Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 148 (AP)

A. Yadaiah Goud v. State Of A. P.

2001-02-12

R.RAMANUJAM

body2001
R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions relate to interim custody of the lorry bearing No. A. P. 09 U 5569 pending disposal of Calendar Case no. 87 of 2001 pending on the file of the VI metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner (Smt. P. Chandrakala) in crl. R. C. No. 1353 of 2000 is the de facto complainant in the said Calendar Case. On the complaint given by her, the said lorry was seized and it is now in the Police custody. Smt. P. Chandrakala filed crl. M. P. No. 4797 of 2000 before the VI metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. Similar petition in Crl. M. P. No. 4990 of 2000 was also filed by Sri A. Yadaiah Goud, petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1307 of 2000 before the said Court. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the vehicle was seized from Sri A. Yadaiah Goud,who is now in possession of the documents relating to the ownership of the said vehicle. The learned metropolitan Magistrate dismissed both the crl. M. Ps. , by two separate orders stating that since there are rival claims regarding the ownership of the said vehicle, it cannot be released pending trial. Aggrieved by the said orders, these two Revisions are filed. ( 4 ) SRI A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 13-7 of 2000 placed before me a decision of this Court in K. Sidda Reddy vs. B. R. Naidu wherein, in similar circumstances, this court held thus:"normally, I would not have interfered with the order of the Magistrate. But it is a lorry and it has to be used. It cannot be kept idle. It is not disputed that the registration Certificate and the way permits of the lorry stand in the name of the petitioner. They do not stand in the name of the 1st respondent. If so, the vehicle could be used only by the petitioner. If the 1st respondent is permitted to use the vehicle and if he were to violate any of the conditions of the permit, then it is the petitioner that will be held liable but not the 1st respondent. Similarly, if there is an. If so, the vehicle could be used only by the petitioner. If the 1st respondent is permitted to use the vehicle and if he were to violate any of the conditions of the permit, then it is the petitioner that will be held liable but not the 1st respondent. Similarly, if there is an. accident, and compensation has to be paid under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the petitioner that will be held liable but not the 1st respondent. In the light of these peculiar circumstances, it will b e more appropriate to release the lorry in favour of the petitioner. The Court cannot compel the petitioner to lease out the lorry to the 1st respondent. " ( 5 ) IN this case also undisputedly the registration certificate stand in the name of sri A. Yadaiah Goud, petitioner in crlr. C. No. 1307 of 2000. That being so, smt. P. Chandrakala, petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1353 of 2000, cannot be given interim custody of the said vehicle. Keeping the said vehicle idle till the disposal of the said calendar Case will not serve any purpose. On the other hand, the vehicle will get rusted and spoiled. ( 6 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the order of the trial Court in Crl. M. P. No. 4990 of 2000 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside and crl. R. C. No. 1307 of 2000 is allowed with the following directions: (1) The revision petitioner-Sri A. Yadaiah goud shall be given interim custody of the lorry bearing No. AP 09 U 5598 on his furnishing a Bank guarantee to the full value of the said vehicle as assessed by the concerned Motor vehicle Inspector; (2) He shall file an under taking before the trial Court that he should not lease out, sub-let or alienate the said vehicle to anybody; (3) He shall not alter the chassis and colour of the said vehicle; and (4) He shall produce the said vehicle as and when required by the Court. ( 7 ) I am sure that the assessment of the value of the said vehicle will be done by the concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid order passed in crl. ( 7 ) I am sure that the assessment of the value of the said vehicle will be done by the concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid order passed in crl. R. C. No. 1307 of 2000, I see no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court in crlm. P. No. 4797 of 2000. Hence, crl. R. C. No. 1353 of 2000 is dismissed.