THALLAPALLI MAHESWARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) Outline facts of the case germane to dispose of this writ petition may be stated as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Sub Inspector of Police has seized the cash under Section 102 of Cr.P.C and as per the procedure contemplated under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., he has to report seizure of the said cash to the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, he would submit that as the Sub Inspector of Police did not report the seizure of the said cash to the concerned Magistrate, the procedure contemplated under Section 102 of Cr.P.C has been contravened. He would further submit that when he has approached the concerned Magistrate with a request to order for interim custody of the said cash to him that the said petition was returned with an endorsement "no such cash was produced before the Court". Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition seeking return of the cash that was seized from him.