Allowed

Rajendra Hanumanthu Nangre v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021CRLRC/616/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Criminal Revision allowed setting aside an order dismissing a petition for interim custody of seized property. The Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate to grant custody subject to conditions, relying on Supreme Court directives that seized property must be returned to owners upon verification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.10.2020 set aside; matter remanded to Magistrate to grant interim custody of seized property subject to conditions.

Rajendra Hanumanthu Nangre Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN Criminal Revision Case No.616 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/claimant, to set aside the order, dated 22.10.2020, passed in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 2020 in Cr.No.425 of 2019 of Shadnagar Police Station, by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

¶4

Heard Sri J.Prabhakar learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant, Smt. K.Kalyani, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State. Perused the record.

¶5

The petitioner herein is claimant and owner of the seized property in Cr.No.425 of 2019. He has filed an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.217 of 2020 in Cr.No.425 of 2019 before the Court below seeking interim custody of the said property. The Court below has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 22.10.2020 on the ground that the contents of the panchanama and remand report does not clearly disclose that he is the owner of the said properties until trial is commenced, if the petitioner appears before the said Court and identifies his property in the witness box and his ownership claiming his rights over the property decided by the said Court.

¶6

The petitioner herein has impleaded the defactocomplainant in the present Revision as respondent No.2, who filed

¶7

¶8

affidavit stating that he has no objection in releasing the property in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶9

The petitioner herein has also filed third party affidavit of Sri Sachin Vilas Khadam, the son-in-law of the petitioner herein and also L.W.6. He has also stated that he has no objection in releasing the property in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶10

It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has filed Crl.P.No.1513 of 2020 seeking interim custody of the cash, seized in the present crime. The said Crl.P.No.No.1513 of 2020 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 with certain conditions.

¶11

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT¹ and this Court in catena of decisions, held that seized property has to be returned to the owner on verification of the ownership and documents and on imposition of certain terms and conditions. It was also held that keeping the seized property in the custody of Police will not serve any purpose. In the present case, the Court below, without considering the said ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.217 of 2020 vide order dated 22.10.2020.

¶12

In view of the said submissions and also considering the no objection affidavits filed by the 2^nd respondent and third party (L.W.6), this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The Impugned order dated 22.10.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 2020 in Cr.No.425 of 2019 of Shadnagar Police Station, by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, is hereby set aside and the matter

¶13

(2002) 10 SCC 283

¶14

¶15

is remanded back to the said Magistrate with a direction to give interim custody of the seized property specifically mentioned in the panchanama and also list of properties mentioned by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. on imposition of certain conditions to his satisfaction.

¶16

9 . Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶17

Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________ K.LAKSHMAN, J

¶19

Date: 14.12.2021.

¶20

Note: Issue copy by 16.12.2021. b/o.vvr

Rajendra Hanumanthu Nangre v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Hanumanthu Nangre v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Afzal Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Seema Tarannum Vs The State of Telangana

Yerram Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

D. Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Kshatriya Vinay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Mohammed Saleem alias Mahaboob Vs State of Telangana