Dismissed

B.Narasimha, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023CRLRC/334/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Case addressed a petition seeking interim custody of a seized lorry by applying under Section 451 Cr.P.C before case property was deposited in court. The High Court held the trial court did not act illegally by returning the interim application and prescribed the correct remedy under Section 452 Cr.P.C instead.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case disposed of with no interim custody granted; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

B.Narasimha, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se I

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3s4 OF 2010

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against The Judgment daled: 20.2.2010 made in C.F. No. 256110 in Crime 18/10 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class lrrlagistrate Suryapet.

¶9

Between:

¶10

B.Narasimha, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, Plot No.10, Road No.10, Arunodaya Colony, Hyathnagar, R.R. District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., through S.H.O.., Athmaku(S) Police Station , Nalgonda District, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court , Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201o{CRLRCMP. NO: 499 OF 2010)

¶16

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the SHO, Atmakur (S) P.S., Nalgonda District to grant interim coustody of the lorry bearing Reg.No. AP -28-TA -2538 along with sand Seized in Cr.No. 18/2010 , pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.S. DINESH FOR SRl. PALLE NAGESWAR RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HO, {oURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGA-],..TUN CRIMI tijl,L REVISIO N CASE No.334 of 2()l O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Tl-ris C:ir ri ral Revision Case is liled b1, t,rt: rr:vision petitiont:l- o\-. t.er ol the property to set aside the rrr ler dated 20.O2.2olt) pz sr;ed by the lcarned Judicial t,ir.st Class Magistrate at S rr1,ap61 in C.F.No.256 of 20 lO in C-irne No.lg of 20 1 0, u.hert: n the petition filed by the re,.,isror: :ret.tioner undcr SectiorL^,. : I of Codr: of Criminal proced tre fc r return of propertv was rr ttrrned.

¶23

The brie:f a,:ts of thc casc as seen from tlre rt, cot.d are that the revisior petitioner, rvho i:; the or.r,ner of l,otr, bearing No.AP 29-'1 A-i25 ltt has filed a pcrition under S(:ct on 4 5 i of the Code ,rf C: irtinal Procedur-e in Crime No. I ti of 20 l O seeking interim custody of his tor.ry. The krarne I Judicial First ClaSs-Mitg sr.rate at Suryapet has passed lhe :ollru.ing docket order:

¶24

"Pror r:r t5r not deposited so far.

¶25

Herrr: :, petition may be returned.,,

¶26

¶27

it is to be seen that rhe Cor,rrt rvill consider a-n application under Section 45 1 ol thr: Code of Ciminal Procedure ouly after case propel'l-i/ is deirosited in the Court. In cir.se, if the case propertlv. is not deposited in the Conrt, 1.he petitiorrer is expect_ed to lile an applicatior.r under Section hSZ of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a direction to the Police, who have seized the vehicle to return the propertv. However, the revision petitioner has not filed petition under Section 457 of the Code ol Crimintrl^proccdure ald insteacl he has moved an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner should have waited until the case property is deposited by the police before the Court alrd after that re-submit the application under Section 451 of the Code of Crimirra,l procedure so that the Court could have disposed of Lhe same in accordance with lau..

¶28

,. Even otherwise, the trial Conrt has only returned the application on the ground that the property has not been deposited in the Court. On perusi;1l of the same, this Court is of the opinion that 'the trial court has not committed any

¶29

¶30

¶31

irregularit.r c)r illegalitv in passing the o:dr,r:;. The rnvestrgertirtn :. '. Crime No. i8 of 2OlO might rr,-r,,e been completed an d trial couki have also been comple.erl. Since trial is contplet :d, the Courts are required tc pasl; orders in respcct of disp< srrl of the property under Sec tion 4.:i2 of the Code of C rintir ral Procedure. In case, if thr: r:a usr: still survives, the : e'rsion petitioner is at libert1. ro fie an application bef, rrr: the trial Court seeking reLeasr. cf the vehicle ;Lnr1 t h, trial Court shall dispose of th: case in accordance u,itlr 1zLw.

¶32

5 Accorrlingl ,, the criminal revision case is dispr sr:d :f. As a seqrre , pending Miscellaneous Applicario.-tr,, iI any,

¶33

shall stand close 11

¶34

SD/-'T.SRINIVAS DEPJ-IY^FIEGISTR-AR //TRUE^COPY// ,^,/. SI:CTIdf,i OFFICER

¶35

To, '1 . The Judicia F "sl Class Magistrate Suryapet^{Su.ryqPetD strilt} i. il;6i;iil^{H,,ur;eofficer, Athmaku(s),s"rvalgtDlstrict'} 5 +;;'Cc;^rc i " prori" piosliuior Hi{h courrror srate^{of Tr;lantJana,at} Hvderabad [O^.lT] 4 iii'; cc 6 5^{rjatte NageswarRao, Advocate [oPtJC]} 5. Two CD^CoPits TJ

1./

rll

HIGH COUITT

DATED:1 5111,.12023

ORDER

-:<br>r\' N)

CRLRC.No.lil4 ot 2010

¶43

DISPOSING CIF THE CRL.RC

¶44

@
(^
(
eu\5 \t)

B.Narasimha, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Narasimha, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Pulluri Thanmai , Santhoshi Vs Pulluri Sudheer Kumar and 5 Others

Gundagoni Yellamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. Vs Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Gundagoni Nagaraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta, Hyderbad. Vs Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, and Anr.

R. Sandeep Reddy, Balanagar, R.R.Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.