IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Crl. PETITION NO.7407 OF 2009 Between: Mahender Singh … Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. through S.H.O, Chagunta P.S, Medak District. .. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.7407 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, bearing No.CG 04 J 6578. The impugned order itself referred to the decision of this Court reported in Baligera Bheemudu alias Bheemaian Vs. State of A.P[1] and not followed by the trial Court. The trial court inspite of stating that it has great respect towards the decision of this Court, still stated that as such type of cases are lying before the court from the year 1995 onwards and the owner of the vehicle hails from Raipur of Tatibandh, Maharastra, the petitioner is directed not only to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- but also to furnish one surety for a likesum. It is difficult to comprehend how a subordinate criminal court can refuse to follow a binding precedent from this Court, even if the presiding officer of that court is disagreeing with the ratio decidendi of the decision laid down by this Court. Respect or no respect, the learned Magistrate is bound to faithfully follow the precedent. The petitioner has rightly contended not only about being deprived of livelihood by detention of the vehicle but also the possible deterioration in the value and utility of the vehicle, if kept unattended and un-used. The petitioner also submitted that he is ready to produce and hand over the original registration certificate to provide the security for the production of the vehicle. In the decision above referred to, the learned Judge specifically laid down that when there is no power of confiscation in a case even after the possible conviction of the accused, there is no jurisdiction for the criminal court to impose any conditions to furnish the security for the release of the case property pending trial. The learned Judge directed that the only safeguard which has to be made is holding up the original R.C. book and obtaining a written undertaking for the specified purposes and it is also for the Magistrate concerned to address the concerned Transport authority in order to prevent any sale, transfer or encumbrance of the vehicle before the finality of the criminal proceedings. Even in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat[2], the apex Court asserted the need to pass expeditious and judicious orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent such vehicles from becoming junk day by day by being kept unused and unattended in the police station. The apex court observed that it is open for the criminal court to return the vehicle by keeping the original R.C. Book. Following the decisions of this Court and the apex court, the order of the trial Court has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Speical Mobile Court, Medak in Crl.M.P.No.519 of 2009 in Crime No.171 of 2009 on 28.7.2009 is modified by directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and also furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit not to alienate or encumber the vehicle in any manner and to maintain the vehicle in the same physical state without altering any of the physical features and to produce the same whenever directed before the Court and produce the original R.C Book of the vehicle, on which the interim custody of the vehicle shall be entrusted to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shall address the concerned Transport Authority that the said vehicle is a case property, that there is a written undertaking that the said vehicle shall not be sold, transferred or encumbered and that the original R.C. Book is in the custody of the court for ensuring the production of the vehicle as and when called for. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. ______________________ Date:14.09.2009 G.BHAVANIPRASAD,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.7407 OF 2009 Date:14.09.2009 Gk. [1] 1993 CRI.L.J 3462 [2] 2002 (10) S.C.C 283