Allowed

Banothu Siada, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Mar 2013CRLRC/491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a criminal revision seeking return of a seized auto rickshaw. It directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody upon execution of a personal bond with sureties, while undertaking to produce it as required.

What did the court decide?

The auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595 is ordered to be released to the petitioner for interim custody upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Banothu Siada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.491 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the return endorsement dated 19.02.2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli on a petition being Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2013 filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C seeking return of auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595 seized in Crime No.13 of 2013 of P.S., Kalluru, Khammam District, registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 for interim custody.

¶4

2. The Station House Officer, Kallur P.S., seized Auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595 with load of 400 Kgs black jaggery with alum weighing about 35 kgs in Crime No.13 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of the A.P.Excise Act. The petitioner approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli by moving petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C for release of the auto for interim custody. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli refused to entertain the petition, by order dated 19-2-2013. Hence this Criminal Revision Case.

¶5

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState.

¶6

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595 and the black jaggery is kept for the purpose of feeding buffaloes and it is not meant for any illegal purpose. Therefore, the seizure of the auto cannot be sustained. If the auto is allowed to be in the custody of the

¶7

police, there is every likelihood of it’s value being deteriorated.

¶8

5. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595. If the auto is allowed to remain in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of it’s value being diminished. In that view of the matter, the auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595 is ordered to be released to the petitioner for interim custody on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli, Khammam District. The petitioner shall also undertake to produce the auto as and when required by the Court as well as by the authorities under the A.P.Excise Act. The petitioner shall not alter the physical features of the auto bearing No.AP 20 TB 7595 and shall not create any encumbrances over the same.

¶9

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶10

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.12-03-2013 RAR

Banothu Siada, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banothu Siada, 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

Vinnakota Venkata Ram Sarma Vs Vinnakota Venkata Rama Jogi Sarma

Mulla Mohamed Zakriya Vs Shri Gopi

Chejarla Subbayya(died) per LRs A2 to A6 Vs Chipinapi Venkatasubbaiah

M.Karunaker Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Satish Kumar Goud, Vs a. Anand Rao

A.Satish Kumar Goud Vs a.Anand Rao