THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28360 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in seizing TATA ACE bearing No. AP-36TA-1054 on 14-08-2011 in Cr.No.188 of 2011 of Parkal Police Station, Warangal District, is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle. 2. As seen from the annexure appended to the writ petition, it is clear that the vehicle was seized in pursuance of the report lodged by the 1st respondent and a case was registered in Cr.No.188 of 2011 on 14-08-2011 under Sections 379 IPC, 29 (2) (b) and 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the vehicle was seized, it was not produced before the concerned Magistrate and hence, he prays to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in seizing the vehicle as illegal and direct the respondents to release the vehicle. 4. Such a prayer would virtually interfere with the due investigation to be conducted by the police in accordance with law. The appropriate remedy, if any, available to the petitioner is to file necessary application under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. Though the vehicle was not produced before the concerned Magistrate, once the seizure is reported to the concerned Magistrate, he gets jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders on the application that may be filed by the petitioner. The First Information Report which contained a recital about seizure of vehicle has been sent to jurisdictional Magistrate. Under Section 457 Cr.P.C., whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. The above provision makes it clear that Magistrate gets jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders when seizure of property is reported even though such property is not produced before him. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file necessary application under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the concerned Magistrate and thereafter, the concerned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the application filed by the petitioner after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 24-10-2011 Note: Issue CC in 3 days Hsd