Sri G. Gnana Suvarna Raju

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE -CUM- SPL. JUDGE FOR

SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Sri G.Gnana Suvarna Raju Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Cum-III Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 198h day of July, 2019

Crl.M.P.No. 449/2019 in Crl.M.P.No. 1291/2016

(Old Crl.M.P.No. 1168/2019 in Crl.M.P.No. 1291/2016

Between:

Nakka Venkata Ramana S/o late Ganga Rao, aged years, residing at D. No. 13-5-18, Vallepallivari Veedhi, Kovvuru, West Godavari District.

....Petitioner/ 3rd party

And:

1.State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam

... Respondent No. 1/Defacto Complainant

2.K. V. Balakrishna S/o Appalaramulu, aged 50 years, Residing at Flat No. 2, Door No. 1-77, Ratnagiri H.B. Colony, Backside of P.M. Palem Traffic PS, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent No. 2/Accused Officer

This Petition coming before me on 03-07-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Madhu Sudhana Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/3rd party and of Special Public Prosecutor (Sri K. Ramakrishna) for Respondent No. 1/Defacto Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/ 3rd party under section 4 (4) of

Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act 1944 to raise the order of attachment of house site to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide document bearing No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram covered under the Item No. 1 of

Annexure – III of attachment petition Crl.M.P.1291/2016, in the interest of justice.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the 3rd party of 2nd Respondent in the attachment petition vide Crl. M. P. No. 1291/2016 filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein.

2

3.The petitioner is the father-in-law of 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer who indulged in corrupt practices by abusing his official position in public service, amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,96,13,022/- disproportionate to his known source of income in his name and in the name of his family members and basing on the same, the ACB officials, Visakhapatnam came to the residential premises of the petitioner on 22.06.2016 conducted searches and seized various documents and gold ornaments including the sale deed vide document bearing No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram which is shown as

Document No. 1 of Mediator Report from the house of the petitioner which was acquired by his lawful source of income and he is a Central Government employee in Commercial

Tax Department and he was retired from services in 2014 and he got retirement benefits and obtained gold loan basing on that he has purchased a house to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide sale deed No. 1687/2015 of

SRO, Anandapuram. The 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer is nothing to do with the above said land document and he is no way connected to the said land and the said document is highly necessary to the petitioner. The said document was not shown in the Statutory

Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018. Hence the petition.

4.The 1st Respondent/ACB filed counter by contending that that in view of the allegations in the FIR against 2nd Respondent/AO alleged to have amassed the wealth disproportionate to known sources of his income. The petitioner has not given any plausible explanation as to averments of the petition. Considering the seriousness of allegations that the 2nd Respondent acquired assets with the ill accumulation wealth and the petitioner having close acquaintance with 2nd respondent, the Hon’ble court may not entertain to release and the very releasing is nothing but handing over the articles to the thief or fence grazing the crop when the 2nd respondent is liable to be tried for the offences charged in view of the decision reported in “2006 CRLJ 1575”. The said property/article required for the purpose of trial, which are liable for confiscation as per the decision reported in “2004(1)ALD(Crl)927” and the property/articles shall not be given to the petitioner without adducing evidence in support of her claim. The property 3 claimed by the petitioner deemed to be in the custody of the Court as the investigating officer obtained order of attachment for the purpose of investigation/trial and it is necessary to provide for preventing the disposal or concealment of property and to `protect the property obtained by means of offence with false pretences. The object of the ordinance is to freeze the property improperly obtained regarding which an offence is alleged to have been committed, which involve property both movable and immovable and there is nexus to the object sought to be achieved as the property is sought to be preserved pending disposal of the trial and that will be dealt with depending upon the result of the trial and the petitioner shall satisfy the Court that she alone entitled to possession of the property sought to be delivered and there are no merits in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor for the 1st

Respondent/ACB .

7.Now the point for determination is,

Whether the petitioner is entitled to raise the interim attachment of house site to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide document bearing No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram covered under the Item No. 1 of Annexure – III of attachment petition

Crl.M.P.1291/2016?

8. POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that he is a Central Government employee in

Commercial Tax Department and he was retired from services in 2014 and he got retirement benefits and obtained gold loan and basing on that he has purchased a house site to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide sale deed No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram. Hence keeping the said property under attachment till the main case is completed may not be justifiable so far as the contention of petitioner is concerned who is owner of said property and as the said document was not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018, I feel that there will be no prejudice to the case of prosecution in case attachment is raised. Hence the petitioner 4 is entitled for raising interim attachment of house site to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide document bearing No. 1687/2015 of

SRO, Anandapuram covered under the Item No. 1 of Annexure – III of attachment petition

Crl.M.P.1291/2016.

9.In the result, petition is allowed raising the attachment of house site to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide document bearing No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram covered under the Item No. 1 of Annexure – III of attachment petition Crl.M.P.1291/2016.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Gr. I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of July, 2019.

III Additional District Judge cum-Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to:

The Inspector of police, ACB, Visakhapatnam for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE -CUM- SPL. JUDGE FOR

SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Sri G.Gnana Suvarna Raju Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Cum-III Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 198h day of July, 2019

Crl.M.P.No. 450/2019 in Crl.M.P.No. 1291/2016

(Old Crl.M.P.No. 1170/2019 in Crl.M.P.No. 1291/2016

Between:

Nakka Saraswathi W/o Venkata Ramana aged 58 years, residing at D. No. 13-5-18, Vallepallivari Veedhi, Kovvuru, West Godavari District.

....Petitioner/ 3rd party

And:

1.State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam

... Respondent No. 1/Defacto Complainant

2.K. V. Balakrishna S/o Appalaramulu, aged 50 years, Residing at Flat No. 2, Door No. 1-77, Ratnagiri H.B. Colony, Backside of P.M. Palem Traffic PS, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent No. 2/Accused Officer

This Petition coming before me on 03-07-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Madhu Sudhana Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/3rd party and of Special Public Prosecutor (Sri K. Ramakrishna) for Respondent No. 1/Defacto Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/ 3rd party under section 4 (4) of

Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act 1944 to raise the order of attachment covered under the Item Nos. 1 to 5 of Annexure – IV of attachment petition Crl.M.P.1291/2016, in the interest of justice.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the mother-in-law of 2nd

Respondent/Accused Officer who indulged in corrupt practices by abusing his official position in public service, amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,96,13,022/- disproportionate to his known source of income in his name and in the name of his family 2 members and basing on the same, the ACB officials, Visakhapatnam came to the residential premises of the petitioner on 22.06.2016 conducted searches and seized various documents and gold ornaments including the sale deeds vide documents bearing

No. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada, 3639/2014 of SRO, Madhurawada, 4347/2015 of SRO, Madhurawada, 1115/2016 of SRO, Gajuwaka and 1452/2014 of SRO,

Anandapuram from the house of the petitioner which were purchased by the petitioner with her lawful source of income as her husband is Central Government employee in

Commercial Tax Department and her son is working as a Software Engineer in an MNC

Company. The said documents were not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018. Hence the petition.

4.The 1st Respondent/ACB filed counter by contending that that in view of the allegations in the FIR against 2nd Respondent/AO alleged to have amassed the wealth disproportionate to known sources of his income. The petitioner has not given any plausible explanation as to averments of the petition. Considering the seriousness of allegations that the 2nd Respondent acquired assets with the ill accumulation wealth and the petitioner having close acquaintance with 2nd respondent, the Hon’ble court may not entertain to release and the very releasing is nothing but handing over the articles to the thief or fence grazing the crop when the 2nd respondent is liable to be tried for the offences charged in view of the decision reported in “2006 CRLJ 1575”. The said property/article required for the purpose of trial, which are liable for confiscation as per the decision reported in “2004(1)ALD(Crl)927” and the property/articles shall not be given to the petitioner without adducing evidence in support of her claim. The property claimed by the petitioner deemed to be in the custody of the Court as the investigating officer obtained order of attachment for the purpose of investigation/trial and it is necessary to provide for preventing the disposal or concealment of property and to `protect the property obtained by means of offence with false pretences. The object of the ordinance is to freeze the property improperly obtained regarding which an offence is alleged to have been committed, which involve property both movable and immovable 3 and there is nexus to the object sought to be achieved as the property is sought to be preserved pending disposal of the trial and that will be dealt with depending upon the result of the trial and the petitioner shall satisfy the Court that she alone entitled to possession of the property sought to be delivered and there are no merits in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

3.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor for the 1st

Respondent/ACB .

