THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.28947 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 2. 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the goods carriage ‘MAHINDRA BOLERO PIK-UP FB 1.7 T XL BSVI’, bearing registration No. TS 15 UE 5379 (for short, ‘the subject vehicle’) purchased by availing loan. In proof of the same, she has filed copy of Registration Certificate (RC). The 2^nd petitioner is husband of the 1^st petitioner. On 03.08.2025, while 2^nd petitioner was transporting 30 kgs, of black Jaggery and 40 kgs, of Alum etc., in the subject vehicle, 5^th respondent seized the subject vehicle and registered a case in COR No.241 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

3. It is the specific contention of the 1^st petitioner herein that she has no knowledge of the transportation of said contraband. 2^nd petitioner/Accused is her husband, therefore, she gave subject vehicle to him. The said vehicle is involved in the aforesaid crime. The vehicle is now in the custody of 3^rd respondent. If the said vehicle is exposed to Sun, rain and dust, it will get spoiled. She is using the subject vehicle for her livelihood. Therefore, she seeks to release the subject vehicle. 4. Whereas, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, would submit that 4^th respondent has already issued show cause notice dated 10.09.2025 granting 15 days time to the 1^st petitioner to submit explanation but she has not submitted explanation. Therefore, 1^st petitioner is permitted to submit explanation to the said show cause notice.

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 (supra) and Waish Ahmed vs. The State of west Bengal³ 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 1^st petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle and the same was seized in the above crime. She has also filed copy of Certificate of Registration wherein the name of the owner of the vehicle and registration number are specifically mentioned. She is not an accused in the said crime. Her husband/2^nd petitioner is the accused in the aforesaid crime registered for the offences under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

8. The subject vehicle is of the year 2022. The vehicle is now in the custody of 5^th respondent. The subject vehicle is the only source

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

3 C.R.R.No.382 of 2018, dated 18.01.2019

of her livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for release of the subject vehicle.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition