THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.9384 of 2010 Date:21-12-2010 Between: Perugupanapalli Naga Srinivas …Petitioner And The State, SHO, Uppal P.S. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.9384 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.2497 of 2010 in Crime No.252 of 2010 of Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada City. The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.252 of 2010 of Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada City. The case has been registered against the accused under Sections 41, 102 of Cr.P.C. and 411 of IPC. According to the prosecution, some ancient idols of brass and panchaloha have been recovered from them in the presence of mediators. The petitioner/A-1 filed a petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction from the learned magistrate to the police to give the interim custody of the property to him. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that one of the accused claimed the property as its owner and if the property is returned to him, there is every possibility for his tampering with the prosecution evidence. The said order is impugned in the present criminal petition. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The remand report discloses that the property is an antiquity and of immense value and when the said property was recovered from the petitioner and other accused, they did not account for the ownership or possession of the property. The finding reached by the trial Court that there is likelihood of property being tampered with to efface the evidence of the prosecution, is based on adequate reasoning. I do not see any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Further, when a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the property was dismissed by the Magistrate, the proper remedy is only to file a revision against the order before the appropriate Court and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said order, certainly is not maintainable. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no merits in the criminal petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Date:21.12.2010 ccm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No. 9384 of 2010 Date:21.12.2010