7.Now the point for determination is,

Whether the petitioner is entitled to raise the interim attachment of Item No. 1 to 5 of Annexure – IV of attachment petition Crl.M.P.1291/2016?

8. POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that she purchased house sites vide document

Nos. vide documents bearing No. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada, 3639/2014 of

SRO, Madhurawada, 4347/2015 of SRO, Madhurawada, 1115/2016 of SRO, Gajuwaka and 1452/2014 of SRO, Anandapuram with her lawful source of income as her husband is

Central Government employee in Commercial Tax Department and her son is working as a Software Engineer in an MNC Company. Hence keeping the said property under attachment till the main case is completed may not be justifiable so far as the contention of petitioner is concerned who is owner of said property and as the said documents were not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018 and keeping in view of interest of the prosecution and the petitioner over the said property, I feel that if the attachment over the said property i.e., Item No. 1 to 5 of Annexure – IV of attachment petition vide Crl.M.P.1291/2016 is raised there will be no prejudice to the case of prosecution. Hence the petitioner is entitled for raising interim attachment of house sites vide document bearing Nos. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada, 3639/2014 of SRO,

Madhurawada, 4347/2015 of SRO, Madhurawada, 1115/2016 of SRO, Gajuwaka and 4 1452/2014 of SRO, Anandapuram covered under Item Nos. 1 to 5 of Annexure – IV of attachment petition Crl.M.P.1291/2016.

9.In the result, petition is allowed raising the attachment of house sites vide document bearing Nos. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada, 3639/2014 of SRO,

Madhurawada, 4347/2015 of SRO, Madhurawada, 1115/2016 of SRO, Gajuwaka and 1452/2014 of SRO, Anandapuram covered under the Item Nos. 1 to 5 of Annexure – IV of attachment petition Crl.M.P.1291/2016.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Gr. I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- G.Gnana Suvarna Raju,

III Additional District Judge cum-Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to:

The Inspector of police, ACB, Visakhapatnam for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

SPE AND ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Sri G.Gnana Suvarna Raju III Addl. District Judge-cum- Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 19th day of July, 2019

Crl.M.P.No.65/2019

(Old. Crl.M.P. No. 175/2019)

(Crime No.14/RCA-ACB/VSP/2016)

Between:

Nakka Venkata Ramana S/o late Ganga Rao, aged 62 years, Residing at D. No. 13-5-18, Vellepallivari Veedhi, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. … Petitioner/3rd Party And:

1. State rep by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam …. 1st Respondent / Complainant

2.K. V. Balakrishna S/o Appalaramulu, aged 50 years, Residing at Flat No. 2, Door No. 1-77, Ratnagiri H.B. Colony, Backside of P.M. Palem Traffic PS, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam. …. 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer

This petition coming before me on 03-07-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Madhusudhana Rao, Advocate for Petitioner/3rd Party and Special Public Prosecutor (Sri K.Ramakrishna), for Respondent-State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth the following :

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/ 3rd party under section 451 R/w 457 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to return the document bearing No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the father-in-law of 2nd

Respondent/Accused Officer who indulged in corrupt practices by abusing his official position in public service, amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,96,13,022/- disproportionate to his known source of income in his name and in the name of his family members and basing on the same, the ACB officials, Visakhapatnam came to the residential premises of the petitioner on 22.06.2016 conducted searches and seized 2 various documents and gold ornaments including the sale deed vide document bearing

No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram which is shown as Document No. 1 of Mediator

Report from the house of the petitioner which was acquired by his lawful source of income and he is a Central Government employee in Commercial Tax Department and he was retired from services in 2014 and he got retirement benefits and obtained gold loan basing on that he has purchased a house to an extent of 1070.58 sq.yds., at Tallavalasa

Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal vide sale deed No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram.

