Bogi Nagabhushana Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal revision case, setting aside the Magistrate's order. The Court held that as per Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., if the person entitled to possession is known and there is no dispute about ownership, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered on conditions. The Court noted that the crime was registered for possession of tobacco products, and mere possession does not constitute an offence, citing previous orders of the High Court in similar cases. The Court also considered that tobacco products are perishable and would spoil if kept for extended periods. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant interim custody to the petitioner. The operative direction was to deliver the seized tobacco products to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, owner of seized tobacco products, filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim custody after the products were seized in connection with Crime No. 88 of 2021, registered for offences under Sections 188, 272, and 273 of the IPC and Section 34(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The Magistrate dismissed the interim custody petition. The petitioner challenged this dismissal via a criminal revision case before the High Court. The petitioner argued that similar FIRs had been quashed by the High Court and that there was no prohibition on tobacco since January 10, 2021, based on a circular from the Medical and Health Department. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's ownership of the seized property.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the seized tobacco products under Section 457 Cr.P.C., considering the alleged lack of a valid license for selling tobacco products, as observed by the Magistrate? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the High Court had previously quashed similar FIRs registered for storage, possession, or transportation of tobacco products, and these orders had attained finality. They further argued that a circular from the Medical and Health Department of Andhra Pradesh, dated January 10, 2021, removed any prohibition on tobacco. The petitioner asserted that mere possession of tobacco products does not constitute an offence, especially when no case was booked for lack of bills or license. They also pointed out that the crime was registered for possession, not for lack of license or bills, and that the Court below had dismissed the petition on assumptions. The petitioner highlighted that this Court had granted interim custody in similar circumstances. Respondent's arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not dispute the petitioner's ownership of the seized property.