THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.29051 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ramulu Pasupula, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the car i.e.

Tata Indica Vista LS, bearing registration No.TG-36-A-3916 (for short, ‘the subject vehicle’). In proof of the same, he has filed copy of Registration Certificate (RC). On 15.09.2025, while the petitioner was transporting 180 kgs, of Jaggery and 20 kgs, of Alum etc., in the subject vehicle, 3^rd respondent seized the subject vehicle and registered a case in COR No.151 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that he has not transported the contraband illegally, but for the purpose of his kirana shop. The said vehicle is the only source of his livelihood. The vehicle is now in the custody of 3^rd respondent. If the said vehicle is kept idle and exposed to Sun, rain and dust, it will get spoiled. Therefore, he seeks to release the subject vehicle.

4. Whereas, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is transporting the aforesaid Jaggery and Alum, illegally in the subject vehicle, if the subject vehicle is released, the petitioner will again commit the similar offence and there is also possibility of altering the nature of the vehicle.

5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is relevant to state that in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Apex Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. Various High Courts in the judgments stated above, after referring to various provisions of Cr.P.C., and also the principle laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) ordered to be released the vehicles seized in the crimes for the offences under the Act.

6. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 in Crl.P. No.2662 of

2020, relying upon the decisions in Jagtar Sing vs. State of Rajasthan

2 S.B.Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.3542 of 2017, dated 09.11.2017

(supra) and Waish Ahmed vs. The State of west Bengal, C.R.R.No.382 of 2018, dated 18.01.2019 of different High Courts and also in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) granted the relief of interim custody to the owner of the vehicle on certain conditions.

7. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the respective High Courts in the judgments referred to above, coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle and the same was seized in the above crime. He has also filed copy of Certificate of Registration wherein the name of the owner of the vehicle and registration number are specifically mentioned. The aforesaid crime is registered for the offences under Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

8. The subject vehicle is of the year 2012. The vehicle is now in the custody of 3^rd respondent. The subject vehicle is the only source of his livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for release of the subject vehicle.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of. 2^nd respondent is directed to give interim custody of the subject vehicle i.e. Tata Indica Vista LS, bearing registration No.TG-36-

A-3916 to the petitioner on proper verification of ownership with original certificate of registration on the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner/owner of the subject vehicle shall furnish Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of 2^nd respondent.

ii)