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.7625 OF 2009 Between: M.A. Latheef … Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor .. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.7625 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner filed a Criminal M.P. No.498 of 2009 in Crime No.65 of 2009 of Koduru Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur to hand over the cash of Rs.3,93,000/- to the interim custody of the petitioner claiming that he is A.L.T Transport Contractor transporting diesel through his tankers from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to various places. He claims that when the said tanker was missing, he had lodged a report before the Police who found during investigation that the driver sold away the diesel to H.P. Auto Care Centre, Petrol bunk, Koduru. The police seized the amount of Rs.3,93,000/- from the Assistant Manager of the said Petrol Bunk and a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle and the Assistant Manager of the Petrol Bunk. The amount of Rs.3,93,078/- had to be paid to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Chennai by the petitioner who is vicariously responsible for the misconduct of his driver. The learned Magistrate noted the opposition of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the absence of any objection for both the accused, for the request of the petitioner. He also noted that even before the amount is entrusted to the petitioner, the petitioner had also paid an amount of Rs.3,93,078/- to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in pursuance of their letter dated 16.3.2008, but still on the ground that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was not given any notice and its letter was not filed and that the petitioner was not shown to be related to A.L.T. Transport, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and submits in this Criminal Petition that A.L.T Transport is owned by him and the tanker is kept in the business premises. He further claims that having paid the Petroleum Corporation the value of the diesel misappropriated by the driver, he is suffering loss due to the withholding of the money. Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner also filed the copies of documents showing the payment of the amount to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through a demand draft and the receipt given by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for the same. I n Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat[1], the apex Court referred to the procedure laid down under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and specifically directed that it is no use to keep the articles, or currency notes in police custody for years till the trial is over and the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C at the earliest, subject to taking proper security. The court should take a bond and security, so as to prevent the evidence being lost or altered or destroyed. The principles laid down by the Apex court should come to the aid of the petitioner, whose claim to have transported the diesel in his tanker and reported as defacto complainant at whose instance the criminal law is set in motion is not disputed. His claim of paying for the diesel is probablised and what can be entrusted is only the interim custody and therefore, it will be subject to appropriate conditions so as to ensure the refund of the amount into court, if ordered by the court at the end of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the interim custody of the seized cash should be entrusted to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions. In the result, the cash of Rs.3,93,000/- (Rupees three lakhs Ninety Three Thousand only) seized in Crime No.65 of 2009 of Kodur Police Station, Kadapa District shall be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner on his execution of a personal bond for Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of Railway Kodur, Kadapa District. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking affidavit stating that equal quantum of cash of Rs.3,93,000/- would be produced before the court as and when the court directs. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. ______________________ Date:25.09.2009 G.BHAVANIPRASAD,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Crl. PETITION NO.7625 OF 2009 Date:25.09.2009 Gk. [1] 2002 (10) S.C.C 283