The High Court · 2025

_|ep Oy its Public Prosecutor High Court of Through SHO Prohibition and Excise Banswada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of c(minal petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the order dated 2Bt4l2O25 in Crt.Mp No. 75 of 2025 in COR No. 20 of 2025 of SHO prohibition and Excise, Banswada, on the file of the I Additional District and sessions Judge at Kamareddy by directing the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy to release the vehicle bearing No. TG-30-2589 to the petitioner. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr G VENKATA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. E.GANESH, the Assistant public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the sole Respondent . The Court made the following: ORDER ,- THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETI TION No.10368 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in M P.No.75 ol 2025 in C O R.No.20 of 2025 of S.H.O, Prohibition and Excise' Banswada by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (for short "trial Court")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Golamaru Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Erigi G;anesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the vehicle is seized by the Police and that it is the petitioner'srown vehicle, which is used for facilitating her business and that the allegations against her son for offence under Section 8(c) real with Section 2O(b) (ii)c of NDPS Act, 1985 were made and duringt the course of investigation, this vehicle was seized and that the said vehicle is not used in the commission of the said offence. He further prayed that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, since she requires it for her business purposes, has prayed to release the same. 2 I]TD.J CRt-P.No l0l6E 2021

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case.

5. Perused the record

6. The orders are dated 28.04.2025. The record discloses that the panchanama was conducted on 11.02.2025 under which the vehicle was seized, which reveals that it was seized six months ago. The offences alleged against the accused who is the son of the petitioner herein are for the offence under Section 6(c) read with Section 20(b) (ii)c of NDPS Act, 1985. The vehicle if left unused. it would be prone to weather conditions and would get depreciated in value. Further, it may not be useful later on, if further delay is caused in releasing the vehicle. ln Surenderbhai Ambalat Desai Vs. Stafe of Gujaratl; the Apex Court has held that the vehicle i)wlved in the case, has to be returned to the owner of the said vehicle 7: Section 451 Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder:-

451.(j) Powers under Section 451 should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously it would serve various purposes, namely (1) owner of the afticle would not suffer because of ,fs remaining unused or by /ts misappropriation; 2) Court or the police woutd not be required to keep the afticle in safe custody; 3) lf the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead ' zoo: 1o; ern 1sc; e:a 3 ETI).J CRt.l' No 10168 202i of its production before the Courl duing the t,ial. lf necessary, evidence could also be recorded desL;ribing the nature of the properly in detail; and 4) This jurisdiction of the Courl to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may nor be turlher chance of tampering with the afticles. iii) lt has been held that he concemed Magrstrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the ;totice station. in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month; Sundehhai Ambalal Desal Vs. State of Gr,:jarat, AtR 2003 SC 638 I I I B The petitioner is the original owner as per the FI C flled by the petitioner which is part of record and the petitioner herein is the mother of the accused. Therefore, in the facts and cir3umstances of the case, and in view of the principles laid down in the above cited decision, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the said vehicle in question on condition of petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 ,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, and also on his furnishing an undertaking to the effect that she shall not alienate the vehicle, shall not change the physical features of the same till the disposal of the abcve crime and shall produce the vehicle as and when required. The photographs of the said vehicle is to be taken properly, and the petiticner shall not alienate the vehicle till the disposal of confiscation proceedings. .t ETI).] CRl.l)No 10168 2025

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, I\Iiscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. B. REKHA RANI SS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER The I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy J,X?,j]rt,". House Officer, prohibition and Excise Banswada. Kamareddy Prosecutor, Hish court for the state of reransana, at Iffi":"t6."l: tt|tPublic One CC to SRt c. VENKATA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies \ To, 2 3 4 tffi,, "/ RC/PSL t HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 ! -,'\- -' -a,'\ , \'- [3 jitP 206 \. ORDER CRLP.No.10368 ot 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is Disposed of. q q lb