Allowed

Marati Ramulu v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC2 Nov 2012CRLRC/2149/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by an accused seeking release of seized black jaggery and a vehicle. Holding that non-prohibited stock can be released, the Court ordered interim custody of both items upon execution of a personal bond and compliance with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of 7000 kgs of black jaggery and the Ashok Leyland Ecoment Van (AP 29 T 4980) to the petitioner upon execution of personal bonds and compliance with conditions.

Marati Ramulu Vs The State of Ap. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2149 OF 2012

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

Petitioner-accused No.1 filed this revision case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved over the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in Crl.M.P(sr) No.3237 of 2012 in Crime No.639 of 2012-13, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Husnabad, Karimnagar.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

When the petitioner approached the trial Court with the above Crl.M.P. seeking release of 7000 kgs of black jaggery and Ashok Leyland Ecoment Van bearing No.AP 29 T 4980 seized in Crime No.639/2012-13 of P.S. Excise, Husnabad, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order returned the same on the ground that the property has not been deposited before it.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the value of the seized stock will be diminished if it is kept idle in the premises of Excise station. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and if the vehicle is kept idle for a long period there is every possibility of getting it damaged and that the petitioner is ready to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court/authority concerned.

¶7

Admittedly, black jaggery seized from the possession of the petitioner in above referred crime is not prohibited article under any law and their possession is also not barred by provisions of any Statute. Further, once the property is seized, the power, which is vested with the Deputy Commissioner, is also vested with the Court. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the stock and vehicle can be released but subject to certain conditions.

¶8

Under the above circumstances, interim custody of 7000 kgs of black jaggery seized in the above referred crime shall be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner on his execution of a personal

¶9

bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) before the Court/authority concerned.

¶10

Further, the vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Ecoment Van bearing No.AP 29T 4980 shall be released for interim custody of the petitioner, subject to final orders to be passed at the time of disposal of main case, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/authority concerned and also on production of original R.C. book. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change the physical features of the same till the disposal of the criminal case and further he shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court/authority concerned. This order does not stand in the way of any proceedings/investigation by the competent authority.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

¶12

Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶14

2^nd November, 2012 Nn

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶16

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2149 OF 2012

¶17

2.11.2012

¶18

Marati Ramulu v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marati Ramulu v. The State of Ap.

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

M/s Penn Bio Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Jadagish, Vs The State of A.P.

K.Nageshwara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri a.K.H.S.Rama Raju Vs State

Mohammad Abdul Samad , Munna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valluripally Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of A.P.