M/s Arul Udhayam Primary Crusher,Rep by its authorised signatoryAntony Robinson Balraj v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/3844/2026 · 2026-05-03
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1466 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1466 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010244912026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3844/2026 Between:
1. M/S
ARUL UDHAYAM PRIMARY CRUSHER,REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORYANTONY ROBINSON BALRAJ, , C/O., BALRAJAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O., NO.7,THIRUVALLUVAR MAIN ROAD, ANAKAPUTHUR,ALANDUR DISTRICT, KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU-600070. 2. ANTONY ROBINSON BALRAJ, , C/O., BALRAJ,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O., NO.7,THIRUVALLUVAR MAIN ROAD, ANAKAPUTHUR,ALANDUR DISTRICT, KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU-600070. 3. ANTONY IRUDAYARAJAN ALIAS RAJAN, S/O., STEPHAN,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O., 4, CHURCH STREET,KAMARAJAPURAM, ANAKAPUTHUR, KANCHEEPURAM,TAMIL NADU-600070. 4. BASKARAN RAJANGAM, S/O., RAJANGAM,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O., 44/72, AYYANAR KOVIL STREET,TIRUVARUR TALUKA, TIRUVARUR, TAMIL NADU-610001. 5. VIJAYA PRADHABAN NAVAMANI ALIAS VIJAY, S/O., NAVAMANI,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O., NO.2, 6 STREET. CHAMBERS COLONY,CLC LINE, CHROMEPET, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-600044. 6. L MAGESH, S/O., LAKSHMIPATHI,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O., NO. 62/5 VILLAGE MAIN ROAD,NELVOY, NELVOY, KANCHIPURAM, MADURANTHAKAM,TAMIL NADU, 603107
7. AVINASH MURUGAN ALIAS KARTHIK, , S/O., MURUGAN,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O., POST OFFICE STREET,VTC NELVOY, PO NELVOY, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU, 603107. 8. M PARTHIBAN, S/O.MEGANATHAN,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O.NO.26, PERIYAR NAGAR,7 STREET, KUMARAPURAM,CHROMEPET, CHENNAI - 600044. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati,Through the Station House Officer,Varadaiahpalem Police Station,Tirupati District -
517541. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to direct the Station House Officer, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Tirupati District, to produce and handover the property seized in connection with Crime No. 32 of 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Tirupati District, namely: (i) Scorpio Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 11 DY 2345, belonging to the 1st Petitioner (ii) Drone equipment, belonging to the 6th Petitioner and (iii) Seven (7) mobile phones, belonging to Petitioners 2 to 8, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Satyavedu and upon such production of the seized property, to direct the learned Magistrate to release the same in favour of respective Petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to direct the Station House Officer, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Tirupati District, to produce and handover the property seized in connection with Crime No. 32 of 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Tirupati District, namely: (i) Scorpio Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 11 DY 2345, belonging to the 1st Petitioner (ii) Drone equipment, belonging to the 6th Petitioner and (iii) Seven (7) mobile phones, belonging to Petitioners 2 to 8, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Satyavedu and upon such production of the seized property, direct the learned Magistrate to release the same in favour of the respective petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the seized property was not reported to or produced before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for brevity ‘the B.N.S.S’) within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.6 filed an application under Section 497 of ‘the B.N.S.S.’ before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle and other properties. However, the said application was returned on the ground that Form-60 had not been filed by the Station House Officerconcerned. 4. It is further submitted that the petition was returned by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate on several occasions on the same ground. Section 503 of ‘the B.N.S.S.’ empowers the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders even where the seized property has not been produced before the Court during inquiry or trial. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that on 10.04.2026, Form-60 was submitted before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, but the same was returned for compliance with certain technical objections. 6.
Be that as it may, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have either treated the petition filed under Section 497 of ‘the B.N.S.S.’ as one under Section 503 of ‘the B.N.S.S.’, or the petitioner would have modified the petition as one filed under Section 503 of the BNSS instead of Section 497, especially when Form-60 had not been accepted by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to treat the application filed under Section 497 of the BNSS as one filed under Section 503 of ‘the B.N.S.S.’, upon Form- 60 being duly accepted pursuant to its resubmission by the Station House Officerconcerned, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat1, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.05.2026
Note: Issue C.C by 06.05.2026 B/o. JLSR
1 (2002) 10 SCC 283
146
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3844 of 2026
Date: 04.05.2026
Note: Issue C.C by 06.05.2026 B/o. JLSR