Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Smt. Asifa Begum, And 5 Others on 2 December, 2021
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3411 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the State seeking to quash the order, dated 07.04.2021, passed in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.
The facts, which led to filing of the present Criminal Petition are as under:-
The 1st respondent herein filed Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2021 against the complainant and A-1 to A-5 under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the docket order in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2021 in POR.No.2/053 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan. By an order, dated 07.04.2021, the learned VII- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan, allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2021 and accordingly directed the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, to release the seized Tata Safari vehicle bearing No.AP-29-AN-0001 in favour of the 1st respondent herein towards interim custody with certain conditions. Assailing the said order, dated 07.04.2021, the present Criminal Petition has been filed by the State.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/State, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.2
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/State would submit that the investigation goes to show that the accused had used the subject vehicle for the purpose of hunting the wildlife animals as it has been fitted with special focus lights on roof top and front side of the vehicle in addition to the normal head lamps in order to detect the movement of animals in the forest areas or other areas and to kill them. It is also submitted that in the middle seat of the vehicle there is an earmarked space for placing the gun for hunting the wild animals. Further, the investigation and confessional statements of the accused clearly indicate that the seized vehicle was used in the commission of offence. It is further submitted that the appellate Court failed to take into consideration the antecedents of the accused and also the alteration of vehicle for the purpose of hunting the wild animals and that the vehicle ought not to have been released and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As per Section 36 of the Wild Life Protection Act, every property, which is said to have been seized, is the property of the State Government and the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act are required to be strictly complied with by the Courts for achieving the objects for which the Act was enacted. It is also submitted that there is every possibility of accused using the vehicle to commit further offence and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the seizure of the vehicle is not based on the presumption but on the valid proof and corroborative evidence that the vehicle has been used in the commission of offence. It is also 3 submitted that the vehicle along with the licensed gun were used for hunting of wildlife animal and thus the accused are liable for punishment. It is further submitted that the accused were also involved in killing of black buck, which is evident from the photos which have been seized from the accused. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by setting aside the impugned order.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the 1st respondent is the owner of the subject vehicle and that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and also the vehicle being in the custody of the Court.
A perusal of the material placed before this Court would show that the 1st respondent being the owner of the subject vehicle filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 2021 seeking release of the said vehicle. The learned VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan, released the vehicle by imposing certain conditions. Admittedly, the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the subject vehicle, was not arraigned as an accused in the crime in which the vehicle was seized. She is altogether a third party.
In catena of decisions, the Apex Court held that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the police stations/Court and that therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to its registered owner by way of interim custody subject to appropriate conditions. Since there is no dispute with regard to 4 the ownership of the vehicle, the 1st respondent, being the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. Further, while releasing the vehicle, the learned VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan, has considered all the grounds raised by the petitioner/State before it and also recorded cogent and convincing reasons. Therefore, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, dated 07.04.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality requiring interference by this Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand cancelled.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
02.12.2021 Gsn