. » APHC010399602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 838 OF 2025 Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C against the order dt. Crl.M.P.No.513 of 2025 in Cr. No. 03 of 2025 of 02.07.2025 passed in Markapur Rural Police Station on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur. Between; Earnapati Venkata Ramaniah,, S/o. Rangaiah, Aged 46 years, Kothapalli Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. R/o. K. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AtAmaravati. ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt. 02.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.513 of 2025 in Cr. No. 03 of 2025 of Markapur Rural Police Station on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, by releasing the vehicle i.e.. Tipper Lorry bearing No. AP 39 TJ 9549, pending disposal of the CrI.R.C. u f ! 1 ! : SRI PAUL YUGANDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010399602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i [3521] 0* TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 838/2025 Between; EARNAPATl VENKATA RAMANIAH,, S/0. RANGAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, R/0. K. KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PATILYUGANDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE of 2025 Order: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate of First Class, Markapur in Crl.M.P.No.513/2025 Additional Judicial in Cr.No.03/2025 of Markapur Rural Police Station. The Petitioner herein filed 3. an application under Section 497 of ‘the BNSS seeking for interim custody of Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 39 TJ 9549, that petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, without assigning any reasons. 4. When an application is filed fo/ seeking for the interim custody of the property with a proper proof or receipt that they are the lawful owners of the property there is no difficulty in handing over or returning the property for interim custody of the petitioner till the conclusion of the trial subject to a condition that the property shall be produced before the learned and when required. It is not in dispute that the property seized the Petitioner. trial court as is not owned by 3 «t> The property was seized in an offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1) read with 61(2) of ‘the BNS’. There is no other person claiming to return the property in his favour. In other words, there is no rival claim in respect of the property by anyone. If the property is returned to the interim custody of the Petitioner, no prejudice wbuld be caused to anyone. On the other hand, the property would be in safe custody. If the property remains in the Court’s custody, it risks being damaged due to prolonged exposure to sun and rain. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat\ gave certain guidelines regarding the granting of temporary custody of property to claimants, wherein at paragraph Nos.7 and 17 as under: 5. 6. 7. “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 (2002) 10 see 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.” Therefore, the learned Trial Court is expected to follow the said directions. As there are merits in the revision case, the revision case is disposed of, setting aside the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, directing the learned Magistrate to give the property to the interim custody of the petitioner by following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to 8. 9. costs. 10. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, is hereby directed to release the property to the interim custody of the Petitioner, under proper acknowledgment. Furthermore, the Petitioner shall furnish a surety amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, as a condition precedent to such release. 11. The Petitioner shall produce the property 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. 5 It-v 12. 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. The property shall not be disposed until conclusion of trial. To that effect the Petitioner shall submit an undertaking affidavit before the learned Trial Court. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1/ ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur. 2. The SHO, Markapur Rural Police Station, Prakasam District. 3. One CC to SRI. PATIL YUGANDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies SRL TAC HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 838 OF 2025 CRLRC IS DISPOSED OF