HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3276 OF 2008 DATE: 19-08-2011 BETWEEN: IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Mechanical) Mr. E. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, Kadapa District, A.P. - - - Petitioner/ Claimant. AND Forest Range Officer, Sidhout, The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3276 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Claimant (For short, ‘the Claimant) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.59 of 2007, dated 27- 03-2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa and consequently to quash order dated 17-12-2005, passed in Crl.M.P. No.427 of 2005 in O.R. No.81 of 2005-2006 of Sidhout Range on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sidhout, Kadapa District. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Claimant, the Respondent is the Complainant in O.R. No.20 of 2005. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the O.R. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Claimant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. 5. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The Claimant’s company entered into an agreement with Telugu Ganga Project Circle, Kadapa vide agreement No.5/2004-05, dated 22-10-2004 for investigation, design, preparation of Hydraulic particulars, estimates and execution of works of S.P.V.B.R. Left Canal beyond Porumamilla tank from Km.0.000 to Km.58.625 (T.E.) and its distributaries from block Nos.10 to 23 and S.P.V.B.R. Right canal from Km.0.000 to Km.45.500 (T.E.) and its distributaries from block Nos.1 to 10 including construction of CM & CD works etc., to irrigate an ayacut of 96,300 acres for T.G.O. Irrigation Scheme in Kadapa District, with an estimation of Rs.222.30 crores. While executing the works, the Forest Range Officer an official who works at Sidhout along with his staff seized a Proclain Tata-Hitachi 200 LC (BH) and Mahindra Jeep (Maxi- Cab) bearing registration No.AP04-V-2824 belonging to the claimant and arrested Accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 27 (1), 29 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and under Sections 141, 149 read with Section 143 I.P.C. Further, it is the version of the Claimant that the Accused Nos.1 to 5 were released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout and the learned Magistrate allowed Crl.M.P. No.427 of 2005, filed for releasing the vehicles on a condition to produce bank guarantees for the values of two vehicles i.e., Tata Hitachi Model Ex.200 LC (BH) and Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.AP04-V-2824 for Rs.37,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the Claimant preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.59 of 2007 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa seeking to relax the bank guarantees for the two vehicles and the same was allowed in part by the Sessions Judge, Kadapa, on condition to produce bank guarantees for the values of the two vehicles for Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000 respectively. Now, the Claimant is before this Court seeking to quash both the orders of the Courts below. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Claimant that they have been producing the vehicles as and when required by the Forest Officials and it is very difficult for them to give bank guarantees for Rs.28,00,000/- for both the vehicles and the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector gave the valuations of the vehicles at Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.2,70,000/- respectively, in the year 2006 and after lapse of four years the valuation of the vehicles must have been diminished and in fact, there is no need for giving any bank guarantee and if the Court feels that it is necessary to give the bank guarantee, the same can be reduced considerably taking into consideration the lapse of time. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the representation made by the learned counsel for the claimant including the question of lapse of four years time, it is reasonable to direct the claimant to give bank guarantees for Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.2,00,000 for the said vehicles respectively, keeping the other conditions set out by the Courts below in tact. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 19-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 192 CRIMINAL PETITION No.3276 2008 August, 19, 2011 DSH