HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7688 of 2009 Dated : 22.09.2009 Between : Chalamalasetty Srirangam Srinivasa Rao ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7688 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Gudiseva Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The criminal petition and the material papers on record show that the petitioner is facing prosecution along with two others for an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner engaged the second and third accused to kill the deceased and that the vehicle in question was used in the commission of offence and was seized during the course of investigation and the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.299 of 2009 before the learned Magistrate for entrustment of interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition opining that the motorcycle has to be marked as a material object during the trial for proving the prosecution case and any delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner may result in tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dismissed the criminal revision petition against such order by an order dated 27.08.2009 mainly on the ground that no document was filed to show that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and that no registration certificate was produced by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the registration certificate along with this criminal petition and also contended that in fact the same was filed before the Sessions Court also, which was not considered. Now, that the petitioner is coming up with a copy of the registration certificate, he may approach the Court of Session renewing his request for interim custody of the vehicle to him and in addition to the decisions referred to in the impugned order cited before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, the Court of Session shall also keep in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat[1] while considering the request for entrustment of the interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law in the light of the observations above made. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd September, 2009 SUR [1] 2002 (10) SCC 283