

(c) on her executing an undertaking that she would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court till the case is disposed of, in the trial Court.

¶20