Disposed

Bethamcherla Mahamad Vali v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Mar 2022CRLP/586/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner, owner of a goods carriage vehicle, challenged its seizure for alleged illegal transport of black jaggery and alum. The Court directed release of the vehicle upon furnishing a fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of seized vehicle TATA motors Goods Carriage bearing No. AP-O4-UB-1391 subject to furnishing an FDR of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Bethamcherla Mahamad Vali Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

Between:

¶6

CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 586 0F 2022

¶7

Bethamcherla Mahamad Va1r, S/o.Nageshwar Rao, Age 31 years, occ owner of the Vehicle TATA [,4otors ooods carriag"e_uer,iite o"Liin"g ruo'Rp o+^-ua iisilnlo H. No.'1 r /56-1 , tt,4ahabooE Nragar stre&, e;";inrri,'N/irou[ui,'ys-c r<-a-oapi"oisirict Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

AND

¶9

... Petitioner/Owner of the vehicle

¶10

The State of Telanoana. Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court for State of Tetanganiat Hydeiabad

¶11

fhe^{Deputy Commissionerof prohibition} and Excise, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

3' The Station House officer, Mattampalli porice Station, suryapet District .

¶14

...Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c Rrw.4s7 of cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be preased to rerease the petitioner Tata motors goods carriage vehicle bearing No. Ap 04 uB 1391, involved in FIR No.24B of 2021 , daled.31l12l2o21 2021 of Mattampalli police Station, suryapet District in spite of read iness to f urn ish the third party surety value of Rs.25,0001 before 2nd Respondent.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents.

¶17

The Court made the following: OROER

¶18

¶19

(

¶20

THE HO NOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN}

¶21

CI:IMINAL PETI^{TIONNo.586 of 2022}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This⁽ riminal Petition is^{filed under Section482} Cr.P.C. to lirect the^{second respondent to release the} petitioner's IATA motors Goods Carriage^{vehiclebearing} registration No.AP-O4-UB-139^{1 involvedin Crime No.248} OF 2021 , on the file of^{the Station House Officer,} Mattampall Police Station,^{SuryapetDistrict,registered for} the offence under Section^{34(E) of the TelanganaState} Excise Act, in spite of his^{readiness to furnishsureties.}

¶24

Hearc the learned counsel for^{the petitioner and the} learned Go''ernment^{Pleader for Prohibitionand Excise'}

¶25

The case of the petitioner^{is that he is the registered} owner of t re vehicle in^{dispute i.e., TATAmotorsGoods} Carriage rehicle bearing^{registrationNo.AP-O4-UB-1391} and the sr id vehicle is leing^{using for his livelihoodand} day to de y activities. He^{further submits that the 3'd}

¶26

¶27

respondent seized the^{said vehicle on the ground that the} said vehicle is illegally transporting^{black jaggery and alum} of total 15,7 10 Kgs.

¶28

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerwould submit that} the vehicle in dispute^{u'as purchasedin the year 2018'In} proof of the same, he has filed^{copy of certificate of} registration. By referring^{the same, learned counselfor the} petitioner would submit that an amount^{of Rs.2,O0'0OO/-} (Rupees two lakhs only) could^{be the reasonableamount} towards security deposit for^{releasing of the said vehicle'}

¶29

Considering the fact^{that the petitioneris only using} his vehicle for his livetihood,^{the vehicle can be released} subject to further^{proceedingsunderthe Excise Act, on} certain terms.

¶30

The Criminal Petition is^{accordingly, disposedof} directing the respondents^{to releasethe vehiclein dispute} i.e., TATA motors^{Goods Carriage vehicle bearing}

¶31

¶32

¶33

registration No.AP-O4-UB-1391 subject to the condition of the petitior er furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs.2,00,00( /- (Rupees two lakhs onty) in favour of the second res rondent. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertakin, 1 that he wili not alienate or change the physical fe rtures of the vehicle. The second respondent shall write .o the RTA authority not to transfer the vehicle in favour r f any third partv without clearance from the Excise Dep rrtment, Needless to say, release of the vehicle is subject t I the orders that shall be passed br the second respondent authority pursuant to the enquiry to be conducted rnder the provisions of the Excise Act.

¶34

Misce laneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶35

criminal pe ition, shall stand closed.

¶36

SDi.L.SiIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SEC:TION OFFICER

To,

The station Hr use officer,-Mattampaili porice statjon, Suryapet District ?. 9n"^{CC to Sr Laxmaiah Kanchani,} novoiJte 1OFuCl 3. One CC to Th,, Public prosecutor, High Corrt fo,. tne state of Telangana at Hyderabad [O^)UC] -

¶41

1. Two CD Cooie s

¶42

One Spare bo ry

KNK obr- ,$s

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410 t12022

iAi-a- o^
(..
j 15 r4AB 2022
I
,,
i
4F-'

¶47

ORDER

¶48

CRL.P.No.58 i of 2022

¶49

DISPOSING I)F THE cRL.P

Bethamcherla Mahamad Vali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bethamcherla Mahamad Vali v. The State of Telangana

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

Sri Challagulla Satyanarayana Vs State of Telangana

Velugoti Rama Devi Vs State of Telangana and another

Bachu Ratnakar Vs The State of Telangana

Raghu Pajjuri Vs State of Ts

Jadi Rajamallu Vs Erram Tirupathi and 8 others

Rajshekar Reddy Gillela (A.1) Vs The State of Telangana