APHC010060362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 154/2025 Between: PETLA RAJA, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 2-4, BALA VINAYAKA NAGAR, SURAPURAJUPETA, KOTANANDURU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Kotananduru P.S, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.154 of 2025 17.07.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:154 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 21.10.2024 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.2154/2024 in Cr.No.113/2024 of Kotananduru Police Station. 3. The Petitioner herein filed an application under Section 451 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ seeking for interim custody of 1) Loud Speakers -2, 2) 40.5 kv sound KIRLOSKEr Generator -1, that petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, without assigning any reasons except it would lead to change of circumstances in the case. 4. When an application is filed for 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 trial court as and when required. It is not in dispute that the property seized is not owned by 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.154 of 2025 17.07.2025 the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed a memo appending with a receipt showing that he purchased the property under tax invoice. 5. The property was seized in an election offence. 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 would be caused to anyone. 6. On the other hand, the property would be in safe custody. If the property is kept in the Court’s custody, it would expose to damage, because all the items are electronic gadgets. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, gave certain guidelines regarding the granting of temporary custody of property to claimants, wherein 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 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.154 of 2025 17.07.2025 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 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. Therefore, the learned Trial Court is expected to follow the said directions. As there are merits in the revision case, the revision case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, 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. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to costs. 10. The learned learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram is directed to release the property to the interim custody of the Petitioner under proper acknowledgment. 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 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.154 of 2025 17.07.2025 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. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 17.07.2025 VTS