IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3011 of 2009 Between: Mohd.Yousuf S/o.Sri Abdul Khadar Resident of Arutla village Manchala Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Mahaboobnagar Division, Mahaboobnagar District 2 The Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Mahaboobnagar division, Mahaboobnagar District 3 The Sub Inspector of police, PS Choutappal Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to Cr.No.B3/440/04-I dated 27.12.2008 and quash the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, and against the Law and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to release the vehicle Tempo Trax Jeep bearing No.AP 36B 2111 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP36 B2111 Tempo Trax Jeep, which was seized by the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer on 21.7.2004 and a Cr.No.109 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner and two other accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(E) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”). The case which was numbered as C.C.No.256 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District, and after trail, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the alleged offence, and accordingly, acquitted them of the charge, by his judgment dated 2.1.2007. Then, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise for release of his vehicle, but his grievance is that though he was acquitted of the offence charged, the 2nd respondent, without releasing his vehicle, passed an order dated 27.12.2008, calling upon him to show cause as to why the vehicle in question should not be confiscated. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, has submitted that the confiscation proceedings are still going on, and even otherwise, the respondents have no objection to the release of the petitioner’s vehicle, but on condition that the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee as may be assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings, however, having regard to the fact that the vehicle, which was seized on 21.7.2004, is still in the custody of the 3rd respondent, and in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the vehicle would be released on certain terms, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, is directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee to the amount that may be determined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, and gives an undertaking to the effect that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required for investigation and shall not alienate or create any third party rights therein, nor change the nature of the vehicle.” With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 24th February, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in three days B/o bcj