Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Venkata Subba Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 July, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.415 of 2021
ORDER:
This criminal revision case under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed challenging the order dated 21.06.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.105 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri in connection with D.O.R.No.02/2020-21 of Forest Range Officer, Venkatagiri, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 457 of Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of his vehicle.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of White Hyundai i20 Car bearing No.AP26 BD 6809. On 17.07.2020 while he along with his driver were returning in the said car from his agricultural lands at Chittamur village, suddenly a wild boar came out of bushes and hit the right side of car and died. Later, the forest officials registered the case under the provisions of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and seized the said car.
3. Heard Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below dismissed the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C on the ground that the vehicle is involved in the offence pertaining to Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Learned counsel submits that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and moreover, there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and that the petitioner is not 2 involved in the crime. Learned counsel submits that just because the investigation is pending, that cannot be a ground to refuse the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition may be allowed.
5. It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.
6. As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the Magistrate may order property be delivered to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the seized vehicle. Moreover, the car is seized in the month of July, 2020 and if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this 3 Court feels it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 21.06.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.105 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri in connection with D.O.R.No.02/2020-21 of Forest Range Officer, Venkatagiri is set aside. The vehicle i.e. White Hyundai i20 Car bearing No.AP26 BD 6809 is ordered to be given interim custody to the petitioner on condition of his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 14th July, 2021 PVD 4 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Allowed CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.415 of 2021 14th July, 2021 PVD