Allowed

Bendra Thirupathi Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2021CRLRC/630/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Magistrate's order dismissing a petition for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The Court directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on bond and conditions, directing transfer of ownership with a fine.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the interim custody petition was quashed, and the vehicle was directed to be released on conditions.

Bendra Thirupathi Reddy Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 630 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bendra Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Bhumreddy, Aged. 31 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Narsakkapet Village, Ellanthakunta tvlandal, Rajanna-Sircilla District

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶11

S.H.O, PS Ellanthakunta, Rajanna-sircilla District

¶12

...RespondenUComplaint

¶13

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal Revision case, the High court may be pleased to allow the present crl.R.c. by setting aside the dismissal order Dt. 0611212021 passed in crl.Mp.No. 364 ol zo21 in crime No. 106 o'f 2021 in cc No. 1531 of 2021 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at sircilla and consequentially allow the crl.Mp.No. 364 of 2021 in crime No. 106 of 2021 in cc No. 1531 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class at Sircilla.

¶14

For the Petitioner : Sri Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondents : The Public Prosecutor

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

HO VBLE SRI JUSTICE, K. LAKSHMAN

¶19

CRIM INAL REVISION CASE No.630 oF 2021

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The presen. Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner - accused to set asi le the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicir I Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla in Crl.M.p. No.364 of 2021 in lr.No. 106 of 2021 ofEllenthakuntapoliceStation.

¶22

Heard M . G. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assis:ant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

Perusal o'the record would reveal that the petitioner - accused filed Crl.M.P. No.i 64 of 2021 under Section - 457 of Cr.p.C. in Crime No.106 of 2021 sr eking interim custody of the TATA Safari vehicle bearing registration No.AP 16CE 0555 claiming that he is the owner of the said vehicle having purchased the same from one Mr. G. Venkateshwar Rac for a consideration of Rs.6.00 lakhs under an unregistered docum :nt dated l'7.02.2021. The same was not transferred in his name. The sr id vehicle was seized by the police in the atbresaid crime registered for .he offences under Sections - 419 and 420 oflPC and Sections - 50 and l( 3 (2) read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If the said vehicle is in the custody of the police, it will be damaged.

¶24

The learnt C Magistrate vide order dated 06.12.2021 dismissed the said petition by observing that the petitioner is not the registered

¶25

¶26

KLh Crl.R C No.610 of20it

¶27

owner and that the investigation is pending. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

¶28

5' The leamed counser for the petitioner wourd contend that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the petitioner; that the Magistrate did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle having purchased the same from its original owner. If the vehicle is not released, it will be damaged.

¶29

On the other hand, the Ieamed Assistant public prosecutor wourd submit that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that as per the provisions of the M.V. Act, he has to get the vehicle transferred within time specified in the Act and that period has already erapsed' Therefore, the rearned Magistrate has rightry dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. There is no error in the impugned order and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present revision.

¶30

In view of the above rival submissions, it is apt to refer to Section - 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg, which is as under:

¶31

"50. Transfer of ownershin,_ ( I) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle resisie transt.erred.:red under this Chapter is (a) the transferor shall,_

¶32

(i) in the case of a vehicle r wi thin the same State. *i,n i n rou.r."n"i,;. ;i' iff ,::9:::'j'ed in such form- wjil'.;;il';",i""t'"r'^{report the fact of transter.} may be p,...,i;;j";; ;'"li::j:.:I'^'r.^{such manner.} as registering authority *;irr;, ..^{\ !rrrlar uovernment} to [he jurisdiction the transfer is to u".n J,.Junl .'nrii'rlr'r,ll"tt tun"o"ly send a copy of the said report to the transferee; und

¶33

. (ii) in the case ol a vehicle rer 'il'';;'r'r:u":* outside the State. within lonv-five auy. ",r aurhoriry .""r;;;j;o ;; .,r.",'j,ii; 1;1" '"^{the regisrering} (A) the no objection cenificare (B) in a case where no il;;::::l;,,J"Hffi:::l'

¶34

¶35

¶36

KL,J Crl.R C. No 610 ol 202l

¶37

¶38

(I) the rec ipt obtained under sub-section (2) ofsection 48; or

¶39

(ll) the pr ;tal acknowledgment received by the transferee il he has se ,t an application in this behalf by registered post acknowler gment due to the registering authority relerred to in section 48 together with a declaration that he has not received any comr rnication liom such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to vhich such certificate may be granted;

¶40

(b) the trz rsferee shall. within thirty da1's of the transltr, repoft the transfer to the registering authority ra,ithin whose .iurisdictio^{he has the residence or placeof businessrvhcre} the vehicl is nonlally kept, as the case ma) be. and shall tbrward t e cerlificate of registration to that registering authority 1 )gether with the prescribed t'ee and a copy uf the report rec ived by him lrom the transf'eror in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certifi cate rf registration.