The 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer is nothing to do with the above said land document and he is no way connected to the said land and the said document is highly necessary to the petitioner. The said document was not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018. Hence the petition.

3.The 2nd respondent reported no counter.

4.The 1st respondent/Inspector of police, ACB, Visakhapatnam filed his counter and contended that the property claimed by the petitioner deemed to be in the custody of the court as the investigating officer obtained order of attachment for the purpose of investigation and it is necessary to provide for preventing the disposal or concealment of property and to protect the property obtained by means of offence with false pretences.

Considering the seriousness of allegations that the 2nd respondent, acquired assets with the ill accumulation wealth and the petitioner related to 2nd respondent, not satisfied the

Court that the 2nd respondent did not acquire this property mentioned in the petition by means of the offence. The said sale deed document No. 3808/2015 of SRO, Nidadavolu mentioned in the petition is required for the purpose of trial, which are liable for confiscation as per the decision report in ‘2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 927”. The Hon’ble Court may not entertain to release and the very releasing is nothing but handing over the articles to the thief or fence grazing the crop when the 2nd respondent is liable to be tried for the offences charged (in view of the decision reported in 2006 CRLJ 1575). The petitioner has to furnish the documentary evidence in support of the ground that he has interest in such property thereon and also she shall adduce evidence to show that he 3 has some interest in the property attached and also satisfy the Court that the petitioner did not acquire properties mentioned in Crl.M.P. 1291/2016 by means of the offence. The documents mentioned in the petition are required for the purpose of investigation/trial.

The documents shall not be given to petitioner without adducing evidence in support of his claim. There are no merits in the application. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent.

6. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the petitioner is entitled to return the Registered Sale Deed vide document No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram from the custody of 1st Respondent in this case?

7.POINT:-

Admittedly the petitioner is the 3rd party to the 2nd respondent and the said document was seized at the time of searches conducted by the 1st respondent in the house of petitioner. The purpose of seeking return of the said documents mentioned by the petitioner is that the said document is highly necessary to the petitioner to carry out his regular transactions and that the said land is not related to the case. As seen from the record, the 2nd respondent was found amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources to the extent of Rs.1,96,13,022/-. In pursuance of the search, the respondent seized the said document which is part and parcel of made up file no. 1 of Mediator report and If the said document furnished to the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused to the 1st

Respondent, as the said document was not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the

AO on 15.02.2018. Considering the above circumstances, the petition can be allowed to return the Registered Sale deed vide document No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram to the petitioner from the custody of the investigation officer.

4

8. In the result, the petition is allowed, directing the 1st respondent to return the Registered Sale deed vide document No. 1687/2015 of SRO, Anandapuram to the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgement.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Gr. I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of July, 2019.

III Additional District Judge cum-Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

SPE AND ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Sri G.Gnana Suvarna Raju III Addl. District Judge-cum- Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 19th day of July, 2019

Crl.M.P.No.64/2019

(Old. Crl.M.P. No. 174/2019)

(Crime No.14/RCA-ACB/VSP/2016)

Between:

Nakka Saraswathi W/o Venkata Ramana, aged 58 years, Residing at D. No. 13-5-18, Vellepallivari Veedhi, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. … Petitioner/3rd Party And:

1. State rep by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam …. 1st Respondent / Complainant

2.K. V. Balakrishna S/o Appalaramulu, aged 50 years, Residing at Flat No. 2, Door No. 1-77, Ratnagiri H.B. Colony, Backside of P.M. Palem Traffic PS, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam. …. 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer

This petition coming before me on 03-07-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Madhusudhana Rao, Advocate for Petitioner/3rd Party and Special Public Prosecutor (Sri K.Ramakrishna), for Respondent-State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth the following :

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/ 3rd party under section 451 R/w 457 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to return the document bearing No. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the mother-in-law of 2nd

Respondent/Accused Officer who indulged in corrupt practices by abusing his official position in public service, amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,96,13,022/- disproportionate to his known source of income in his name and in the name of his family members and basing on the same, the ACB officials, Visakhapatnam came to the residential premises of the petitioner on 22.06.2016 conducted searches and seized 2 various documents and gold ornaments including the sale deed vide document bearing

No. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada which is shown as Document No. 2 of Mediator

Report from the house of the petitioner which was purchased by the petitioner with her lawful source of income as her husband is Central Government employee in Commercial

Tax Department and her son is working as a Software Engineer in an MNC Company .

