( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing registration No. AP 11 J 1023 purchased from the Association Financial Services private Limited on hypothecated agreement dated 27-4-2001 (Model 2001) on payment of initial amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- and also rs. 16,000/- insurance charges - tax payment and also Rs. 88,000/-, instalments payment of eight instalments out of sixty instalments, totalling an amount of Rs. 2,39,000/ -. It is also stated that the respondent/complainant seized the said vehicle in connection with crime Nos. 475, 485 and 503 of 2002, registered under Sections 409, 420 IPC, under Section 5 of A. P. Protection of depositors of Financial Establishments act, 1999 and under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act. It is also stated that the petitioner along with the other co-accused have started the banking business in the name and style of Praja co-operative Urban Bank Limited since 4-8-2001 with permission of Reserve Bank of India in Hasmathpet, Alwal and since then the petitioner is carrying on the aforesaid business under the well established rules and Regulations. It is further stated that it is alleged that the petitioner along with seven co-accused have conspired and collected huge amounts from various depositors amounting to Rs. 2 crores at very high rate of interest than permissible by the other Banks and Institutions. It was further alleged that the petitioner along with the other co-accused deviated from the Rules and Regulations of the Reserve bank of India without any comprehensive loan policy including the necessary rules in regard thereto and that the petitioner along with the other co-accused had sanctioned loans on benami names to their friends and relatives and have not obtained the required security from the borrowers to assess their credit worthiness and repayment capacity.

( 2 ) IT is further stated that the complaint lodged by one Koteswara Rao on 9-11-2001 in Cr. No. 475/2001 is not a depositer, but he only admitted the members for share certificates of Rs. 500/- each and this share amount will come only after 20 years as per the, Reserve Bank of India Rules and a cooperative Bank has no power to release the amount unless the maturity period is completed, it is further stated that another complainant, Jeevan Rao who filed a complaint on 13-11-2001, also is not a depositor, but he deposited certain sum in circulation Scheme. The other complaint is filed by one Ashok Kumar on 4-12-2001, registered as Cr. No. 503/2001, demanding rs. 9,00,000/- without providing sufficient time to pay the demanded amount even though the bank issued a cheque for rs. 5,00,000/- with was refused by the complainant It is stated that the said crime was registered without in ignorance of section 5 of A. P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and the police arrested the accused on 6-1-2002 and produced before the Court on 11-1-2002 and the Hon ble Court was pleased to remand them and before their remand all the documents including the properties of the accused persons were seized by the 1st respondent instead of following the procedure prescribed under A. P. Co-operative Societies act.

( 3 ) IT is further stated that the bank was duly registered under the A. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and all the rules and Regulations under the said Act are applicable for the day-to-day affairs and governance of the Bank. It is further stated that the District Registrar of Cooperative societies, Ranga Reddy District had informed the Superintendent of Police, ranga Reddy District about the seizure of the Bank records and sealing of the bank premises and it was also mentioned in the said letter that the police have no power to seize the documents and sealing of the bank premises. It is also stated that inspection has to be carried out under section 52 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies act by the authorities under the Act for fixing clear cut responsibilitie