¶41

(2) Where -

¶42

(a) the pe son in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered^, ies, or

¶43

(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction cc rducted by, or on behalf of, Government. the person suc ,eeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, s all make an application for the purpose of transferrinl the ownership of the vehicle in his name. to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence < : place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as thr case may be, in such manner. accompanied with such fee, a d within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Go emment-

¶44

(3) If the I ansferor or the transt'eree fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified ir clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (l), as the case may I e, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to s the other person) fails to make such application within the reriod prescribed, the registering authority may, having reg; rd to the circumstances of the case, require the tmnsferor^('the transferee, or the other person] as the case may be, to ay. in lieu ofany action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred ru ees as may be prescribed under sub-section^(5): Provided th rt action under section 177 shall be taken against the transfer r or the transferee or the other^person, as^{the case} may be, wh^,re he fails to pay the said amount.

¶45

(4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub-section (3), no action st rll be taken against him under section 177.

¶46

(5) For the )urposes of sub-section (3), a State Govemment may prescri re different amounts having regard to the period of delay or the part of the transferor or the transf'eree in reporting tl e fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or o^'the other person in making the application under *.grb-section 2).

¶47

¶48

KL,J CrlR.C. N0.630 of202t

¶49

(6)On receipt of a report under sub-secrion (l), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certifi cate of registration.

¶50

(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registerin g authority.''

¶51

In view of the above provision, it is clear that if a vehicle is within the same State, the same should be registered within fourteen days of the transfer, whereas, if a vehicle registered outside the State, the same should be transferred within forty-five days. In view of the same, now coming to the case on hand, according to the petitioner, he had purchased the seized vehicle from one Mr. G. Venkateshwar Rao, resident of Vijayawada, Andhra pradesh state on l'l .02.2021. The subject vehicle was registered in Andhra pradesh vide registration No.AP 16CE 0555. So, as per the aloresaid provision, the petitioner should have translered the seized vehicle in his name within forty five (45) days frorr the dare ol his purchase (17.02.2021). The said 45 days period has already expired. The Rules permit the petitioner to get the vehicle transferred in his name by paying fine. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not transferring the vehicle in his name so far is that on account of present covlD-19 pandemic situation, he could not get the vehicle transferred in his name and the same appears to be plausible.

¶52

More over, no purpose would be served in keeping the subject vehicle either with the police or in court. The Hon'ble Supreme court in sunderbhai Ambatal Desai v. state of Gujaratr has held that whatever be the situation, it is ofno use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate

(2002) l0 scc 283

KL.J Crl.R.C No.630 of202l

¶57

orders immedia ely by^{takingappropriate bond and guaranteeas well as} security for retr rn of^{the said vehicles, if required at any point of time'} But, the Court below did^{not considerthe principlelaid down by the} Apex Court. I I view of^{the sameand also considering the natureof} offences allege,^L against^{the petitioneretc., the order ol the Magistrate} dismissing the^. pplication^{for release of the crime vehicleas an interim} custody is liable to be^quashed.

¶58

The ' lriminal Revision Case^{is accordingly allowed,and order} dated 06.12.202 I passed by the^{leamedAdditional Judicial Magistrateof} First Class at S rcilla in Cr1.M.P.^{No.364 of 2021 in Cr.No.106 ol 2021} of Ellenthakunt r Police Station is^{hereby quashed.Consequently,the} leamed Magistr Lte is directed^{to release the crime vehicle(TATASafari)} bearing registra ion No.AP 16CE 0555 to^{the petitioner as an interim} custody on im1 osition of certain^{conditions to its satislactionand on} proper identifr :ation and veritlcation of ownership^{and under} acknowledgmer:. Similarly,^{the petitioner herein is directed to get the} crime vehicle^r ransferred in^{his namefrom the registered owner in} accordance witl the^{provisionsof the MotorVehiclesAct, 1988and} Rules made ther:under by^{paying fineetc. withinone week from the date} of release ofthe vehicle^{and deposit the original certificateof registration} before the lean ed Magistrate^{Court,failing which,leamed Magistrate} and the police a e directed^{to take steps in accordance with law'}

¶59

¶60

KL,J Crl.R.C. No.630 of202l

¶61

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the

¶62

¶63

Criminal Revision shall stand closed.

'o^ 50i,flHEti+[13

//TRUE COPY// I

To,

SECTION OFFICER

*,. I^{pg"girri np} - ***,#ttl,;r,;;,.l il;: ::: : :'

l\(

4hrL

HIGH COURT

DNIED:1611212021

ORDER

CRLRC,No.630^{of 2t21}

¶76

Os
.-- ' ''^T€
v
f..)
zl sttt$?\ E
i.r
.,'dy
\qg:srj>/

¶77

CRIMINAL^{REVISICN IS ALLOWED}

¶78

Bendra Thirupathi Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bendra Thirupathi Reddy 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

G.G.Suresh Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Dr.a.Yogender Swamy Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Avinash Melwani and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mandela Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sama Sanjeev Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mr. Bala Reddy Gopu Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tds