THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2000 of 2010 (Dated: 08-11-2010) Between: Daragani Nageswara Rao S/o Ramulu R/o Patharlapadu village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. …Petitioner A n d 1) The Deputy Commissioner of Prohbn. & Excise Cases. 2) The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2000 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 27.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3387 of 2010 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise cases), Khammam, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the crime vehicle. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of auto bearing No.AP20 Y 2931. The said auto came to involved in Crime No.98 of 2010 of Chintakani P.S for the offence under Section 34(e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. One Mr.Gopi Reddy is the driver of the auto at the relevant point of time. The petitioner being the registered owner of the auto filed Crl.M.P.No.3387 of 2010 under Section 457 Cr.P.C seeking release of the auto for interim custody. His application came to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as envisaged under Section 46 E of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The order of dismissal dated 27.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3387 of 2010 is under challenge in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. 4. The issue involved in this revision is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Smt. Karri Venkamma v. State of A.P[1], Dharavath Sreenu v. State of A.P.,[2] A.Tata Rao v. State of A.P.,[3]. This Court, in the above-referred cases held that the Criminal Court has jurisdiction under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 to pass orders for release of vehicles for interim custody. 5. Indisputably, the petitioner is the owner of the auto seized by the excise police during investigation. If the auto is kept in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its being exposed to natural decay. In that view of the matter, the revision is allowed setting aside the order dated 27.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3387 of 2010 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise cases), Khammam and the auto bearing No. No.AP20 Y 2931 is ordered to be released to the petitioner for interim custody subject, subject to the following conditions: - (1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise cases), Khammam (2) He shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court; (3) He shall not alienate or alter the physical features of the vehicle; (4) He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purposes; (5) Grant of interim custody of the crime vehicle is subject to the final orders to be passed at the time of disposal of the main case. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-11-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2000 of 2010 Transferred to CMSO RAR (Dated : 08-11-2010) [1] Criminal Petition No.8083 of 2008, dated 17.12.2008 [2] Criminal Revision Case No.1818 of 2010, dated 06.10.2010 [3] Criminal Revision Case No.256 of 2010, dated 11.02.2010