HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4316 of 2008 O R D E R: There are as many as five respondents, out of whom respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the blood relatives of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of the petitioner. There is a dispute between the petitioner on one side and the respondents 1 to 4 on other side, which led to the present case. 2. A cable T.V. styled as ‘Om Sai Cable TV Network’ has been under operation at Mancherial. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the network. The 1st respondent on the other hand claims that he is the owner of the same. 3. The petitioner contended that on 5.5.2008 some of the respondents along with their supporters entered the cable TV network office and took away six items relating to cable TV together with bill books maintained by the petitioner. He further alleged that the respondents stored these items in a house bearing D.No.12- 365/1, Reddy colony, Mancherial, which is the place of the respondents 1 to 4. 4. Alleging that the respondents 1 to 4 and their supporters committed theft of these cable network items and the account books, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008 u/sec.94 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial for search and production of the same before the court. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate passed orders in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008 on 9.5.2008 directing the Station House Officer, Mancherial Police station to search the premises bearing D.No.12-365/1/1, Mancherial and to produce the items referred to in the petition, if found in the said premises. The Station House Officer, Mancherial, accordingly would appear to have conducted search in the premises on 12.5.2008 and found various items relating to cable TV and account books. He seized the same under a cover of mediator’s report. The Station House Officer submitted the entire seized material to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. That was the end of the matter. 5. The respondents 1 to 4 herein thereafter moved the Sessions Court, Adilabad through Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2008 questioning the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Dinesh Auto Finance V. the State of A.P. [1] wherein it was held that the search warrant should not have been issued at all. In the process, through the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge directed that the property in question be returned to the 1st respondent on a bond for Rs.25,000/- with a surety in a like sum. 6. Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned order in an entirety different perspective contending inter alia that the order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008 is just and proper and cannot be interfered with. However, the stage to consider the legality of the order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008 has already been lost as the order was already executed. 7. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial issued search warrant. The Station House Officer acted upon the search warrant. The clock cannot now be turned back. The crucial question therefore is as to how to dispose of the property which the Station House Officer has seized and submitted to the court. 8. The learned Sessions Judge inter alia observed that the documents would show that the petitioner is the owner of the property. He however, held that the property belongs to the joint family headed by the 1st respondent. He consequently, directed that the property be returned to the 1st respondent with a bond together with a surety thereof. 9. I am afraid that the learned Sessions Judge has gone one step ahead in the disposal of the Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2008. In the revision, the respondents 1 to 4 herein questioned the search warrant. When the search had already been conducted, the property had already been seized and the same had been submitted by the Station House Officer to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Macherial, Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2008 in fact, would be redundant as well as infructuous. 10. However, it became necessary for the petitioner to approach through the present petition as the learned Sessions Judge passed orders disposing of the property covered by the search warrant issued through the orders in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008. I am afraid that it is for the petitioner and the respondents to approach the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial and make their respective claims regarding the custody and disposal of the property. I therefore, am constrained to hold that the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing the interim custody of the property to the 1st respondent is not called for at this stage. The orders consequently are liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2008 are quashed. The 1st respondent, who perhaps has taken custody of the property shall return the same to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. If the property is still in the custody of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s court, Macherial, no order need be passed directing the 1st respondent to surrender the property to the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Macherial. The petitioner and the respondents are at liberty to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, seeking for disposal of the property seized by the Station House Officer, Macherial by way of execution of warrant in Crl.M.P.No.434 of 2008. 12. With the above observations, the criminal petition is allowed. _____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR DT. 25-3-2011 Mjl/* [1] 1987(2) ALT 918 D.B.