Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yadla Ganapathy vs The State Of A.P. on 19 July, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3975 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a direction to the Station House Officer concerned to release the various types of gutka & Khaini packets worth of Rs.8,08,350/- to the petitioner which are seized in connection with FIR No.441 of 2021 of Vizianagaram I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, in view of the orders dated 06.07.2021 passed in criminal petition No.3631 of 2021.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Police have seized the property including different varieties of tobacco products. as mentioned in the occurrence report in connection with crime No.441 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under 188, 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 51(B) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 5(1) read with Section 22 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COPT Act') and subsequent to the registration of the crime, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing criminal petitioner No.3631 of 2021 and this Court by common order dated 06.07.2021 has quashed the FIR in view of the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in criminal petition No.5421 of 2019. Subsequent to the quash proceedings, the petitioners approached the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station requesting for release of various types of gutka packets but 2 they did not return the products. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking a direction to the Police to return the seized products.
3. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court has time and again made it clear that the property which is seized in a crime has to be returned when such crime is quashed, but the Police failed to return the same and even though several applications are filed through online before the Courts below they are not numbered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 102 Cr.P.C. speaks about seizure of property and the power of Police officer to give custody of the property to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as the disposal of the same when the property is not required for the purpose of investigation. He also submits that Sections 452 and 457 of Cr.P.C. also speak about seizure and disposal of the property. He submits that in similar cases this Court has directed the concerned Police to return the seized property in view of the quashed FIR. Therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioners.
5. It is appropriate to extract Sections 100 and 451 Cr.P.C.
which read thus:
"102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.
(1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.3
(3) 1 Every police officer acting under sub- section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.] Section 451 Cr.P.C.
Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes-
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
6. This Court has made it clear in several petitions filed for return of property, that if the property which is seized from any person in connection with any crime on the ground of illegal possession or transportation of any drugs/goods and if such offence does not constitute any offence, seized property has to be returned and if the Police apprehends about commission of future crime, they can take action as permitted by law.
7. In view of the above discussion and as F.I.R. has already been quashed by this Court by common order dated 06.07.2021 passed in criminal petition Nos.3599, 3603, 3604, 3614, 3620, 4 3622, 3525, 3628, 3629, 3631, 3632, 3644 and 3647 of 2021, the property that was seized from the petitioners herein in connection with the said F.I.R. is liable to be returned to them.
8. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram I Down Police Station, Vizianagaram District, is directed to release the property seized in connection with F.I.R.No.441 of 2021.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date: 19.07.2021 IKN 5 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI (allowed) CRIMINAL PETITION No.3975 of 2021 Date: 19.07.2021 IKN 6 Crlp No.4443 of 2020 This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru-cum-Special Judge, under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989 in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A5 and A7 to A9, wherein cognizance has been taken alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under the 143, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (POA) Act.
The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2/complainant who is studying B.Tech (final) year in SRKR Engineering College lodged a report alleging that on 20.07.2018 on receiving call from one Chennu Ram Charan who is his brother's friend respondent No.2 along with his brother and friends went to the shed situated at Town Railway Station. The accused by abusing beat respondent No.2 and others with rods due to which they sustained bleeding injuries. Basing on the same, crime was registered and was taken cognizance as S.C.No.70 of 2020.
Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet reveals that investigating Officer after thorough enquiry crime was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. but during the course of investigation found that Section 307 is not attracted as they could not seize any incriminating material i.e. crime weapons from the scene of offence and after examining the witnesses deleted Section 307 I.P.C. But, later the second investigating officer has again added Section 307 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries certificate and points out that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and as such Section 307 I.P.C. is not attracted to the offences. Leanred counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire evidence of the 7 witnesses there is no whisper about abusing them in the name of the caste.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that disputed questions cannot be gone into and it will only come into light once trial is commenced.
In view of the fact that the crime weapons as alleged were not recovered and the injury sustained by respondent No.2 are simple in nature and also considering the fact that there are no allegations in the evidence collected with regard to abusing in the name of caste, there shall by stay of all further proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari Eluru - cum -Special Judge under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989.
8Crl.P.No.4444 of 2020.
Respondent No.2 herein has given complaint alleging that there was an agreement between him and the petitioner/accused with regard to immovable property and the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance but failed to pay the remaining amount. Therefore, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to sell the property and return the amount paid by him. However, later the deviated the same and started demanding respondent No.2 to handover the land so that he would lay plots and sell the property. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 09.05.2020 the petitioner came to the house of respondent No.2 and abused him in the name of the caste. Basing on the said complaint the present crime is registered.
Heard Sir K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- state.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident has taken place on 09.05.2020 as alleged in the complaint, but the complaint was lodged on 16.09.2020. He also submits that if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken it is disclosed that there is civil dispute between the parties and giving complaint after lapse of four months itself shows that to implicate the petitioner in a crime the said complaint is lodged, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and further learned counsel submits that even as per the complaint abusing respondent No.2 was not in the public eye. Hence, provisions under SCs STs (POA) Act are not attracted.
In that view of the matter there shall be stay of all further proceedings.