Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri Chalamcharla Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 November, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               Criminal Revision Case No.1135 of 2019

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 23.09.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.4073 of 2019 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under Section 452 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.45 of 2019 of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station, claiming possession of the seized property, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

Brief facts of the case to dispose of this Criminal Revision Case may be stated as follows:

While accused No.3, who is the driver of the lorry, has been transporting the tobacco products from Bangalore to Orissa in a lorry, the same was intercepted by the Police and they have seized the tobacco products and registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 188, 270, 273, 328 r/w.511 of IPC and Section 54 r/w. Sections 57, 58 and 59 of Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sale Regulation) Act, 2011 and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in Crime No.45 of 2019. The accused were arrested on 27.02.2019 and they were produced before the concerned Magistrate and they were remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, they were enlarged on bail.

CMR,J.

Thereafter, the accused have filed Criminal Petition No.1697 of 2019 before this Court seeking quash of the proceedings in the said crime. The said petition was allowed by this Court by its order dated 15.03.2019 and the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2019 of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station are quashed.

Subsequently, the petitioner, who is accused No.1, approached the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, and filed a petition under Section 452 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.4073 of 2019 for return of the seized property. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the value of the property is very high i.e. Rs.32,23,000/- and that the Court is under obligation to verify the documents before granting custody of the property. It is also held by the learned Magistrate that, as the petitioner/A-1 failed to produce any piece of document to show that the said seized property belongs to Sri Varaha Lakshminarasimha Trading Company, Bangalore and that he is under obligation to transport the same, that it is not proper to grant custody of seized property to the petitioner. The said finding recorded by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the said petition on the ground that he needs to verify the documents to ascertain whether the said property which was seized belongs to Sri Varaha Lakshminarasimha Trading Company, Bangalore and whether the petitioner is under obligation to transport the same or not 3 CMR,J.

is legally unsustainable. It is relevant to note here that admittedly the property was seized from the possession of accused No.3, who was transporting the same in a lorry on behalf of accused No.1. The criminal case registered in connection with the said transportation of tobacco products has been quashed by an order of this Court as discussed supra. When once the criminal proceedings came to an end on account of quashing the said proceedings, the possession of the property that was seized from the accused in connection with the said crime is to be delivered to the accused. The Criminal Court is not under obligation to verify the title of the property while dealing with a petition under Section 452 Cr.P.C. Clause (2) of Section 452 Cr.P.C. clearly envisages that an order for delivery of property can be made to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof. Since the said property is seized from the accused and as they are now claiming possession of the said property, the same is to be delivered to the petitioner, particularly, when there are no rival claimants for the said property. If any rival claim is made by any other person, then the Criminal Court may be justified in directing the parties to seek declaration as to title of the said property by the appropriate civil Court. As no such contingency arose in this case, when the property is seized from the possession of the accused, the same is to be delivered to the petitioner.

CMR,J.

In fact, in similar set of facts, this Court in Criminal Petition No.11144 of 2018 while setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate, held as under:

"..Property was seized from the possession of the petitioner while he was transporting the same and when such transportation of such property is not found to be an offence, property has to be returned for carrying on the transportation. If any crime, as apprehended by the Public Prosecutor, takes place, it is for the concerned to take action, as permitted by law."

The present revision case also stands on the same footing as that of the aforementioned case, and the order impugned in this revision is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.4073 of 2019 passed by the learned Magistrate. The possession of the property that was seized from the accused is ordered to be delivered to the petitioner.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:05-11-2019.

cs