E. SUBBARAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order, dated 29.04.2019, in Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2019 in Crime No.149 of 2018 of Narsipatnam Town PS, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, dismissing the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking interim custody of the case property, the instant criminal petition is filed.

(2.) Crime No.149 of 2018 is registered for the offences punishable under Section 273 IPC and Section 22 R/w.5(1) of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short, 'COTP Act, 2003').

(3.) It should be noted that this Court in Criminal Petition No.10538 of 2018, dated 04.10.2018, quashed the proceedings against A-1, in so far as offence punishable under Section 273 IPC only. Later, the petitioner/A-1 filed Criminal Petition No.2226 of 2018 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, seeking interim custody of 104 tobacco bags and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.121 of 2019 before this Court wherein this Court allowed the petition and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition along with the documents showing proof of his ownership over the seized property for consideration of the lower Court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2019. It appears the petitioner produced certain documents before the trial Court but on verification the trial Court observed that the photostat copies of the documents filed by the petitioner/A-1 showing ownership particulars of A-2 over the seized crime vehicle lorry baring No.WB23 B 8583 and the photostat copy of Aadhaar card and the Photostat copy of invoice with 100 bags of tobacco Premeraja 07, dated 26.09.2018, issued by the New Maharaja Transport Company, Calcutta to the consignee Raj Trading, Bangalore, are no way helpful to the Court to consider the petition to grant interim custody of the seized property. The Court also observed that the petitioner filed documents relating to 100 bags but not filed any documents for the remaining 4 bags of case property. Even the invoice filed by him does not contain the name of petitioner/A-1 and the authorized signature of the supplier at the relevant column to consider that the consignment was being sent by New Maharaja Transport Co. through the petitioner. Thus having found that the documents produced do not expressly show the ownership of the petitioner, the trial Court dismissed the petition.