Dismissed

Anil Kumar Shrivastav, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Feb 2013CRLP/1695/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that allowing the Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge precludes invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for premature release of a seized vehicle. The petitioner was directed to approach the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to approach the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, with an application seeking release of the vehicle.

Anil Kumar Shrivastav, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

Crl.P.No.1695 of 2013

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, to release the truck bearing No.MP07AB 3720 which was seized by the Forest Range Officer, Jannaram on 3.9.2012 in connection with accidental injury of wild chital (female) (Axia axis) Schedule-III, and a case was registered under Section 9 read with 2 (16), 39 (i) (d) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the investigation is pending and therefore, filing of the petition is premature. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.30 of 2012 before the

¶5

I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The learned Sessions Judge considering the relevant provisions of the Act and following the judgment of the Apex Court in Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and another vs. J.K.Johnson and others^[1] categorically held that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are apparently incorrect and the charge sheet is filed long back and the case is ripe for trial and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code taking into consideration of the facts. Hence, the present criminal petition.

¶6

Since the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed by the

¶7

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, it cannot be said that any substantial injustice is caused to the petitioner enabling him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to approach the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, with an application seeking release of the vehicle.

¶8

Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶9

____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶10

28^th February, 2013 rkk Note: Issue cc tomorrow.

¶11

[1] 2012 (1) ALD (Crl)

Anil Kumar Shrivastav, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Shrivastav, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venubabu, Vs The State of A.P.

Donga Adi Lakshmi Vs State

B.Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sakhari Kanakaiah Dora Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

Abdul Azeem, Vs Adeeba Shabnam

Mohammed Imran Khan Vs Smt. Nazia Tabassum