The 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer is nothing to do with the above said land document and he is no way connected to the said land and the said document is highly necessary to the petitioner for her regular activities by alienating the said property. The said document was not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018. Hence the petition.

3.The 2nd respondent reported no counter.

4.The 1st respondent/Inspector of police, ACB, Visakhapatnam filed his counter and contended that the property claimed by the petitioner deemed to be in the custody of the court as the investigating officer obtained order of attachment for the purpose of investigation and it is necessary to provide for preventing the disposal or concealment of property and to protect the property obtained by means of offence with false pretences.

Considering the seriousness of allegations that the 2nd respondent, acquired assets with the ill accumulation wealth and the petitioner related to 2nd respondent, not satisfied the

Court that the 2nd respondent did not acquire this property mentioned in the petition by means of the offence. The said sale deed document No. 3808/2015 of SRO, Nidadavolu mentioned in the petition is required for the purpose of trial, which are liable for confiscation as per the decision report in ‘2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 927”. The Hon’ble Court may not entertain to release and the very releasing is nothing but handing over the articles to the thief or fence grazing the crop when the 2nd respondent is liable to be tried for the offences charged (in view of the decision reported in 2006 CRLJ 1575). The petitioner has to furnish the documentary evidence in support of the ground that she has interest in such property thereon and also she shall adduce evidence to show that she 3 has some interest in the property attached and also satisfy the Court that the petitioner did not acquire properties mentioned in Crl.M.P. 1291/2016 by means of the offence. The documents mentioned in the petition are required for the purpose of investigation/trial.

The documents shall not be given to petitioner without adducing evidence in support of her claim. There are no merits in the application. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent.

6. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the petitioner is entitled to return the Registered Sale Deed vide document No. 2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada from the custody of 1st Respondent in this case?

7.POINT:-

Admittedly the petitioner is the 3rd party to the 2nd respondent and the said document was seized at the time of searches conducted by the 1st respondent in the house of petitioner. The purpose of seeking return of the said documents mentioned by the petitioner is that the said document is highly necessary to the petitioner for her regular activities by alienating the said property and that the said land is not related to the case. As seen from the record, the 2nd respondent was found amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources to the extent of Rs.1,96,13,022/-. In pursuance of the search, the respondent seized the said document which is part and parcel of made up file no. 2 of Mediator report and If the said document furnished to the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused to the 1st Respondent, as the said document was not shown in the Statutory Notice issued to the AO on 15.02.2018. Considering the above circumstances, the petition can be allowed to return the Registered Sale deed vide document No.3808/2015 of SRO, Nidadavolu to the petitioner from the custody of the investigation officer.

4

8. In the result, the petition is allowed, directing the 1st respondent to return the Registered Sale deed vide document No.2631/2015 of Joint SRO, Madhurawada to the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgement.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Gr. I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of July, 2019.

III Additional District Judge cum-Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

SPE AND ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Sri G.Gnana Suvarna Raju III Addl. District Judge-cum- Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 19th day of July, 2019

Crl.M.P.No.448/2019

Crl.M.P.No. 1167/2019

(Crime No.14/RCA-ACB/VSP/2016)

Between:

Kotal Sanyasi Rao S/o late Ramulu, aged 62 years, Residing at D. No. 6-225/1, Backside of Government Hospital, Akula Veedhi, Adivivaram, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioner/3rd Party And:

1. State rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam …. 1stRespondent / Complainant

2.K. V. Balakrishna S/o Appalaramulu, aged 50 years, Residing at Flat No. 2, Door No. 1-77, Ratnagiri H.B. Colony, Backside of P.M. Palem Traffic PS, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam. …. 2nd Respondent/Accused Officer

