Allowed

S.Mangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Feb 2011CRLRC/2256/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision seeking release of a vehicle seized for a narcotics offense. Although the driver had absconded, the Court ordered the release of the vehicle to its owner on execution of a bond, citing potential damage to the vehicle due to long-term storage.

What did the court decide?

The vehicle bearing No. AP 16-U-7846 shall be released to the petitioner on execution of a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties.

S.Mangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2256 OF 2010

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 22.06.2009, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2009 in Crime No.166 of 2006 of Palvoncha Town Police Station, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16-U-7846 was dismissed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the driver of the said vehicle ran away immediately, when the check was conducted by the Forest Officials. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is the owner of the said vehicle and is eaking out her livelihood by hiring the said vehicle and hence, prayed this Court to order release of the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶6

Heard both sides.

¶7

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the petitioner herein filed the said petition before the Court below seeking release of the said vehicle, but the same was dismissed. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court seeking release of the said vehicle.

¶8

The ganja was found transporting in the said vehicle and hence, the aforesaid crime was registered and the said vehicle was seized.

¶9

May be, it is a fact that the driver of the said vehicle ran away and he could not be apprehended till now. But, in my considered view that cannot be a ground to hold that the vehicle cannot be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. The said vehicle was seized in connection with the said crime way back in the year 2006. As of now, more than four years lapsed. The said vehicle might be lying at the Police Station. If any vehicle is not used for long period, it may get spoiled and ultimately, even, if the said vehicle is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner after the disposal of the case, no purpose would be served.

¶10

In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the said vehicle can be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the vehicle bearing No. AP 16-U-7846 shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. It is further directed that the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle before the Court below as and when required; that she shall not alienate the said vehicle; and that she shall not alter or change the shape, colour etc of the said vehicle during the pendency of the said case.

¶12

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 08^th February 2011 DR

S.Mangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mangamma, 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

Smt. T. Vijaya Kumari , T. Vijaya Vs Sri G. Govinda Rao

Kamakshi Extractions, Vs Prakathi Spinners Pvt. Ltd.

Jella Madhava Rao, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Kurati Narayana, Vs Kurati Chennamma

V.Marie Vs The State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Gunda Bhumaiah Vs M.Satyanarayana