Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 647 (AP)

Vijay Mohan Shivhare v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2009-09-14

G.BHAVANI PRASAD

body2009
Judgment : 1. HEARD Sri T. K. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Ramesh, learned Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. 2. THE crime was registered under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and the vehicle, Richer Truck was produced by the police before the trial Court. The trial Court found in its order in Crl. MP no. 13 83 of 2009 in Cr. No. 170 of 2009 that the vehicle was seized from the accused and if it is kept in the custody of the Court for any longer period, it will become useless and the Court also found it necessary to return the vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody on execution of a bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety for a like sum and on further condition that the petitioner shall not sell or change the physical features of the vehicle or mortgage the same during the period of interim custody. The petitioner was further directed to produce the truck before the Court as and when required. 3. THE petitioner, who is a resident of gwalior, is the Special Power of Attorney holder of the registered owner and it would be difficult for the petitioner or the registered owner to produce a surety for Rs. 5,00,000/-before the trial Court, which led them to file the present petition. 4. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner is relying on a decision reported in Baligera bheemudu @ Bheemaian v. State of A. P. , 1993 Cri. LJ 3462, wherein the learned judge held that when there is no power of confiscation even after any conviction of accused and even after sentencing him to imprisonment or fine, there is no jurisdiction for the criminal Court to impose any conditions to furnish security for the release of case property pending trial. The learned judge held that the only safeguard, which has to be made, is to ensure the production of the vehicle for identification during trial, for which purpose retaining the original RC book of the vehicle and obtaining a written undertaking will leave sufficient safeguards. The learned judge held that the only safeguard, which has to be made, is to ensure the production of the vehicle for identification during trial, for which purpose retaining the original RC book of the vehicle and obtaining a written undertaking will leave sufficient safeguards. The learned Judge also observed that the magistrate can address the concerned transport authority that the said vehicle is a case property and that there is a written undertaking that the said vehicle shall not be sold, transferred or encumbered in any manner and that the original R. C. book is in the custody of the Court ensuring the production of the vehicle as and when called for. The principles laid down may be applicable with more force in respect of the present petitioner, who is representing the owner. What is required in such cases of return of vehicles is only taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the vehicle, if required by the Court at any point of time as pointed out by the Apex Court in sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of gujarat, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 8 (SC) = (2002) 10 SCC 283. 5. THEREFORE, if the registered owner of the vehicle and the special Power of attorney holder are to be directed to execute a personal bond for Rs. 5,00,000/-together and if the trial Court is also directed to intimate the concerned authority about the truck being the case property of a criminal case and if the original RC book is directed to be deposited in the Court, the same will secure the ends of justice. 6. THEREFORE, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, gajwel, Medak District, in Crl. MP No. 1383 of 2009 in Crime No. 173 of 2009 is modified directing the registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner, who is his special power of Attorney Holder to execute a personal bond for Rs. 6. THEREFORE, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, gajwel, Medak District, in Crl. MP No. 1383 of 2009 in Crime No. 173 of 2009 is modified directing the registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner, who is his special power of Attorney Holder to execute a personal bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- and also to deposit the original R. C. Book into Court and also undertake by appropriate affidavits not to alienate or transfer or encumber the vehicle or change its physical features in any manner and further undertake to maintain the vehicle in the same physical state in which it is entrusted and produce the same before the Court as and when required, on which, the interim custody of the truck in question shall be entrusted to the registered owner and the petitioner, who is his special Power of Attorney Holder on proper identification under proper acknowledgment. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Gajwel shall address the concerned transport authorities intimating the conditions, subject to which interim custody of the vehicle was entrusted to the registered owner and his special Power of Attorney Holder and also requesting such authority not to issue any duplicate RC Book to the registered owner or his special Power of Attorney holder or anybody else claiming through them until further orders of the Court. 7. THE criminal petition is ordered accordingly.