Kasturi Yellamma vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2311 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.533 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, Mr. N. Muralidhar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, and Mr. M. Sai Yadav, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent.

2. This revision case is filed assailing the order dated 11.07.2023 in

Crl.M.P.No.201 of 2023 in Crime File No.27/GOR/2022-23 of FRO,

Asifabad on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the revision petitioner as

owner of the crime vehicle filed an application under Section 457 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC') seeking

direction to the Forest Range Officer, Asifabad to release the vehicle

bearing registration No.TS-02-UD-3482 to the revision petitioner for

interim custody.

4. The learned Court returned the application with the following

objections:

"1 .Copy of Form-A not filed.

2. Panchanama dated 31.01.2022 not filed.

3. Certificate of safe custody Form-C original R.C. of the vehicle not filed.

4. I.D. proof of Aadhar Card not filed.

5. Xerox copy of R.C. filed but not visible.

6. Crl.M.P.No.195/2023 in File No.27/GOR/2022-23 of FRO, Asifabad already not pressed dt.16.06.2023.

7. Notice to APP not given."

5. Aggrieved by the return of the petition, the present revision

case has been filed.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. It is clear by the order that as there are above noted

deficiencies, the Court had returned the petition filed by the revision

petitioner for filing in proper shape. The revision petitioner ought to

have complied the objections by placing relevant materials. Instead,

availing revisional jurisdiction against the order of return is ex facie

inapposite. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances no

impropriety or illegality is found in the impugned order. For that

reason, this revision case lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

However, it is open to the revision petitioner to present fresh

application. If such an application is filed by the revision petitioner

with required materials, the Court concerned shall consider the same

on merits in accordance with law.

8. With this direction, this revision case is disposed of.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, shall stand closed.

_________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J

Date:13.09.2023 ccm