STATE Vs. MIRYALA RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case, under Ss. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/State represented by Inspector of Police, A.C.B., City Range-1, Hyderabad, challenging the order, dtd. 1/4/2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.100 of 2019 in C.C.No.2 of 2011 by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad, whereby, the application filed by the Respondent herein/Accused Officer under Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. to return the certain items which were seized and deposited before the Court below during the trial of the subject C.C.No.2 of 2011, was allowed and the office of the Court below was directed to return the items to the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgement, apart from other directions.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri Ch.Vidya Sagar Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B. appearing for the petitioner/State, Sri Prasad Ravanaboina, learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused Officer and perused the record.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases representing the petitioner/State would submit that the impugned order of the trial Court is against the facts and law. The impugned order was passed without considering the contentions of the counsel for ACB and also the merits of the case and the impact of returning the properties on the pending appeal filed against the acquittal of the Respondent/Accused Officer. Though the Respondent herein/Accused Officer was acquitted in the subject calendar case, the ACB has addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Telangana, seeking permission to prefer an appeal and the response from the Government is awaited and on the said ground, the subject application ought to have been dismissed. The observation of the Court below in the impugned order that no appeal was preferred within the statutory period and therefore it had no option except to return the documents and properties which were seized is incorrect, inasmuch as sufficient proof was placed before the Court below about the decision taken by the Government to prefer an appeal challenging the acquittal of the Respondent herein/Accused Officer and accordingly a letter has been addressed to the Government seeking permission. Under these circumstances, the Court below ought to have waited for some more time so as to facilitate the petitioner herein to inform the Court below about the response from the Government with regard to filing of appeal. The properties which were directed to be returned to the Respondent/Accused Officer are very crucial properties and in case the petitioner/State succeeds in the appeal, it would be difficult to the petitioner/State to get back those properties which are liable for confiscation in favour of the State and there is every chance of the Respondent/Accused Officer disposing of the said properties and if the Respondent/Accused officer disposes the properties which were directed to be returned to him by the trial Court, much prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/State in case it succeeds in the appeal. Under these circumstances, the Court below ought not have directed release of properties in favour of the Respondent/Accused Officer. The impugned order of the Court below is ex facie illegal, perverse and is liable to be set aside and accordingly requested this Court to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Criminal Revision Case as prayed for.