Panjala Bhaskar Goud vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 349 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 349 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2021

Telangana High Court

Panjala Bhaskar Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2021

Bench: K.Lakshman

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.540 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 21.08.2020 passed in

Crl.P.M.No.300 of 2020 in Crime No.165 of 2020 by the Principal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, and consequential

direction for return of the seized vehicle/private travel bus (Ashok

Leyland) bearing Registration No.TS 12UC 8223 to the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Kadiyala Ravindranath, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the

record.

3. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the owner of the

ehicle/private travel bus (Ashok Leyland) bearing Registration No.TS

12UC 8223. The said vehicle is involved in the aforesaid crime

registered for the offences under Sections - 304-A and 337 of IPC.

4. The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the subject

vehicle filed an application under Section - 457 Cr.P.C. in

Crl.M.P.No.300 of 2020 in Crime No.165 of 2020 for interim custody

of the subject vehicle and the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Ramannapet, has dismissed the said application on the

ground that the subject vehicle was involved in the aforesaid crime

and, therefore, it is not possible to release the said vehicle.

5. A perusal of the order dated 21.08.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.300

of 2020 in Crime No.165 of 2020 would show that the learned

Magistrate did not refer to the facts of the case as well as the principle

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex in Union of India v. Mohanlal1 and

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat2 and also the

guidelines for release of seized vehicles.

6. Even the learned Magistrate did not assign any reason while

rejecting the relief to release the vehicle, which is also against the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh

Kumar3, wherein the Apex Court observed that where an order

refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the

decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which

may require the intervention of Higher Court. Thus, the impugned

order is therefore contrary to the principle laid down therein by the

Apex Court.

7. It is also relevant to mention herein that this Court and the

Apex Court time and again held that Courts shall return the property

involved in crimes to the owners of the vehicle on verification of

ownership, documents and on imposition of certain conditions.

8. In Mohanlal1, the Apex Court gave certain guidelines in

paragraph No.20, which are as follows:

"20. To sum up we direct as under:

. (2016) 3 SCC 379

. (2002) 10 SCC 283

. (2020) 2 SCC 118

(1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered Under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application Under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required Under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'seizure and sampling'. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.

(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No.1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. (3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts.

(4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhans and other places used for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'disposal of drugs'."

9. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that 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. By

referring to the same, the Apex Court ordered to release the vehicles

seized in the crimes for the offences under various enactments. Even

this Court also in several criminal petitions / writ petitions directed the

learned Magistrate to return the seized vehicles to the owners on

verification of ownership documents and on imposition of certain