Mohd. Fazluddin vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3937 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                   CRL.R.C.No.1416 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the order

dated 17.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.1278 of 2019 in Cr.No.46 of 2019

(P.S.Medchal), on the file of the learned XXII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, wherein the said petition filed

for interim custody of Tata Hitachi Excavator Ex-210 LC Machine

(subject Excavator), was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The prosecution case is that one Mr.R.Randhir Reddy lodged

a complaint before the SHO, P.S.Medchal Station alleging that on

09.01.2019 in the morning he came to know that some persons

damaged the fencing poles and fencing with proclainer in their land

in an extent of Ac.4-00 in Sy.No.52/P, situated at Muraharipally

Village, Shamirpet Mandal. Immediately, he along with his

workers went there and observed that the said persons have

damaged the fencing poles and fencing and when he questioned

them, they stated that they are the agreement holders of

Radhaben, w/o Dhirubhai Patel and when they resisted, the said

accused persons went away by saying that they will come with

more force and try to occupy the land forcefully. It is further

alleged in the complaint that the above said persons criminally

trespassed in their land by damaging the fencing poles and fencing

with proclainer.

4. Based on the above complaint, the police registered a case in

Cr.No.46 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,

427 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation,

the police seized TATA Hitachi Excavator Ex-210LC machine

bearing Sl.No.210V-0450, vide invoice No.12001331 with Isuzu

Engine.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is the owner

of the subject Excavator, filed Crl.M.P.No.1278 of 2019 in

Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2019, on the file of the learned

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, stating that

he is the registered owner of the subject Excavator, having

purchased the same from Mr.B.K.Deshmukh, but as per the

registration certificate, the subject Excavator is in the name of one

Mr.Muthyam Reddy. The petitioner has filed affidavit of his

vendor who stated that he purchased the subject Excavator from

one Mr.Sharanappa under an unregistered sale deed date

15.10.2011. The said Sharanappa purchased the same under private

sale deed dated 31.01.2005 from its original owner Mr.Muthyam

Reddy, who purchased the same vide Invoice No.12001331 dated

31.01.2005. The learned Magistrate, while holding that the

petitioner has not filed any authenticated document pertaining to

the subject Excavator to prove that he is owner of the subject

Excavator, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the

present criminal revision case is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner is the original owner of the subject Excavator, having

purchased the same from Mr.B.K.Deshmukh under an unregistered

sale document for Rs.9,51,000/-. He contends that though the

petitioner has filed necessary documents to prove his ownership,

the learned Magistrate ignored the same and that he is entitled for

interim custody of the subject Excavator. He further contends that

the subject Excavator is a mechanical device and if it is kept idle

till completion of trial, it will get damaged causing loss to the

petitioner. The investigation is completed and the subject

Excavator may be released towards interim custody of the

petitioner.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the matter

may be decided on merits.

8. The subject Excavator was seized by the police in

connection with Cr.No.46 of 2019 registered against A-1 to A-4 for

the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC on the

ground that they damaged the fencing poles and fencing with the

help of the subject Excavator.

9. Mr.B.K.Deshmukh from whom the petitioner has purchased

the vehicle also filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate in

the petition filed by the petitioner for release of the subject

Excavator. He stated that his vendor Mr.Sharanappa has cleared

the entire hypothecation and finance and the authorities have also

issued no objection certificate and letter of termination agreement

dated 17.06.2011 and there are no dues at the time when he

purchased

the subject Excavator. The learned Magistrate failed to consider

the documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition for

release of the vehicle and dismissed the petition by order dated

17.09.2019. The same suffers from infirmity warranting

interference by this court.

10. Having regard to the fact that the subject Excavator is a

mechanical device and if it is kept idle till completion of trial,

it will be damaged and get rusted when ex posed to air and in order

to keep it in fit condition, it should be put to use. Further, having

regard to the fact that even if the offences are proved against the

accused after trial, the property is not liable for confiscation for the

reason the offence is alleged to have occurred not with regard to

the subject Excavator and it is only a criminal trespass and causing

mischief. Moreover, the petitioner, who is owner of the subject

property, is not involved in the alleged crime.

11. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the subject

Excavator can be given for interim custody to the petitioner,

imposing some conditions.

12. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed.

The order dated 17.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.1278 of 2019 in

Cr.No.46 of 2019 (P.S. Medchal) passed by the learned

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal is set aside.

TATA Hitachi Excavator Ex-210LC machine bearing Sl.No.210V-

0450, vide invoice No.12001331 with Isuzu Engine, is directed to

be released for interim custody of the petitioner on his producing

necessary documents of ownership and subject to his executing a

bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with one surety

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

The petitioner shall produce the TATA Hitachi Excavator as and

when directed by the court and shall not change its shape and

condition and shall not alienate the same till disposal of the case.

13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 28.07.2022 Lrkm