SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 331

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Battu Devanand, J.
Sai Krishna Pidathala - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15823 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Sri R. Siva Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Appellant; learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents, for the Respondent

The seizure and retention of a vehicle without any incriminating material, without being used for transporting or carrying contraband, and without any reason for nearly 50 days is illegal and unjust, and violates the fundamental rights of the owner.

Headnote:

A.P. EXCISE ACT - SECTION 53, 59 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 102 - SEIZURE OF VEHICLE - ILLEGAL - NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND - VEHICLE NOT USED FOR TRANSPORTING OR CARRYING CONTRABAND - SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF VEHICLE FOR NEARLY 50 DAYS WITHOUT ANY REASON - ILLEGAL AND UNJUST - VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - VEHICLE TO BE RETURNED TO PETITIONER.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner's vehicle was seized by Andhra Pradesh police in connection with a case registered under Section 34-A of A.P. Excise Act for possession of liquor bottles. The vehicle was not mentioned in the mediators report, and the police admitted that the details were not mentioned due to hurry. The petitioner challenged the seizure and retention of the vehicle, arguing that it was illegal and unjust.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the seizure and retention of the petitioner's vehicle for nearly 50 days without any reason was illegal, unjust, and against the principles of natural justice. It also violated the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Issues: Whether the seizure and retention of the petitioner's vehicle was illegal and unjust.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the seizure and retention of the petitioner's vehicle was illegal and unjust because: * There was no incriminating material found in the vehicle. * The vehicle was not used for transporting or carrying contraband. * The seizure and retention of the vehicle for nearly 50 days was without any reason. * It violated the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the police to return the petitioner's vehicle forthwith in running condition.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the action of the respondents particularly 3rd respondent retaining the vehicle of the petitioner (i.e) Car M/s.RENAULT - KWID RXT 1.0 BS IV bearing registration No.TS 29 H 9863 in the police station without any crime nor any records officially to show the seizure of the vehicle by proper identification through a Registration Number/Chasis Number/Colour, Owner, etc., as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, against the law and procedure and subsequently to direct the 3rd respondent to return the vehicle to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the resident of Telangana State and he is doing a private job at Nalgonda District. He is having a motor car M/s.RENAULT - KWID RXT 1.0 BS IV bearing registration No.TS 29 H 9863. There is no any criminal case or any other cases as against the petitioner or against the vehicle of the petitioner. Recently, the Andhra Pradesh police people came to Telangana State and in the absence of the petitioner without having right, they taken away his car without his knowledge. Since then, the petitioner searching for the vehicle and recently he came to know that his vehicle is kept in the 3rd respondent police station. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that in connection with a case registered under Section 34-A of A.P. Excise Act with regard to the possession of liquor bottles, that vehicle kept in the police station of the 3rd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 3rd respondent is not showing any document like FIR, mediators report, seizure report, etc., as required under Cr.P.C. to retain the vehicle of the petitioner. Nowhere it was mentioned anything about the vehicle of the petitioner particularly the Registration Number, Chasis Number or Engine Number or Colour or owner name, etc., except saying or mentioning about RENAULT - KWID CAR. In the mediators report the Registration Number of the vehicle or any other particulars of the vehicle are not mentioned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the 3rd respondent in retaining the vehicle of the petitioner without any reason for nearly 50 days in the police station causes serious and irreparable loss to the petitioner. The vehicle is being damaged due to exposure to sun and rain for all these days. The vehicle being the personal vehicle and due to the reason that the vehicle is retained by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is facing serious hardships.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this High Court in K. Veeraprasad Rao and another vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and another, 2008(1) ALD 740, 2008(1) ALT 218 to substantiate his contentions.

7. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to direct the 3rd respondent to return the car M/s.RENAULT - KWID RXT 1.0 BS IV bearing registration No.TS 29 H 9863 of the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice.

8. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent.

9. Basing on the averments of the counter-affidavit, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized in Crime No.211 of 2021 registered for the offence U/Sec.34-A of A.P. Excise Act, on the file of the Penuganchiprolu Police Station, under the cover of mediators report. In the mediators report due to hurry the details or particulars of the vehicle could not mentioned except the vehicle model name i.e., “KWID Renault”. The car KWID Renault which was kept in the premises of the 3rd respondent was used by the accused for illegal transportation of liquor from Telangana State and the said car is the case property in Crime No.211 of 2021 of Penuganchiprolu Police Station.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top