1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash the order dated 18.10.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the reliefs sought by the petitioners to (1) return the original sale deeds, link documents and pattadar passbooks, which are shown as item Nos.8 to 11 in the charge sheet, to the petitioners and (2) direct the Sub-Registrar Offices to permit sale transactions in respect of the above documents, were rejected.

2. The contention of Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold: 1) the trial Court failed to consider that the second petitioner is the owner of the property covered under item Nos.8 to 11, 2) the trail Court, without considering the scope of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, the Ordinance), dismissed the petition on assumptions and presumptions, and 3) if the order passed by the trial Court is allowed to stand, certainly, it would amount to abuse of process of law; therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, the learned Special Standing Counsel for the ACB, State of Telangana, submitted that the application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either on facts or in law. He further submitted that the petitioners are asking for release of the sale deeds, which per se cannot be ordered, without seeking relief of withdrawal of the attachment. The learned Special Standing Counsel, with humility, submitted that on some occasions the learned Special Judges are passing orders in a routine manner without considering the scope and object of the Ordinance as if the petitions for release of the properties attached under the Ordinance are maintainable under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.PC.

3. This court has come across the orders wherein the learned Special Judges allowed the petitions filed under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.PC only, directing release of the properties attached under the provisions of the Ordinance, which are not in accordance with law.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is apt to refer the historical background of the Ordinance and other relevant Statutes. Any Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution of India shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament; the said Ordinance shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from its reassembly unless approved by both the Houses of Parliament. It should be noted that the Ordinance was promulgated by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 72 (72. Power to make ordinances in cases of emergency,– The Governor-General may, in cases of emergency, make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of British India or any part thereof, and any ordinance so made shall, for the space of not more than six months from its promulgation have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Indian legislature; but the power of making ordinances under this section is subject to the like restrictions as the power of the Indian legislature to make laws; and any ordinance made under this section is subject to the like disallowance as an Act passed by the Indian legislature, and may be controlled or superseded by any such Act.), as set out in the ninth schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 72 emphasises that, “any ordinance made under this section is subject to the like disallowance as an Act passed by the Indian legislature, and may be controlled or superseded by any such Act”. Therefore, unless and until it is repealed or superseded by the Parliament, it should be in force. Sections 18(3) and 8(2) of the Indian Independence Act refer to the continuation of the Government of India Act, 1935. Latter, by virtue of Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Ord