THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4300 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to quash the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.90 of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulawada, and to direct to release the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.TS23 4809 and TS23 4810 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2024 the tractor and trailer of petitioner (bearing numbers TS234809 and TS234810) were seized by the 2^nd respondent - police. The said seizure occurred when the driver, namely, Mahesh, was transporting sand without a transit pass, and allegedly without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner had hired Mahesh for agricultural purposes, and that he had apparently deviated from the agreed-upon use of the vehicle. Following the seizure, a case vide Crime No. 214 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner. However, it is averred that despite best efforts of petitioner to explain the situation to the authorities and request for release of the vehicles, the 2^nd respondent - police refused to release the same. That being so, the petitioner filed Crl.MP.No.90 of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024 under Section 497 of BNSS for release of the said vehicles and on 22.01.2025 the trial Court passed docket order observing that the petitioner admitted that the said vehicles were purchased by him from one Jinka Swamy for agriculture purpose and on perusal of RCs’ of the said vehicles, it was noted that the vehicles stand in the name of the said Jinka Swamy who is not made as party to the petition. With the said observation, the trial Court held that it is not inclined to allow the said petition. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murli, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizure of the vehicles of petitioner was due to the alleged unauthorized transportation of sand without a valid permit, and for the same, the petitioner is willing to pay the penalty as prescribed under the relevant rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 19.02.2015. He averred that the said Rules provide for a specific penalty for vehicles found transporting sand without authorization, and the petitioner has offered to pay the same, but despite same, the 2nd respondent refused to release the vehicles without providing valid reasons. He asserted that the seized tractor and trailer are the sole source of income of petitioner, and the continued detention of the said vehicles will cause significant financial hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.90 of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024 and to allow this criminal petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that as the petitioner was managing the said vehicles, he was made accused in the said crime, whereas, for the purpose of release of vehicles, the registered owner has to file a petition and as the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicles and has not even made the registered owner as party to the petition, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 and that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the said order. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss this criminal petition stating that there are no merits in the same.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that admittedly, the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicles and that one Jinka Swmay is the registered owner of the seized vehicles who is not made as party to the petition filed before the trial Co