This petition coming before me on 03-07-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Chittharanjan Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner/3rd Party and Special Public Prosecutor (Sri K.Ramakrishna), for Respondent-State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth the following :

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/ 3rd party under section 451 R/w 102 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 1st respondent to defreeze the Account of the petitioner bearing No. 413608351000009 of Vijaya Bank, M.V.P. Colony Branch, Visakhapatnam and to return the house documents lying in that account to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the 3rd party of 2nd

Respondent/Accused Officer who indulged in corrupt practices by abusing his official position in public service, amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,96,13,022/- 2 disproportionate to his known source of income in his name and in the name of his family members and basing on the same, the ACB officials, Visakhapatnam came to the residential premises of the petitioner on 22.06.2016 conducted searches and seized various documents including housing loan slips bank account bearing No.

413608351000009 of Vijaya Bank, M. V. P. Colony Branch, Visakhapatnam of the petitioner

3.The petitioner further contended that he availed housing loan by keeping his house documents in the above said account and loan amount is repaid. The 1st respondent issued a notice to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, M. V. P. Colony, directing to freeze his account, accordingly his account was frozen. In view of the said prohibitory order issued by the 1st respondent, he is not in a position to get back his house documents and the said account is no way connected to the case and the said house is purchased by the petitioner with his lawful source of income. operate his account.

4.The petitioner further contended that the 1st Respondent filed petition vide

Crl.M.P.1291/2016 but the said housing loan account and house property are not shown in

the attachment petition and that the above said housing loan and house property are not shown in the statutory notice. Hence, the petition.

5.The 2nd respondent reported no counter.

6.The 1st respondent filed counter contending that property claimed by the petitioner deemed to be in the custody of the court as the investigating officer obtained order of attachment for the purpose of investigation and it is necessary to provide for preventing the disposal or concealment of property and to protect the property obtained by means of offence with false pretences. Considering the seriousness of allegations that the 2nd respondent, acquired assets with the ill accumulation wealth and the petitioner related to 2nd respondent, not satisfied the Court that the 2nd respondent did not acquire this property mentioned in the petition by means of the offence. The said housing loan 3 bank account bearing No. 413608351000009 of Vijaya Bank, M. V. P. Colony Branch,

Visakhapatnam mentioned in the petition is required for the purpose of trial, which are liable for confiscation as per the decision report in ‘2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 927”. The Hon’ble

Court may not entertain to release and the very releasing is nothing but handing over the articles to the thief or fence grazing the crop when the 2nd respondent is liable to be tried for the offences charged (in view of the decision reported in 2006 CRLJ 1575). There are no merits in the application. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Special Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent.

8.Now the point for determination is;

Whether the petitioner is entitled to defreeze his Bank Account bearing No.

413608351000009 of Vijaya Bank, M.V.P. Colony Branch, Visakhapatnam and to return the house documents lying in that account, as prayed for?

9.P O I N T:

Perused the record. Admittedly the said account of the petitioner was freezed as per the instructions of the 1st Respondent/ACB. It is also admitted fact that the said account is being maintained by the petitioner herein. There is no mention put forth by the 1st respondent/ complainant that any damage would be caused to the entries already effected in the said account. The personal life of the petitioner would be paralyzed in case the said account is not operated and the said freezer of the account of the petitioner will serve no purpose for any progress in the investigation by the 1st respondent/complainant. Hence the petitioner can be permitted to operate the said account which is essential for his personal life as the said account is not sought either in attachment petition or in the statutory notice by the 1st respondent/ACB . Considering the above circumstances, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to defreeze the said account.

4

10. In the result, the petition is allowed directing the 1st respondent to take steps to defreeze the bank account bearing No. 413608351000009 of Vijaya Bank, M.V.P. Colony

Branch, Visakhapatnam standing in the name of the petitioner and to return the house documents lying in that account to the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Gr. I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th of July, 2019.

Sd/- G.Gnana Suvarna Raju,

III Additional District Judge cum-Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, for favour of information.

// T.C.B.O //

Superintendent, III ADJ Court/VSP