THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.1732 of 2009 Dated:15th October, 2009. Between: Pisipati Nagabhushana Sastry ….Petitioner and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1732 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 25.09.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.290 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking release of the seized firecrackers for interim custody. 2. The petitioner is a licence holder for sale of firecrackers. The premises of the petitioner came to be inspected and firecrackers came to be seized in the presence of two mediators viz., Enagandula Lingamurthy and Jeelani Pasha on 13.09.2009. The total worth of the seized firecrackers is Rs.24,115/-. A case in Crime No.176 of 2009 for the offence under Section 285 IPC came to be registered by the Station House Officer, Mandamarri Police Station. The petitioner approached I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the seized stocks. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to place on record any evidence to show that he is keeping the firecrackers in safe and secured condition. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as hereunder: “It is not disputed that the petitioner stored the fire crackers in his room at Andugulapet. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner obtained license for possession, storage and sale of fire crackers. The license filed by the petitioner pertains to the year 2008 and it expired on 31.10.2008. All other documents also filed by the petitioner pertain to the year 2008 only. Petitioner has not produced any document to show that he has got license to sell fire crackers during 2009 Diwali season. Though the petitioner contended that he keptthe crackers in a safe and secured condition at this stage there is no evidence to show the same. The allegation is that the petitioner kept the crackers in 18 cartons in a place, which is a residential area. Even as per the certificate issued by the A.P. Fire and Emergency Services Department, the fire crackers should not be placed in the place of Public, Residential, Commercial and business establishments. In the circumstances of the case, in the absence of any proof regarding permission to sell the crackers this Court is of the opinion that it would not be safe to return the property to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed this revision. 3. When the revision came up for admission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor received notice on behalf of the respondent/State. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds a licence to sell firecrackers up to Deepavali festival i.e., 20.10.2009 and therefore, there cannot be any impediment for release of the seized stock to the petitioner for interim custody. Learned counsel placed on record the Photostat copy of the Licence Form LE-5 issued by the District Revenue Officer and Addl.District Magistrate, Adilabad. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact of the petitioner holding licence for sale of firecrackers upto 20.10.2009. 7. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the admission stage setting aside the order dated 25.09.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.290 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial and consequently, the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the seized stocks subject to his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.24,115 /- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 15th October, 2009. cs