Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boggu Siva Kumar Beldari Siva, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 June, 2024
BVLNC,J CRL.P.1350 of 2024
Page 1 of 6 Dt: 26.06.2024
APHC010101812024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1350/2024
Between:
Boggu Siva Kumar @ Beldari Siva, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. MD SALEEM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
BVLNC,J CRL.P.1350 of 2024
Page 2 of 6 Dt: 26.06.2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRL.P.No.1350 OF 2024
O R D E R:
Heard Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader assisting the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
2. This is an application filed U/s.482 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.') direct to release the unmarked
case property i.e., motor cycle bearing No.AP 0B CJ 7316 produced in
S.C.17/2019 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of Offences
under POCSO Act, Chittoor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was A-1 in S.C.17/2019 on the file of POCSO Court, Chittoor,
for the offence U/secs.366-A, 376(3) IPC and sections 5, 6, 16 and 17 of
POCSO Act, 2012 of Kalakada Police Station.
4. The learned Sessions Judge after full pledged trial, rendered
judgment on 18.07.2023 and found the petitioner and other accused not
guilty for the above offence, but passed an order stating that the above
BVLNC,J CRL.P.1350 of 2024
motor cycle, which was seized from the petitioner/A-1, to be confiscated
to the State, after appeal time is over.
5. He would further submit that the Yamaha Motor Cycle belongs to
the petitioner, as he is registered owner and it was not marked even
during trial and the trial Court ought to have released the vehicle to the
petitioner as per section 452 Cr.P.C. while disposing of the Sessions
Case, and the learned trial judge without any valid reason, confiscated
the property.
6. He would also submit that earlier, the said motor cycle was
released to the petitioner/A-1 for interim custody as per orders dated
24.07.2019 in Crl.P.No.1086/2019 on the file of very same Court, and
since then, the motor cycle is in the custody of the petitioner/A-1.
7. The learned Government Pleader assisting the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor would submit that as per his instructions submitted in
writing and counter filed in the case, the impugned motor cycle was
seized from the possession of A-1 during investigation of the case, and
later, produced before the learned Sessions Judge, and it was also
given for interim custody to the petitioner, on his application stated
above.
BVLNC,J CRL.P.1350 of 2024
8. He would further submit that there is no dispute that petitioner is
the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and the learned trial
Judge after trial, acquitted the accused for the above offence, and the
motor cycle was not marked as case property in the case and therefore,
necessary orders may be passed in this regard.
9. It is an admitted fact that the impugned motor cycle was seized
during investigation of the case from the possession of the petitioner/A-1
and he is registered owner of the vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that
the learned Sessions Judge after trial acquitted the accused and no
appeal was preferred by the State, challenging the said judgment. It is
also an admitted fact that the impugned motor cycle would not even
marked as case property during trial of the case. In those
circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have passed
necessary orders U/s.452 Cr.P.C. i.e., "order for disposal of property at
conclusion of trial". It says that "the property can be delivered to any
person claiming to be entitled possession thereof".
10. In the light of said facts and law, the order of the trial Court
confiscating the impugned motor cycle to the State, is not sustainable in
law and liable to be set aside.
BVLNC,J CRL.P.1350 of 2024
11. In the result, the order of the trial Court in S.C.17/2019
confiscating the impugned motor cycle to the State, is set aside and the
matter be remitted back to the Special Court for Trial of Offences under
POCSO Act, Chittoor, to pass necessary orders as per section 452
Cr.P.C., on filing of necessary application by the petitioner with regard to
the Yamaha motor cycle baring No.AP 0B CJ 7316. Accordingly, the
Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J
26.06.2024
psk
BVLNC,J CRL.P.1350 of 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRL.P.No.1350 OF 2024
26th June, 2024
psk
