Partly allowed

G.v.Narayana Rao, v. State , rep by Dsp Acb, Ciu Hyderabad through Spl.

Telangana HC13 Dec 2012CRLA/288/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed miscellaneous petitions by legal representatives of a deceased convicted appellant in a corruption case. Upon deposition of the assessed disproportionate assets, the court directed the trial judge to return specific seized documents and search lists to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Principal Special Judge to return seized documents to Petitioner No. 3 upon payment of Rs. 14,51,199/=00; allowing miscellaneous petitions.

G.v.Narayana Rao, Vs State , rep by Dsp Acb, Ciu Hyderabad… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRLAMP.Nos. 2546 & 2547 OF 2012 AND

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2007.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. GV Narayana Rao (died) 2. Smt.Gudur Rukmini Devi 3. G. Murlikrishna … Petitioners-Appellants

¶9

V/s.

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Dy.Supdt.of Police, ACB., CIU, Hyderabad Through Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases High Court of AP Hyderabad. … Respondent-Complainant

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri I.V.N. Raju

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri R.Ramchandra Reddy

¶13

The Court made the following : [Common Order follows]

¶14

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶15

CRLAMP.Nos. 2546 & 2547 OF 2012 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2007.

¶16

COMMON ORDER :

¶17

Heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel

¶18

representing Sri I.V.N. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants and Sri R. Ramchandra Reddy, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases.

¶19

2. The deceased/first appellant was tried by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the offences under section 13 (1) (e) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in CC.No. 15 of 1997. The case relates to disproportionate assets allegedly possessed by the deceased/first appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased/first appellant was possessing assets worth of Rs.14,51,199=00 disproportionate to the known source of his income. Ultimately the learned trial court convicted the first appellant for the offence

¶20

under section 13 (1) (e) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000=00. The learned trial Judge further directed to deposit the amount of Rs.14,51,199=00 within two months from the date of his judgment so that there should be no confiscation of assets of the deceased-first appellant. The learned Judge of this Court in Crl.A.MP.No. 366 of 2007 by order dated 09-3-2007 suspended the order passed by the trial court with regard to the confiscation of the assets of Rs.14,51,199=00. Subsequently, the appellant died and with the permission of the court, the petitioner No.2 the wife of the deceased-first appellant and the petitioner No.3 the son of the deceasedfirst appellant came on record to prosecute the appeal filed by the deceased-first appellant.

¶21

3. Now the petitioners 2 and 3 filed the present applications stating that it is not possible for them to pursue the criminal appeal since lit takes long time for the disposal. They further stated that they are prepared to pay the value of the disproportionate assets of Rs.14,51,199=00 arrived at by the learned Principal Special Judge in CC.No. 15 of 1997 and that they have decided not to press for the disposal of the criminal appeal.

¶22

4. They filed the present petitions to direct the trial court to return to the petitioner No.3 all the documents noted in the inventory report Ex.P-203 and inventory proceedings Ex.P-210 both dated 24-6-1993 and search lists

¶23

Exs.P-204 to 209, 211 and 212 dated 24-6-1993 including unmarked documents, after payment of the aforesaid amount, which is the value of the disproportionate assets in to the trial court.

¶24

5. Since the first appellant is no more and the petitioners 2 and 3 his legal representatives are prepared to deposit the value of the disproportionate assets of Rs.14,51,199=00 I am of the view that their prayer can be granted. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.14,51,199=00 in the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order and after such deposit the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad is directed to return to the petitioner No.3 all the documents noted in the inventory report Ex.P-203 and inventory proceedings Ex.P-210 both dated 24-6-1993 and search lists Exs.P-204 to 209, 211 and 212 dated 24-6-1993 including unmarked documents, after payment of the aforesaid amount, which is the value of the disproportionate assets in to the trial court.

¶25

6. In the result, both the miscellaneous petitions are allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2007 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶26

__ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.

¶27

13/12/2012 I s L.

¶28

NB: Furnish CC tomorrow B/o. I s L

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶30

CRLAMP.Nos. 2546 & 2547 OF 2012 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2007

¶31

CIRCULATION No. Date:13/12/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

G.v.Narayana Rao, v. State , rep by Dsp Acb, Ciu Hyderabad through Spl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.Narayana Rao, v. State , rep by Dsp Acb, Ciu Hyderabad through Spl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Muthannagari Mahipal Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Spl.P.P.,for Acb.

Sri Mukku Sadasiva Ananda Gajapathi Vs The State of A.P.

State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vs Sri. T.Satyanarayana

Pothina Hanumantha Rao Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

Sri Dl-ta Seetha Ramalingeswara Sarma, (D.S.R.L.Sarma) Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor

State, Vs G.Krishna Murthy