Andhra Pradesh High Court: Seized Vehicle Must be Produced before Magistrate within Three Days 

0
Andhra Pradesh High Court, Housing For Poor Scheme,

Kuruva Giddaiah alias ……petitioner 

           vs 

  1. The State of Andhra Pradesh
  2. The Joint Collector 
  3. The Station House Officer ……. respondents 

Excerpt

A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi gave orders on the writ petition number 1691 of 2021 in the case of Kuruva Giddaiah alias v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner for declaring the actions of respondent no. 3(The station house officer) in seizing bolero Pik vehicles as illegal and arbitrary. 

FACTS

In this case, the petitioner claims to be the owner of a Bolero Pik vehicle bearing no. AP 39V 7031. Respondent no. 3 (The station house officer), seized the petitioner’s vehicle alleging illegal transportation of 50 bags of PDS rice and registered a crime no. 963 of 2020 on the file of Kurnool police station. The petitioner also made a representation dated 12.01.2021 before the respondents but no action has been taken from their side. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the court seeking to declare the actions of respondents in seizing his vehicle as being illegal and arbitrary. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that several requests have been made before the respondents but no action has been taken from their side. Further, he submits that if the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain then there is a possibility of it becoming useless. If he is given the interim custody of the vehicle then he will not alienate or alter its nature or create any encumbrance over the same and will produce the vehicle before the respondents and authorities whenever required.

The learned Government Pleader submitted before the court that proceedings regarding the matter are covered under Section 6-A of the Act and have not yet been initiated. It is further submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner is still under the custody of respondent no. 3.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

According to the submissions made by the learned Government pleader, the Petitioner’s vehicle is still under the custody of respondent no. 3 (The station house officer). Hence, respondent no. 3 is directed to produce the vehicle before the magistrate within the period of three days from the receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner can file an application before the concerned magistrate for the release of the vehicle under Section 457 CrPC. The Magistrate has to pass appropriate orders regarding the application of release filed and will pass orders in accordance with the law. The court disposed the writ petition and there shall be no orders as to costs. The miscellaneous application if any shall also stand closed with this writ petition.  

Click here to view the judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 Tweet
 Share
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
 Tweet
 Share
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
 Tweet
 Share
 LinkedIn
 Reddit
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail