The expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential to prevent the owner from suffering due to the article remaining unused or being misappropriated.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the order, dated 09.09.2022, passed in Crl.M.P.No.336 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Crime No.15 of 2022 of Jupadu Bungalow Police Station, whereby the petition filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking interim custody of auto bearing No.AP 21 TZ 2293 was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

3. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 21 TZ 2293, which was involved in the crime registered against the respondent No.2, Shaik Farooq, for the offences under Sections 420, 366, 506 and 354(D) IPC and Sections 11 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the allegation that he kidnapped a victim girl in the said vehicle and subsequently, the said vehicle was seized by the police and was kept in their custody. The petitioner being the owner of the crime vehicle sought release of the vehicle for interim custody contending that he is the owner of the vehicle, he is no way connected with the crime and he, being the driver, has to maintain his family by running the auto. The trial Court dismissed the petition

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and has nothing to do with the commission of the offence, whereas the 2nd respondent/accused is facing trial but the trial Court has erroneously refused to give interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. He further submitted that if the vehicle is left unattended, its value gets diminished and the livelihood of the petitioner is lost.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicle is involved in the commission of the crime committed by the accused and submitted to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the record.

7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the crime vehicle. Therefore, if the vehicle is left unused either in the police station or in the premises of the Court, till the trial of the case is completed, there is every likelihood of the vehicle being damaged.

8. The trial Court observed that the registration certificate of the vehicle expired 4 ½ years back and running the vehicle without renewal of registration certificate is illegal. It is further noted by the trial Court that copy of the payment receipt for renewal of registration certificate was filed, but the same appeared to the trial Court not to be genuine. It is further observed that if the vehicle is allowed to be released and the road transport authorities seize and alienate the vehicle, the material object required in the trial would not be available for evidence.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 and contended that if the vehicle is kept at the police station for an indefinite period would not serve any purpose.

10. The offence alleged against the 2nd respondent/accused is Section 366 IPC. It is further contended that the victim was taken in the said vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. In the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra), regarding return of the property in interim custody of vehicles, it is observed as follows:

“Vehicles

15. xx xx xx ….Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16