The perishable nature of the seized property and the absence of dispute regarding ownership influenced the court's decision to grant interim custody to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed assailing the order dated 22-10-2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2022 of 2020 in C.C.No.416 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, whereby the petition seeking interim custody of the seized property, was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State.

The respondents 3 to 6, who are the other accused in the above case, are not necessary parties to this petition relating to claim made for interim custody of the seized property. Therefore, no notice is required to be given to the respondents 3 to 6.

3. The petitioners herein are A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No.416 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram. A case under Sections 286, 336 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 9 (1) (b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883 was registered against them along with other accused. Incidentally, during the course of investigation, police have seized the crackers in connection with the above case. The petitioners have filed a petition seeking interim custody of the said property i.e. crackers during the pendency of trial of the case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition by the impugned order on the ground that if the property is released, that there is a possibility of causing loss of valuable evidence in this case.

4. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the said order.

5. As can be seen from the impugned order, there is absolutely no dispute regarding ownership of the said property. Learned Magistrate clearly held in the impugned order that the petitioners are owners of the said property as per Tax Invoices bearing Nos.574 and 575 dated 23-10-2019 issued by Sri Suparna Fire Works, Tadepalligudem, generated in the name of Pavithra Enterprises, Kakinada which belongs to the 2nd petitioner, who is A-5 and as per Tax Invoices Nos.541 and 571 dated 23-10-2019 issued by Sri Suparna Fire Works, Tadepalligudem, generated in the name of Anu Matchings, Kakinada, belongs to the 1st petitioner herein, who is A-5 in the above case. Therefore, it is evident that there is absolutely no dispute regarding ownership of the said property. It is clear from the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate that the petitioners herein have purchased the said properties under the aforesaid invoices. However, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition declining to grant interim custody of the said property to the petitioner solely on the ground that there is a possibility of causing loss of valuable evidence in the case. The said ground on which the petition was dismissed, is unsustainable under law.

6. Since the property in question is fire crackers, it is perishable goods. In such a case, there is no use of keeping the said seized property in custody of the police or in the custody of the Court. By taking appropriate safeguards to preserve the evidence in this regard, appropriate order can be passed giving interim custody of the said property to the petitioners.

7. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The petition filed by the petitioners in the trial Court seeking interim custody of the property stands allowed. The property i.e. fire crackers which was seized in connection with the above crime is ordered to be given to the petitioners towards interim custody after taking appropriate photographs of the property that was seized and after preparing a detailed Panchanama relating to identity of the said property to be signed by two respectable persons as mediators at the time of release of the said property. The property is ordered to be given towards interim custody to the petitioners on furnishing third party security for Rs.4,50,000/- worth the value of the said property befor