Dismissed

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

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023CRLRC/335/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed an application seeking release of a seized lorry. The Court held the Revision Petitioner filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. without first depositing the property as required under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and directed deposit of property or seeking release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. from the Police pending trial co

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The Petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the trial court seeking release of the vehicle if the case still survives.

R. Sandeep Reddy, Balanagar, R.R.Dist. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 335 0F 2010

¶7

Criminal Revision Case Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order in Crl.M.P.No. 258 of 2O1O in Crime No. 18 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Suryapet.

¶8

Between:

¶9

R SANDEEP REDDY, S/o. Pakkir Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agricutture Rl/o. H.No. 4-39451 , Mavkeevan Nagar, Near Police Quarters, Balanagai, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

(Petitioner/owner of Lorry Bearing Reg.No.AP-28-TA-l 21 5)

¶13

THE STATE OF A.P., through S.H.O., Athmakur (S) Police Station, Nalgonda District, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondent (RespondenUComplainant)

¶15

CRLRCMP. N : 500 OF 2010

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the S.H.O., Athmakur (S) P.S., Nalgonda District, to grant interim custody of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. AP-28-T A-1215 along with sand seized in Cr. No. 18 of 2010, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PALLE NAGESWAR RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HOIiOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D.NAGAF:.IUN} CRIM,II\ AL REVIS^{ION CASE No.335of 2Ol.o}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

'1''615 ()r'il itla R{l'lslon Case is filed^r;y lirl^re "lslon petitioncr^{r)r</sup> I er- of the l)l-oPe^{rL\ [o sel aside the c':-rler dated} 20.O2.2O1O^{pi ssecl b1 thclczrrnedJudicial First Class} Magistrate at^S lryapet^{itr C.F No.258 of 2O10 irr C:ilne No l B} of 2010,^{u he rt' n the petition filcd by the revisior l)et tioner} under Sccl tort '⁵ i^{,lf Coclcol Criminal Procedurr-'fo r relurno[} propert\ \;ls I I tt'nctl.}

¶23

Tire il iel' facts of the^{case as seen fronr the r:ccrd are} that tl-rc rcvrs,io I^{petitioncr, ri'ho is the ou'ncr of Lorri' bearing} No.AP-28^'l'A I^I 15^{has fileci a petitionunder-Sec - r'r-r 451 of} the Code of^C riminal^{Procedurein Crime No l ilof 2O 10} seekir-rg in^l-erin , custorll^{of his lorry. The leart-r:c J:dicial} First Class^I\4a listrate^{at Suryapethas passedtt r: followilrg} docket ord er:

¶24

" f'rr perry not dePosited^{so far.}

¶25

Her cr:, Petition maY^{be returned."}

¶26

¶27

at-I 3. It is to be seen that^{lhe Court u'i1l consider} application under^{Sectlon45 i oithe Code olCrirninai} Pi^ocedrtre onlv after^{case propert'y is deltositedin the Couit'} Ir, case, ii thc case^{property is rrot depositedin the Court, the} petitioner is expected^to fiie^{an ap1:licai'iorrunder Section 457} of the Code of Criminal^{Procedure seeking a direction to the} Police, rvho have^{seized the vehicle to rbturnthe propertr''} [{o.,vever, tkre^{revisionpetitioner has not {iled petition tLntlcr} Section 457 c-tf the^{Codr: of CiiminalProcedureand instead he} tras moved an application^{under Section 45I of the Cod': of} Criminal Procedure^{'[hc revision petitionershc uld have} waited until the case^{propert5ris deposited by the Police} before the Court and^{a-fter that re-submit the application} under Section^{451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that} the Court could have^{disposed of the same in accordance} with law.

¶28

Even otherwise, the^{trial Court has only retumed the} application on the ground^{that the property has not been} deposited in the Court.^{On perusal of the same, this Courtis} of the opinion that^{the trial court has not committedany}

-,-.,\

! I

lrre.qlllarit.,. o illcg:rliti in passir-rg the ()rd( r s. The investigation n Crrme No. I B of 2010 mrglLt .tavr. been completed turd trizd could have also been comple r r cl. Since trial is cornplc erl, the Courts arc required tt pasri orriers in respect of disp rsal of the property under Secti,rn 1s2 of dre Code of Ctri:linal procedure. In case, if the <:ause still survives, th<: revision petitioner is at liberty t<. f le an application berlre the trial court seeking rele:ise ,f the vehicle and th:r trial Court shall dispose of tt r: c:.se in accordancc rvitl l,tu,.

¶33

5 According y, the crirninal rcvision case is disp:sed of. As a sequr l, pr_-ndrng Miscellaneous Applicattcns, il a11.,

¶34

sha-[ stand ckrs,^.d

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SdL M. fu\tTiIAITA^KRISHNA DEPIJTY 1EGISTRAR (-1_l// '1

¶37

SE:(;TION^OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 . The Judicial^{F irs . Class Magistrate'at Suryapet}

¶40

The Station^{Hou;e Officer, Athmakur Police Station'NalgorrJaD strict'}

¶41

Two CCs^{to the )ublicProsecutor'High Court for the State')'' Telangana at} -)

¶42

Hyderabad.(C)U

¶43

One CC to^{SRIPALLE NAGESWAR RAO'Advocate[OFl'J3]}

¶44

Two CD^CoPies

kam

*).

HIGH COURT

DT.DNR,J

DATED:15102 2023

ORDER

: -_ "l_ , -,:
: 1 ilAY 2|123

¶52

CRLRC.No.3i 5 of 2010

¶53

THE CRlMlNlrL REVISION CASE IS DISI'OSED OF

¶54

r-$<br>

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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