APHC010310022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 679/2025 Between: GELLI BAPANNA GUPTA,, S/O RAMARAO, AGED 68 YEARS R/O D.NO. 4-21-1, SATTIRAJU STREET, RAZOLE VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, FOR THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAZOLE POLICE STATION. 2.GUBBALA BHASKAR, S/O NAGAPANDU, AGED 35 YEARS R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, PRAKASH NAGAR, NARSAPURAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAYAPET, KSK APARTMENT, PLOT NO. 202, NARSAPURAM TOWN. 3.KOTHAPALLI NARESH, S/O VENKANNA, AGED 37 YEARS R/O PILLAKALAVAGATTU, RUSTUMBADA, NARSAPURAM MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Order: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS.,’) [old Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)] challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.740 of 2025 in P.R.C.No.3 of 2025 in Cr.No.43 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole in dismissing the petition filed under Section 497 and 503 of ‘the BNSS.,’ to return the property i.e., gold and silver articles to the interim custody to the petitioner/owner/de-facto complainant. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the property involved in the case is to be tried by the Court of Session. Therefore, the application is not maintainable before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class. In this regard, Sri Ponnada Sreevyas, learned Counsel, submits that 497 of ‘the BNSS.,’ empowers the Magistrate or the Court to take cognizance or commit the case for trial, to release the property for interim custody to the Petitioner. 4. As seen from the record, the Petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property. He only lodged a report about the theft of gold and silver ornaments. The observation of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class is that the application has to be filed before the Court of Session because it is 3 the Court which is going to try the case, as the offences shown are punishable with imprisonment up to 14 years. 5. A perusal of Section 497 of ‘the BNSS.,’ it is clear that an order for custody and disposal of the property pending trial in certain cases has to be passed either by the criminal Court or the Magistrate empower to take cognizance or commit the case for trial during any investigation, inquiry or trial. 6. Of course, the property is not liable for speedy and natural decay. However, it is expedient that the property has to be given to the petitioner being the lawful claimant of the property pending disposal of the trial. 7. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, held at paragraph Nos.7 and 17 as under: “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 17. In our view, 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 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283 4 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.” 8. As seen from the impugned order, there is no rival claim in respect of the property sought to be received for interim custody. The accused are also shown as respondents in the petition. Notice was also served on them. The property in question was seized vide mediators report, by the Police. The Petitioner came to know about the seizure of the property by the police and he filed an application before the learned Magistrate claiming that he is the owner of the property and that property has to be given to him to interim custody. 9. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to costs. 10. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole is directed to release the property to the interim custody of the Petitioner under proper acknowledgment. 11. The Petitioner shall produce the property, as and when required by the Court concerned, either before the learned Magistrate or before the Court of Session which is going to try the case for the purpose of marking the property as material object. 12. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole is directed to follow the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case supra. 5 13. It is made clear that the property is given only for interim custody. The learned Trial Court/Session Judge would decide about the ownership of the property also, if there is any rival claim. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 15.07.2025 VTS