THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7721 of 2009 DATED:22.09.2009 Between: R.Prabhakar Nayak .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kachiguda in Cr.No.32 of 2009 alleged that the investigation revealed that the accused in the case purchased an old auto bearing No.AP-11X-6242 whereas the petitioner purchased a new auto bearing No.AP-29SV T/R-1159 for which permit was not being given by the Road Transport Authorities. The petitioner was stated to have given the auto to the accused, who is related to him and also the documents to get a permanent registration number and also permit. The petitioner has stated to have gone to his native place on his personal work, which opportunity was taken by the accused to resort to cheating and forgery by plying both the autos with the same registration number. The result of the investigation by the independent statutory investigating agency into the crime, thus, does not attribute any culpable conduct to the petitioner and the prosecution cited him as a witness for proving the guilt of the accused in the case. He was specifically described as the owner of the auto in question. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dismissed the application of the petitioner for entrustment of the interim custody of the vehicle and in his orders, the learned Magistrate was mainly critical of the registration of the auto in the name of the petitioner only since 26.02.2009 since after the alleged seizure of the vehicle. However, it is seen from the contents of the charge sheet that by the time of the incident, the auto was under temporary registration and that it was subsequently permanently registered in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is found to be genuine owner of the vehicle by the police who cited him as a witness in the charge sheet and complained that the auto will get damaged if kept unattended in the police station. The claims of the petitioner about the possible damage to the auto if kept unused and unattended are but reasonable and in such circumstances, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner in the light of the mandate of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat[1]. Therefore, Auto bearing No.AP-12V-2416 with Chasis No.MD 2 AA 24 ZZR WHO 7206 seized in Cr.No.32 of 2009 of Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad shall be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner on his execution of a personal bond for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and further subject to the petitioner undertaking to maintain the auto in the same physical state without altering any of its physical features and not to alienate and encumber the same and to produce the same whenever directed by the Court or the competent authority. The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd September 2009 KH [1] (2002) 10 SCC 283