CH RAMULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 17-12-2004 in Crl.R.P.No. 88 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Medak confirming the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak in Crl.M.P.No. 1416 of 2004 dated 15-10-2004 in Crime No.74 of 2004 of P.S.Medak Rural.

(2.) The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No. 74 of 2004 alleging that the Sub-Inspector of Policeon reliable information along with his staff went to Burgupally village and raided the house of Patluri Basker (accused No.1) and found that in front of open place belonging to Patluri Basker, he and 9 others including the petitioner, were playing cards in two batches while drinking alcohol. On enquiry, the police came to know that A-1 is illegally selling liquor and also providing playing cards. Accordingly, the police seized the vehicles under a panchanama apart from the empty bottles and glasses etc., and recorded the statements of the accused for illegal selling of liquor and allowing the place for playing play cards by A-1 and other accused. The property, which was seized, was deposited before the Magistrate and a crime was registered for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, Section 8(a) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, and Sec. 9(1) of A.P.Gaming Act, 1974 against the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak seeking interim custody of the Bajaj Boxer bearing Engine No. DMM BKE 86872 and Chasis No.DFFBKF 78996 and mobile phone L.G.C DMA, Model No. RD.2030, SI.No, 210 K526547231 owned by him. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and also under Sec. 9(1) of A.P.Gaming Act and that the property was wrongly deposited in the court instead of depositing the same before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Nizamabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2004 on thefileof I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the property seized by the police in Cr.No.74 of 2004 was for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, under Section 8(a) of A.P. Prohibition Act and under Section 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act. The vehicle is involved in the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and the same is liable for confiscation, if the case is proved. Under Section 13(e)-of the A.P.Prohibition Act, the courts are barred from entertaining the application for return of the property. By mistake the police deposited the case property in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, at Medak. Observing so, the learned Judge by order dt. 17-12-2004 dismissed the revision confirming the finding given by the trial court.

(3.) Heard learned counsel forthe petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.