THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2011 27th April, 2011 Between :- Syed Hajimalang Baba .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision has been directed against the order dated 22-2- 2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.898/2011 in S.T.C.No.67/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganuru. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the vehicle seized by the Station House Officer, Yemmiganuru Town P.S., on the night of 25/26-9-2010. Earlier an application has been moved by A.2 – Syed Chand Basha under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle. The said application ended in dismissal. Thereafter the petitioner herein moved Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2011 under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the motor cycle for interim custody pending disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class is under challenge in this revision. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and his brother, who has been arrayed as A.2, is similar and therefore some confusion has occurred in filing earlier application. Thereafter, the petitioner herein moved fresh application being Crl.M.P.No.898/2011 taking the plea that he is not the accused in the crime and his brother is the accused in the crime and his brother is not concerned with the vehicle seized on the night of 25/26-9-2010. As seen from the order impugned in the revision, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has not placed any document to show that he is the registered owner of the vehicle seized by the police. Such is the order, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his application before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganuru, enclosing the document as proof of his ownership over the vehicle seized by the police. The order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to renew his application before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganuru, along with documents to show that he is the registered owner of the motor cycle. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 27th April, 2011 smr