Allowed

M.Karunaker Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Mar 2013CRLRC/1379/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, Justice K.G. Shankar allowed the petitioner's claim for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The petitioner, a third party not accused, alleged ownership of the Chevrolet Tavera. The court ordered release of the vehicle subject to proof of ownership or a personal bond with conditions preventing alienation or disposal.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted interim custody of vehicle No. AP-29-N-2011 subject to proof of ownership or a personal bond of Rs. 3,00,000 with one surety, and subject to specific conditions.

M.Karunaker Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

Crl. Revision Case No.1379 of 2013

¶3

Date: 17.07.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

M. Karunaker Reddy … Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

State, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondent

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶9

Crl. Revision Case No.1379 of 2013

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The petitioner assails the order in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur in Crime No.217 of 2012 on the file of the Tandur Police Station. The petitioner claimed ownership of vehicle bearing No.AP-29-N-2011 (Chevrolet Tavera), which was seized by police in connection with the case. Holding that the investigation had not completed by the date of the petition, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.

¶12

2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property. The petitioner seeks for interim custody of the property. The petitioner is not an accused. It is his case that perhaps the accused used the vehicle for the commission of the offence without his knowledge and that

¶13

he has nothing to do with the offence alleged against the accused. Where the petitioner is not an accused, but is a third party to the case and where the petitioner claims ownership of the vehicle, I consider it appropriate to order interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to proof of his ownership and subject to terms.

¶14

3. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The orders in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2013 are set aside. The petitioner is granted interim custody of vehicle bearing No.AP-29-N-2011 subject to proof of ownership of vehicle or on a personal bond of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with one surety in a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur and on the following further conditions:

¶15

a) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the committal Court or before the trial Court as and when directed by the concerned court;

¶16

b) The petitioner shall not alienate the nature and condition of the vehicle without prior permission of the committal or trial Court; and

¶17

c) The petitioner shall not dispose of the vehicle without prior permission of the committal or trial Court.

¶18

K.G.SHANKAR, J

¶19

Date: 17.07.2013 Isn

M.Karunaker Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karunaker 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banothu Siada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinnakota Venkata Ram Sarma Vs Vinnakota Venkata Rama Jogi Sarma

Mulla Mohamed Zakriya Vs Shri Gopi

A. Satish Kumar Goud, Vs a. Anand Rao

A.Satish Kumar Goud Vs a.Anand Rao

B.Sathyanarayana Chetty Vs Srinivasamahal Tirupathiand 14 Others