Partly allowed

M.Purushotham v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Jun 2016CRLRC/1313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court granted interim custody of a seized vehicle to its owner in a prohibition case. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a personal bond and one surety. The order clarified that this release does not preclude future confiscation orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the Indica Vista Car to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount and original R.C. book.

M.Purushotham Vs The State of A.P. — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1313 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision is preferred challenging the docket order, dated 26.4.2016, in Crl.M.P.No.845 of 2016 in Crime No.717 of 20152016 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Chittoor, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle i.e., Indica Vista Car bearing Registration No.AP-03/AV-32234, was dismissed.

¶4

2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the aforesaid vehicle seized by the Excise Police, Chittoor in connection with Crime No.717 of 2015-2016 for the offence punishable under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and the same was dismissed by the Court below on the ground of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

¶5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and if the vehicle is kept idle for a long period, there is every possibility of it getting damaged. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient surety and also produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court.

¶6

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected for the same, since the vehicle is involved in a crime.

¶7

5. Considering these circumstances, it is directed that the vehicle i.e. Indica Vista Car bearing Registration No.AP03/AV-32234 shall be released for interim custody of the petitioner, subject to final orders to be passed in the main case, on petitioner furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two

¶8

lakhs only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Chittoor, 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, the petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court. However, it is made clear that the present order will not stand in the way of any confiscation proceedings. If already confiscation orders are passed, the order need not be given effect to.

¶9

6. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶10

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶12

7.6.2016 AMD

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶14

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1313 OF 2016

¶15

Date: 7.6.2016

M.Purushotham v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Purushotham v. The State of A.P.

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

Kummari Srihari Vs The State of Telangana

P.Ravi, Vs P. Lakshmi Devi

Sagiraju Appala Trinadha Varma ,Raghu Varma , Rajesh, Vs The State of A.P.

Segu Venkata Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Hanumanthu Radhika Vs The State of Telangana

Vinay Kumar Maloo Vs The State of Telangana