Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanchagi Bonjubabu vs The State Of Ap on 7 December, 2020
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.445 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the order, dated 11.11.2020, in Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, in connection with crime No.379 of 2020 of Butchayyapeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam, dismissing the said petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of his vehicle i.e., Bolero bearing registration No.AP 39 TA 4952, this criminal revision case has been filed.
2. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is not involved in the crime, the Court below has dismissed the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C merely on the ground that the petitioner did not mention as to how the vehicle was found in the custody of the accused/respondent No.3 herein and observing that as the vehicle was used for transportation of Ganja, the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the same. Learned counsel would further submit that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C though there is no dispute about the ownership of the seized vehicle.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition filed LK,J 2 Crl.R.C.No.445 of 2020 under Section 457 Cr.P.C., while observing that as per record, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the Police on 19.07.2020, whereas the petition was filed on 07.09.2020 and if really the vehicle was subjected to commission of theft or given to anybody, the petitioner has to report the incident to the Police, but no reason was assigned by the petitioner for not taking steps for giving report and also not filing the petition either one or two days after seizure of the vehicle i.e., 19.07.2020; and therefore, it can be safely conclude that the petitioner was well aware about using of the said vehicle by the accused for transportation of Ganja.
5. Here, it is apt to extract Section 457 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 the property to be delivered to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit. In this case, merely on the grounds that the petitioner did not mention as to how the vehicle was found in the custody LK,J 3 Crl.R.C.No.445 of 2020 of the accused/respondent No.3 herein and that he also failed to file the petition immediately after the seizure of the vehicle, the Court below dismissed the said petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provision under Section 457 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the seized vehicle.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2020, dated 11.11.2020, is set aside. Interim custody of the seized vehicle i.e., Bolero bearing registration No.AP 39 TA 4952 shall be given to the petitioner on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 07th December, 2020 GHN LK,J 4 Crl.R.C.No.445 of 2020 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.445 of 2020 07.12.2020 GHN