IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7263 of 2009 Between: Ramisetti Anjaneyulu .. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd. by Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The auto No.AP-16-TV-3656 is claimed to be owned by the petitioner and to be missing on which he gave a report to the police and consequently, Cr.No.161 of 2009 on the file of Jaggaiahpet Police Station was registered and being investigated into against four accused, who were suspected to have taken away the auto. The auto was stated to have been recovered during the course of investigation and is stated to be the only source of livelihood for the petitioner. The petitioner also claims that he purchased the auto by borrowing amounts from a finance company and has to pay regular instalments to the said company. He filed Crl.M.P.No.1373 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet seeking interim custody of the auto, but the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition as no notice was given to the accused and as the investigation is incomplete. The impugned order dated 21-08-2009 does not show that the State has no objection for request of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the copy of the certificate of registration of the subject auto to doubt the authenticity of which there is no reason and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor stated that the prosecution has no objection for entrustment of the interim custody of the auto to the petitioner, who is the ostensible owner of the vehicle. The accused do not appear from the material on record to have laid any claim to the auto and the claims of the petitioner about the earning of his livelihood by running the auto and his liability to pay regular instalments to the finance company also make it incumbent that interests of justice should be served by entrusting the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. In fact, the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat[1] has specifically laid down that powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously and in case of vehicles, the Apex Court cautioned that such vehicles should not be allowed to become junk day by day in the custody of the police stations being kept unattended and unused till the finality of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court fixed a maximum time limit for passing such an order by the Magistrate while laying down adequate safety precautions for entrustment of such interim custody. While the genuineness of the claims of the petitioner is not suspected, the interim custody of the vehicle should be entrusted to him subject to appropriate conditions on the principles laid down by the Apex Court and on the facts and circumstances of the case referred to above. Therefore, the auto AP-16-TV-3656 seized in Cr.No.161 of 2009 on the file of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, shall be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner on his execution of a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, and further subject to the petitioner undertaking to maintain the auto in the same physical state without any change in its features and not to alienate the same and to produce the same whenever directed by the court till the finality of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-09-2009 Ksn [1] 2002 (10) SCC 283