Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 446
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : R.RAMANUJAM
A.Venkatanarayana - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-01
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 201, 302 r/w. Section 34 – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 451 and 457 – Custody and disposal of Property - Petitioner herein is the owner of the van bearing registration which was seized in connection with Crime of Rapadu Police Station registered under Sections - Petitioner herein is not one of the accused in the said crime - When he approached the Additional Judicial I Class magistrate for release of the said vehicle by filing - Magistrate dismissed the same he filed a revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge which was also dismissed on the ground that the investigation in the said Crime is still pending he filed the present petition seeking release of the said vehicle - Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor – Held, Petitioner filed the said before the learned Magistrate under section - It is no doubt true that section is not attracted when the enquiry is not pending before that court - Clearly applies in such a case and the learned magistrate ought to have considered the said treating it as one filed under section - Vehicle is not liable for confiscation even if the offence is proved - Court applies Following the same the impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside - Criminal Petition is allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the owner of the van bearing registration No. AP 02 T 9311, which was seized in connection with Crime no. 14 of 2000 of Rapadu Police Station registered under Sections 201, 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC.
( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is not one of the accused in the said crime. When he approached the Additional Judicial I Class magistrate, Ananthapur, for release of the said vehicle by filing Crl. M. P. No. 506 of 2001, the learned Magistrate dismissed the same. Thereupon, he filed a revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur in crl. R. P. No. 5 of 2001, which was also dismissed on the ground that the investigation in the said Crime is still pending. Hence, he filed the present petition seeking release of the said vehicle.
( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor.
( 4 ) THE petitioner filed the said Crl. M. P. , before the learned Magistrate under section 451 Cr. P. C. It is no doubt true that section 451 Cr. P. C. , is not attracted when the enquiry is not pending before that court. But, Section 457 Cr. P. C. , clearly applies in such a case and the learned magistrate ought to have considered the said Crl. M. P. treating it as one filed under section 457 Cr. P. C.
( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation even if the offence is proved. In these circumstances, the ratio of the decision of this Court in B. Bheetmudu vs. State o/a. P. , applies. Following the same, the impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside and the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following directions: (I) That the Van bearing registration no. AP 02 T 9311 shall be released to the petitioner on his furnishing a written undertaking to the Court of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of i Class, Ananthapur, that he will not sell, transfer or encumber the said vehicle in any manner and that he will produce the same for identification as and when called for by the said Court. (II) The Additional Judicial I Class magistrate, Ananthapur, shall keep the original R. C. Book relating to the above vehicle in its custody pending trial, and (III) It is open to the Court of the additional Judicial I Class magistrate, Ananthapur, to address the concerned transport authority stating not to issue any duplicate r. C. Book to the petitioner or anybody else claiming through or under him.
