Dismissed

Kotha Srinivas , Ungrala Srinivas v. State of Ap., through the Police CID Medak at

Telangana HC24 Jan 2012CRLP/13110/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused to quash an order denying him interim custody of gold seized from his premises. The court distinguished the cited precedent, holding that the petitioner misappropriated funds to buy the gold, making release unjustified.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order to deny interim custody of seized gold was dismissed.

Kotha Srinivas , Ungrala Srinivas Vs State of Ap… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13110 of 2011

¶2

(Dated:24-01-2012)

Between:

Kotha Srinivas

….…Petitioner.

A n d

The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Police, CID Medak at Sangareddy.

¶8

….…Respondent.

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13110 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused-Kotha Srinivas in Crime No.88 of 2011 on the file of the C.I.D., Medak at Sangareddy Police Station to quash the order dated 23-11-2011 passed in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶12

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.88 of 2011. A report came to be presented by Sri Alladi Yellaiah of Imampur Village, Toopran Mandal, alleging inter alia that the petitioner herein collected

¶13

` 7 lakhs from the public on the promise of giving gold at a less price. Subsequently, he became to know that the Petitioner has collected money from various persons in crores of rupees and escaped. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.88 of 2011 under Section 420 IPC has been registered by the Station House Officer, Toopran Police Station. During the course of investigation, the

¶14

police examined about 35 witnesses as on the date of the remand of the petitioner to the judicial custody. During the course of investigation, the police seized gold biscuits/gold ornaments from the house of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Crl.MP. No.2620 of 2011 under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking release of the gold biscuits/gold ornaments seized from his residence.

¶15

The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, on hearing the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 23-08-2011. Assailing the order passed in Crl.MP.No.2620 of 2011, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve for release of the property seized during the course of investigation for interim custody and thereby proceeded to dismiss the revision by order dated 23-11-2011. Hence this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking the relief as stated supra.

¶16

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶17

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶18

submits that since the gold articles came to be seized from the premises of the petitioner, he is entitled for release of the gold articles in his favour for interim custody. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT^[1] .

¶19

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶20

6. As seen from the material placed on record, the accusations levelled against the petitioner is that he collected the money from the public on assuring of giving gold at a cheaper rate and subsequently he escaped with the money collected from the public.

¶21

In a way, the prosecution version is that the petitioner converted the cash received from the public into gold ornaments and the said gold ornaments came to be seized from the premises of the petitioner.

¶22

7. The decision on which the learned counsel placed reliance is inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the cited decision, the owner who lodged a complaint with regard to theft articles from his house filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C for seeking release of the valuable articles for interim custody. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is the petitioner, who allegedly misappropriated the amount collected from various

¶23

persons and used the said misappropriated money for purchasing the gold articles.

¶24

8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Revisonal Court is justified in confirming the order dated 23-08-2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2620 of 2011.

¶25

9. Accordingly, I find that this Criminal Petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶26

______________________________

¶27

B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶28

Date:24.1.2012. mrb

¶29

[1] (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283

Kotha Srinivas , Ungrala Srinivas v. State of Ap., through the Police CID Medak at

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotha Srinivas , Ungrala Srinivas v. State of Ap., through the Police CID Medak at

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bashu Shyam Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lokaiah Patel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chukkapalli Amar Kumar, Vs Meka Radhika

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali Vs The State of Ap.,Through its Public Prosecutor

Lucky Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ratna Infrastructure Products Pvt.Ltd., Vs M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.