Disposes a writ petition where the police had not produced the petitioner's seized vehicle before the Magistrate. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 457 Cr.P.C. instead.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.32389 OF 2010
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioner is the owner of a medium carriage vehicle (DCM Swaraj Mazda) bearing No.AP 28 W 3086. On 22.08.2010, the vehicle was allegedly hired by one K.Kamalakar Reddy. On a complaint given by Mr. D.Ravikanth Chary, P.S. Gouraram registered crime No.75 of 2010 under Sections 278 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 and 8 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It is alleged in FIR that the petitioner’s vehicle was used to carry 18 barrels methyl oil for dumping on the outskirts of Pamulaparty Village. The petitioner was shown as accused No.6 in the said crime. The police arrested A2 to A6 on 27.08.2010 and recovered the petitioner’s vehicle under cover of panchanama. The petitioner filed petition under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak (JFCM). The said application was returned on 24.11.2010 stating that the case property is not deposited in the Court and therefore, the application is returned. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not producing the petitioner’s vehicle before the JFCM as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to produce the same.
We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the A.P. Pollution Control Board. A perusal of the remand report dated 27.08.2010 shows that the petitioner’s vehicle, which was allegedly used in the
commission of crime, was recovered by the second respondent. If that be so, nothing prevents the petitioner to approach the Court of JFCM, Medak, under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and seek appropriate orders. As and when such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions shall stand dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) 1st March 2012 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow B/O RRB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is legally barred from seeking the production of his vehicle detained by the police under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
A.P. Pollution Control Board
V.V.S.RA
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
