Telangana High Court
Dhidigam Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.29051 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ramulu Pasupula, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.
2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the car i.e.
Tata Indica Vista LS, bearing registration No.TG-36-A-3916 (for short,
'the subject vehicle'). In proof of the same, he has filed copy of
Registration Certificate (RC). On 15.09.2025, while the petitioner was
transporting 180 kgs, of Jaggery and 20 kgs, of Alum etc., in the subject
vehicle, 3rd respondent seized the subject vehicle and registered a case in
COR No.151 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of
Telangana Excise Act, 1968.
3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that he has
not transported the contraband illegally, but for the purpose of his kirana
shop. The said vehicle is the only source of his livelihood. The vehicle is
now in the custody of 3rd respondent. If the said vehicle is kept idle and
exposed to Sun, rain and dust, it will get spoiled. Therefore, he seeks to
release the subject vehicle.
4. Whereas, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Prohibition and Excise,
on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is transporting the
aforesaid Jaggery and Alum, illegally in the subject vehicle, if the
subject vehicle is released, the petitioner will again commit the similar
offence and there is also possibility of altering the nature of the vehicle.
5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is relevant to state that in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat1, the 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. Various High Courts in the judgments stated
above, after referring to various provisions of Cr.P.C., and also the
principle laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) ordered to
be released the vehicles seized in the crimes for the offences under the
Act.
6. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 in Crl.P. No.2662 of
2020, relying upon the decisions in Jagtar Sing vs. State of Rajasthan2
(2002) 10 SCC 283
S.B.Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.3542 of 2017, dated 09.11.2017
(supra) and Waish Ahmed vs. The State of west Bengal 3 of different
High Courts and also in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) granted the
relief of interim custody to the owner of the vehicle on certain
conditions.
7. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
and the respective High Courts in the judgments referred to above,
coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the
owner of the subject vehicle and the same was seized in the above
crime. He has also filed copy of Certificate of Registration wherein the
name of the owner of the vehicle and registration number are
specifically mentioned. The aforesaid crime is registered for the
offences under Section 34(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.
8. The subject vehicle is of the year 2012. The vehicle is now in
the custody of 3rd respondent. The subject vehicle is the only source of
his livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for release of the
subject vehicle.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is
disposed of. 2nd respondent is directed to give interim custody of the
subject vehicle i.e. Tata Indica Vista LS, bearing registration No.TG-36-
C.R.R.No.382 of 2018, dated 18.01.2019
A-3916 to the petitioner on proper verification of ownership with
original certificate of registration on the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner/owner of the subject vehicle shall furnish
Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of 2nd respondent.
ii) Petitioner shall deposit the original certificate of
registration in respect of the subject vehicle with 2nd
respondent. However, 2nd respondent shall issue its
certified copy to the petitioner to enable him to ply the
vehicle on road without there-being any hindrance; and
iii) Petitioner shall give an undertaking to the effect that he
shall produce the subject vehicle as and when required
either before the Investigating Officer or before the Court
and that he shall not alienate, alter or change the physical
features of the subject vehicle.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
Date: 23-09-2025
Note: Issue C.C. by 25.09.2025.
b/o. vvr
