IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Crl. PETITION NO.8030 OF 2009 Between: Mandem Nagarthanamma and another … Petitioners And: The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. through S.H.O, Madanapalle Taluk P.S, and another .. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.8030 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the 2nd respondent as the disposal of the matter at the stage of admission has no impact on the rights and interest of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners claimed to be entitled to the Tractor and Trailer in question through Ch. Venkatramana Reddy who executed a registered will on 28.6.2004. The petitioners admit that the 2nd respondent is also the daughter of the said Ch. Venkataramana Reddy through his wife Chintaparthy Chinapapamma. A suit in OS No.26 of 2008 is pending on the file of the court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle in respect of the properties of Ch. Venkatramana Reddy and another suit in OS No.46 of 2008 for a permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle is also pending trial, in which the status-quo order is pending. In OS No.26 of 2008, IA No.652 of 2008 is pending in respect of any changes that may be made in the records by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The petitioners claimed to have leased out the Tractor and Trailer to one Booligalla Gangulappa under an agreement dated 1.1.2009 and the Tractor and Trailer have been seized at the instance of the 2nd respondent and her husband. The petitioners applied to the Trial court in Crime No.95 of 2009 of Taluq police station, Madanapalle and in the said petition in Criminal M.P.No.2970 of 2009, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle had observed that the petitioners did not file the alleged agreement of lease in favour of Booligalla Gangulappa and that if their claims are true, they would have sought for release immediately after the seizure of the Tractor and Trailer. The learned Magistrate further observed that there is no document to show the possession of the Tractor and Trailer with the petitioners and in view of the pendency of the civil litigation, the learned Magistrate considered it to unsafe to return the Tractor and Trailer to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed interim custody of the Tractor and Trailer in the Criminal M.P in Crime No.95 of 2009 and when the petition was dismissed, they approached this Court aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate, but the rival claimants to the property i.e., the Tractor and Trailer were not impleaded as parties to the Criminal Petition. When admittedly both the rival claimants claimed the properties of Ch. Venkatramana Reddy through the respective relationships and when civil suits are pending between them concerning the properties of Ch. Venkatramana Reddy, it will be in the interests of justice to have any adjudication in the presence of the rival claimants only. The properties involved are Tractor and Trailer and if they are kept unattended and unused in the premises of the police station till the finality of the criminal proceedings, they will deteriorate and would become useless. The apex court has given specific instructions in this regard in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat[1]. In case of vehicles seized in crimes, the apex Court asserted the need to pass expeditious and judicious orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent such vehicles from becoming junk day by day by being kept unused and unattended in the police station. The Apex court observed that it is open for the criminal court to return the vehicle by keeping the original R.C. Book or subject to other suitable conditions. Under such circumstances, it is observed that an opportunity can be given to the petitioners to approach the trial court once again by filing an appropriate application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by impleading all the competing claimants as parties to such proceedings in order to enable the trial court to decide as to which of the claimants should be entrusted with the interim custody of the vehicle in tune with the principles laid down by the Apex court in the above cited decision. Therefore, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle once again with an appropriate application under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for entrustment of the interim custody of the Tractor and Trailer by impleading all the competing claimants as parties to such petition and the trial court shall determine the same on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in tune with the principles laid down by the Apex court. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. ______________________ Date:25.09.2009 G.BHAVANIPRASAD,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.8030 OF 2009 Date:25.09.2009 Gk. [1] 2002 (10) S.C.C 283