Sandra Sumalatha vs The District Forest Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 5477 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sandra Sumalatha vs The District Forest Officer on 15 September, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.627 of 2025

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order,

dated 17.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2025 in

P.O.R.No.081 of 2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at

Mancherial (for short 'the Sessions Court') and consequently, to

direct immediate release of the Tractor Eicher bearing No.TS-19-

TA-3408 (hereinafter referred to as the 'crime vehicle') to the

petitioner subject to reasonable conditions, this Criminal Revision

Case is filed. By the impugned order, the Appeal filed by the

petitioner under Section 44(2-E) of the Telangana Forest Act,

1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967'), was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. CH.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the crime

vehicle, is accused of attempting to encroach 3.52 Ha of the forest

land, leading to the registration of a case in P.O.R.No.081 of 2018

and detention of the crime vehicle. Despite the petitioner's

objections, respondent No.3 confiscated the crime vehicle on

03.04.2024, and respondent No.2 has passed an order, dated

29.04.2024, confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached Sessions Court by filing an

Appeal, however, the same was returned as not maintainable as the

crime vehicle was involved in the offences under the Act, 1967. The

petitioner then filed W.P.No.4636 of 2025 before this Court, which

was disposed of on 18.02.2025, directing the petitioner to file an

appropriate application before the competent District Court under

Section 44(2-E) of the Act, 1967. Accordingly, the petitioner filed

Crl.A.No.29 of 2025 before the Sessions Court, which was

dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is the owner of the crime vehicle and the same is necessary to meet

her day-to-day needs. The Sessions Court erred in not

independently assessing the legality and propriety of the

confiscation order, as mandated under Section 44(2-E) of the Act

and mechanically affirmed the orders of the sub-ordinate authority

without recording clear findings on each ground raised in the

Appeal. The confiscation itself is improper. The Sessions Court has

not assigned any valid reasons of what prejudice would be caused

to the prosecution, if interim custody of the crime vehicle is handed

over to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. State

of Assam 1 and prayed to allow the revision.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

opposed for the same.

6. In Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at

para Nos.26, 27, 35 to 40 held as under-

26. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.

35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala 2, has released the vehicle.

36. In the present case, this Court finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. In the said charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

2025 SCC (3) 341

(2024) 13 SCC 382: 2022 SCC Online SC 1784

Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari.

37. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala (cited supra) has held as under (SCC paras 6-9) "6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.

7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat opining that it is no use to keep such seized vehicle at police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs."

If the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose.

38. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

39. On the contrary, if the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods). Conclusion

40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed with direction to the trial Court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still

photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.

7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and considering the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this

Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order, dated 17.07.2025

passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2025 in P.O.R.No.081 of 2018

by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Mancherial is hereby set

aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to release the crime vehicle i.e.,

Tractor Eicher bearing No.TS-19-TA-3408 in favour of the petitioner,

on proper verification of her identity and ownership, subject to the

petitioner complying with the following conditions within fifteen (15)

days from the date of this order:

(i) The petitioner/owner of the crime vehicle shall furnish a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the said Officer.

(ii) The petitioner shall submit all information/ documents necessary for identification of the vehicle.

(iii) The petitioner shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the concerned Officer that she shall produce/ surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 15.09.2025 rev