Allowed

S. Kondal Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Feb 2011CRLRC/300/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Revision Bench granted custody of a seized Innova vehicle to its proven owner, rejecting the rationale that it belonged to a disproportionate assets accused, while directing the owner not to alienate it during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Seized vehicle No.AP11 AE 2772 ordered to be released to the petitioner, who must produce it as required and not alienate it.

S. Kondal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.300 OF 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioner claiming to be the owner of Innova vehicle bearing No.AP-11 AE 2772 filed this Revision questioning the order, dated 27.01.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2011 in Crime No.32/ACB-CR.II/2010 on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby a petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the said vehicle was rejected.

¶4

The brief facts of the case are that the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Circle, on credible information that the second respondent herein by name A.Srinivasa Reddy is in possession of disproportionate assets, other than known sources of income, raided his house and found various assets including the vehicle in question, which was parked in front of his house. As the vehicle was also not shown in his known sources of income, the said vehicle along with other incriminatory material was seized and a case was registered in Crime No.32/ACB-CR.II/2010. During the course of investigation, the petitioner claiming that he is the owner of the vehicle filed the said Crl.M.P. under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for handing over the said vehicle along with the keys to him. However, as stated supra, the said application was dismissed. Hence, he approached this Court and filed this Revision. Heard both sides.

¶5

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record. From the Income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the financial years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and also the Registration Certificate, it is clear that the said vehicle was purchased by

¶6

him from out of the loan advanced by the Reliance Capital Limited. The said fact is clearly borne from those documents. From a perusal of the said documents annexed to this Revision, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the petitioner happens to be the owner of the said vehicle.

¶7

In those circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the custody of the said vehicle. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the said vehicle bearing No.AP11 AE 2772 is hereby ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall produce the said vehicle before the Court as and when required, and he shall not alienate the same during the pendency of the enquiry, investigation and trial of the said case.

¶8

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶9

11^th February 2011 DR

S. Kondal Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Kondal Reddy 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

Kurati Narayana, Vs Kurati Chennamma

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

S.Mangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Tupakula Pavan Kumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akurathi Srinivasa Prakash Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Y.Govinda Reddy, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh and Excise