ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2021 in D.O.R.No.09/2020-21 by learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri, in connection with D.O.R.No.09/2020-21 of Forest Range Officer, Venkatagiri, wherein the petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle i.e. Renault Duster car bearing No.AP 04 BF 4036 was dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the subject vehicle, which was seized in the above crime registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39(1)d, 39(3), Sec.43, 48(A), 49(B) r/w sub Secs.(1)(11)(14)(16)(31) (32)(33) of Sec.2, 50, 51(1),(1A), Sec.52 and 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 378 IPC basing on the report lodged by respondent/complainant wherein it was alleged that the accused are transporting and selling Indian Sand Boa in the subject vehicle illegally.

3. Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Medical Student in Bangalore and the accused No.1 without consent and knowledge of the petitioner, used the crime vehicle in this crime and that he is no way concerned with the offence done by the accused No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the vehicle is exposed to nature and if it is kept idle till the trial is completed the vehicle will become useless and get damaged. He submits that the petitioner undertakes not to alienate the vehicle or transfer to third party.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the vehicle was involved in a grave offence and hence the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the vehicle.

7. It is well settled principle that even if a vehicle is sized in connection with any crime, there is no bar for granting interim relief of such vehicle when there is no dispute with regard to the ownership.

8. It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

9. As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the Magistrate may order the vehicle to be delivered to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the seized vehicle and if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 22.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2021 in D.O.R.No.09/2020-21 by learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri, in connection with D.O.R.No.09/2020-21 of Forest R