THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.18564 OF 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the action of the 4th respondent in not handing over the petitioners car bearing No.AP13 AD 3880, Verna Lap Top Dell, IPhone 6 as illegal arbitrary contrary to the criminal procedure code and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to hand over the above said articles to the petitioner to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case ….”

2. Heard Mr.A.Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.4 and seeking return of his seized properties, namely, a car bearing registration No. AP13 AD 3880 (Hyundai Verna), a Dell laptop, and an iPhone-6, the present writ petition has been filed, praying for issuance of necessary directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid properties were seized in the course of investigation in Crime No. 77 of 2017 registered against the petitioner, and were duly produced before the Court of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, under Form 60 dated 16.06.2017. In such circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner ought to have approached the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking interim release of the property, as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the submissions made, and in view of the fact that the seized property has already been produced before the competent Magistrate, the legal position admits of no ambiguity. Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to make appropriate orders for custody, interim release, or disposal of property produced before the Court during investigation or trial, while Section 457 Cr.P.C. provides recourse to a person claiming entitlement to such property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638), emphasized that seized property should not be allowed to remain in police custody or court premises indefinitely and that expeditious orders should be passed by Magistrates to ensure proper custody or return of property to the rightful owner, subject to conditions.

7. In the present case, as the property in question has already been placed before the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy by moving the said Court for interim custody of the property in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, by filing an appropriate application under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 08.09.2025

CHS