Dismissed

V.Prabhakar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2023CRLRC/626/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana disposed of Criminal Revision Cases challenging suspension of ACB attachment orders on property. Court rejected immediate relief due to absolute attachment and trial status but directed trial court to dispose within six months.

What did the court decide?

Relief to suspend attachment orders denied. Direction to trial court to dispose of main case within six months granted.

V.Prabhakar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

, i

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

Crirninal Revision Case Nos. 626 and 634 of 2027

¶7

CRL.R.C.No.626 of 2021

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in Crl.M.P.No 285 of 2020 in C.C.No.8 of 2013, on the file of tl're Court of the Principal Special judge for the Trial of SPE & ACB cases at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

V.Prabhakar Rao, S/o.V.Venkat Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-3-139ll/5,Plot No.13, Road No.1/L, Adarsh Nagar Colony, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

...Petitioner/ Pe titioner/ 3.d Party.

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Through ACB, City Range-l, Hyderabad, rep.by the Public Prosecutor for the High Court of Telangana at l-Iyderabad.

¶14

...Respondent/ Respondent/ Compainant

¶15

IA NO: 1OF2021

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thc petition, the l{igh Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dated 21.10.2021 of the Principal Special Judge^{forthe Trial} of the SPE ancl ACB^cases, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.285 of 2020 in C.C.No. 8 of 2013 by raising the attachment orders dated 25.09.2013 in Cr1.M.P.No.213 of 2013 in Crime No.37/ACBCR.1/2008 on the tile of the Principal Special Judge for the Trial of the SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad pending clisposal of the Revision case.

¶17

Crl.R.C.No. 634 of^,1027

¶18

Criminal Rr:v sion Case filecl Uncler Section^{397 r,:,r:l rv th 401 Cr.P.C} aggrievecl by the T lggrnent clatecl 21 .10.2021 in^{Crl.N{.P'Jo.286of 2020 in} C.C.No.8 of 2013, orL tl'rc filc'oi the Court of^{tl.re PrincipalS:'r'cialJudgefor the} Trial of SPE & ACB ases at I Il clc'rabacl.

¶19

Between:

¶20

Ch.Padmmamrna, V/o.Ch.l'raL.,hakar Rcclcl_v, AgcJ^.rtrt,- t 47^{years, Occ.} House wife, R/o. Ll'io 8-8-1 7, Itoacl No.l, Green^{l)zrrk(lt, , rny. Karmanghat,} Saroornagat- N{anr-la , langa Iierltlv I)istrict.

¶21

. -Petitic,nerT I^l; tjtilvngl/lrct^p211r.

¶22

AND

¶23

The State of Te,lang; n,1, ['fi16rrr3h ACt], Citl' [langc-1, l{t^{c]er: bac[, Rep.by the} Public Prosecutor fc r 'ht' lligh⁽ out't ol^I elarrgarra^{at I'{r'c]erirbatt.} ... lics peni^q,p1/ R,'s1-',o6 l.1.,t't,r'Complainant

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶25

Petition uncl 'r Sr:ction lE2 Cr.l'.C. pr.rving thal ir^I lre :ircumstances stated in the affiLl.. .'it f ilcrl in^supp(rrt of thc l'rctition.^{tt rt} LIi3h Court^may be pleased to susp'r'ri the't,rrir'rs rlatctl²¹ .10.2021 of tht' Principal^Special Judge^{for theI r j,r[ ()lt]re SI'l: atrrl r\CB c.t-ses, I yderabad in} Cr1.M.P.No.2ti6 oi 2020 in^(- C No^S of 2()13 b1, rai,.i^11, tlre^attachment orders dated 25.09 2,lll in Crl.Nl.l).No.213 of 201.1 irr^(lrimt No.37/ACB' CR.1/2008 on thr:1rl<'of thc I'rirrcil-ral Spccial Jucig,'for^rh,-'T'ial of the^SPE and ACB Cases, ll clerabacl lrt'r-r.lirrg clisposal of thc Revi--ion case.

¶26

Counsel for thc P,:t. ior-t,,'r: Sri NLVcnkat lianr Rccldy.

¶27

(ln both:irses)

¶28

Counsel for the Res^rt,ntlents: Sri Ch /idva Sagar Rao, Spt. l' P. Ior SPC &

¶29

./,CB Cases (ln both:irses.)

¶30

The Court macl<: th, f,rllorvinil: COMNION ORDER:

¶31

l I I I I I I I

¶32

\ I

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶34

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 626 and,634 OF 2O2l

¶35

COMMON ORDER:

¶36

Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Revision Cases is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Order.

¶37

The wife of accused ofhcer namely K.Padma sold the property i.e., plot No.469 admeasuring 320 sq.yds to the petitioners 160 sq.yds each.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/third parties would submit that the fact of attachment by the ACB court was not conveyed to the petitioners herein and having suppressed the said fact, the property was sold. The ACB authorities did not inform the Sub-Registrar office regarding the attachment which lead to the purchase and the petitioners are no\rr suffering having invested their lifetime savings.

¶39

a {

¶40

Admittedly, the property u,as subject to attachment. The disproportion which the accused is facing is Rs.1.90 Crores. It is not known as to what rvould be drsproportion that would be arrived after trial. Further, the attachment has been made absolute. The Criminal Court after conclusion of trial during^judgment would

¶41

come to a^('oncl lsion regarding the^{disproportionarL:l a:cordingly} take steps. lrr v e,i' of the same, this Court^{is :rot ir <: lined to grant} any reliel-t(, the )c tit ioncrs

¶42

Sincc. tlre c,rsc is of the year 2013, though -,:n lears^have passecl, thc c::rsr l i not^yet disltosed, according to 1t^t: counsel,^this Court decnrs it a-rpropriatc to direct the^{PrincillzLl ..udgefor the} trial of SPE, tk A.lll Cascs, I{yderabad to^dispose ofl^{t he main case} within a pr lioC rl'six months from the date o1'rece.l:t o1'a^{cop.v of} this orcler

¶43

With tlre abovt: direction, these Crinrina' I'levtsiotts :rre disposecl^()l'1'. C(,r'rscquently, miscellaneous petitioas. if any,^shal1 stand d isposerl

¶44

sidt t/. MANJUI.A t):l)urY REGJISITRAR //TRUE C}pylt :l:--C]'lON OFFTCER

¶45

1o, 1 'flte l'r int i1'.r !|,.'ci.rl.]rr.ise for the Trial of SpIl & l\r-ll:i cases at lJr'..1,'r. r h,r,I

¶46

2 One,(-( to Sr : [.,crrkat Ram B"ddy, Advocate [O.]-l(:] Or.re^(-( ro Sr 1-1' 1' .,.a Sagar nao,(St?L pp aCiiSf Of UCI I3 'lrvo ( l) (-,.)l ei JCK kam \ X

IIIGII COUR I

KS,I

DATED:13/03,220 13

t
,)L x?r ?!23

CON,I\1ON ORI)I:I(

Clrin-rinal Revision Case Nos. 626 and 634 of 2077

¶53

Disposing oi thr:⁽ l'rminal Revisions

¶54

I
-s
:>J &
d
<br>

V.Prabhakar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Prabhakar Rao v. The State of Telangana

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

Amgoth Raju Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Gottipati Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Karlapudi Babu Prakash Vs State of Telangana and another

Mohammed Asif Vs The State of Telangana

N. v. Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Maloth Tarachand Vs The State of Telangana