IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2890 of 2010 Between: Pasyam Subbaiah …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. …Respondent The Court made the following THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2890 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused questioning order dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Darsi, in CFR No.1930 in PR No.23/2009-10 of Darsi Excise Station in Crime No.91 of 2009 of Darsi Police Station. It is a matter relating to release of auto bearing No.AP 27 X 8069 which was involved in a case relating to oﬀence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. Previously, the accused ﬁled petition before the Magistrate for interim custody of the vehicle seized by the police and the same was allowed by the Magistrate giving the accused interim custody of the vehicle. Thereupon, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Darsi, ﬁled the present memo before the Magistrate contending that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise is the authority who has to pass orders relating to disposal of property involved in excise cases and requesting the Court to recall previous order giving interim custody of the auto to the accused. The Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the accused / petitioner to produce the vehicle in Court and further directing the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, to follow procedure for conﬁscation of the property under Sections 13 and 13(A) of the A.P.Prohibition Act. In case previous order passed by the Magistrate entrusting the vehicle for interim custody to the petitioner is contrary to law, then it is for the department to question the same before higher Courts and to get it set aside. It is not open for the department to ﬁle another petition before the Magistrate to recall earlier order passed by the Magistrate. No criminal Court, including the Magistrate, has any power to recall an order passed previously, as it amounts to review of its previous order. Proper remedy of the department in such a case is to take the matter to higher Courts and to get necessary legal remedy. Complaining that the Magistrate committed error in his ﬁrst order, the department committed another error by ﬁling the present petition before the Magistrate for recalling his earlier order. Therefore, this Court ﬁnds that impugned order passed by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside order dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Darsi. It is open to the respondent / department to question earlier order passed by the Magistrate in higher Courts. ______________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 06, 2010 Bvv