LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-44

M.KIRAN BABU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

Decided On December 20, 2022
M.KIRAN BABU Appellant
V/S
State of Telangana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the official respondents in conducting unauthorized surveillance and inaction over the complaint dtd. 22/9/2022.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is self-employed Karigar (artisan) mainly engaged in refurbishing jewelries and preparing ornaments upon being given orders. Two prominent customers, who regularly used to place orders with the petitioner for contract of service, are Krishna Das Jewelers and PMJ Jewelers. Petitioner had transactions with the said jewelers for the past several years. On 24/6/2022, the respondents No.3 and 4, who are sons of the Proprietor of Krishna Das Jewelers, requested the petitioner to keep a sealed box with him. At the time of handing over the said sealed box, the respondent No.3 specifically asked the petitioner to hand over the box to respondent No.5 at their behest on specified date that would be given to him fortnight later. The respondent No.3 did not disclose as to what the box contained nor the petitioner showed any interest in asking the details. The petitioner had to oblige the request of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, as he had bonafide faith in them. Two months later, the respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to hand over the box to the respondent No.5.

(3.) On 31/8/2022, the petitioner went to respondent No.5 and he was surprised that the respondent No.5 denied any communication from the respondents No.3 and 4 regarding the box and refused to take the box. The petitioner called the respondent No.3 on the same day around 9.30 AM in the presence of respondent No.5. After brief conversation between the respondents No.3 and 5 on the cell phone of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 eventually took the box. While things stood thus, the respondents No.3 and 4 called the petitioner and accused him of substituting silver ornaments in the place of gold in the sealed box handed over to the respondent No.5. The petitioner refused to acknowledge the contents of the sealed box. The respondent No.3 started accusing the petitioner and threatened him with dire consequences. It is alleged that the respondents No.3 and 4 had contacts with influential persons and customers, who happen to be the wives of police officials.