G.Srinivasa Rao alleging that the petitioner herein and others, who are the owners of the vehicles, suppressed the fact that the said vehicles were already registered earlier in Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam Districts, but, again obtained ‘No Objection Certificates’ for the same vehicles from a place at Nagaland to get the same vehicles entered in the records of the RTO, Anakapalle, by altering the Gross Vehicle Weights of the vehicles with a motive to get authorisation to carry more laden weight. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.73 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered by the Station House Officer, Anakapalle Rural Police Station, against the petitioner herein and the other owners of the vehicles. During the course of investigation into the said crime, the subject lorry was seized. In this factual background, the petitioner filed the application aforestated in the introductory paragraph of this order for return of the subject lorry inter alia claiming that the petitioner is the owner of the subject lorry and that if the vehicle is kept idle, it will get rusted and damaged and as all vehicular documents are produced the vehicle may be returned by ordering interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. The said application was resisted by the respondent by raising various contentions apart from the contention that the registration of the subject lorry was cancelled by the Regional Transport Authority, Anakapalle, as per procedure established by law and that if the vehicle is returned there is a chance of making the vehicle to disappear and that in such a case, it would be difficult to produce the vehicle before the trial Court during the course of trial. On merits and by the order impugned herein, the said
