Point of law: Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the Court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused.

ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The petitioner implores for writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in conducting search/raid/seizure operations at the houses of the petitioner at Khazipet in YSR Kadapa District and Himayathnagar in Hyderabad as violative of interim orders in IA No. 1 of 2020 in WP No. 922 of 2020 and illegal and for consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith release all the seized cash and other valuable properties and for a further direction to respondents not to take any coercive action of any nature including conducting searches and seizures again in respect of petitioner's properties.

2. The petitioner was the President of Dayankhanpalli Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited between 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 which is a primary society under APCO. Later, he became the Chairman of APCO and continued till August, 2019.

(a) While so, the C.I.D. on the complaint of one Konda Ramana Reddy, a resident of Proddutur, registered Crime No. 1 of 2020 against petitioner and others, on the allegations that the petitioner and other members in conspiracy committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery and caused loss to the public money and Government fund to a tune of Rs. 1,200 crores. The petitioner filed WP No. 922 of 2020 seeking to quash the F.I.R. In I.A. No. 1 of 2020, this Court passed interim order directing respondents not to arrest the petitioner and not to take any coercive steps under the guise of investigation which would infringe his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(b) While so, the respondents/C.I.D. obtained search warrants from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa and conducted searches over the residential houses of petitioner at Khazipet and Himayathnagar and also two garment godowns of the petitioner and his mother at Khazipet and seized huge cash, gold and silver ornaments and some documents in contravention of the orders in IA No. 1 of 2020 and the provisions relating to search and seizure. The alleged offences have nothing to do with the search and seizure operations.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition inter alia contending that the search and seizure-operations were conducted after obtaining search warrants from the Judicial Magistrate and by following due procedure. It is contended that the order in IA No. 1 of 2020 was not violated as the said order did not interdict the respondents from proceeding with the investigation. As per the F.I.R., the accused conspired together and misappropriated about Rs. 1,200 crores of various Co-operative Societies over ten years and established benami and bogus Weaver's Societies in Kadapa District. The ill-gotten money was fraudulently diverted for their personal gain. The petitioner has no legal sources to amass huge amount and properties seized. Since huge public money was misappropriated, the respondents obtained warrants and conducted searches and seized the available incriminatory material and properties. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana representing Sri M Balaga Srinivas, Counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents.

5. Severely remonstrating the search and seizure operations conducted by the respondent officers, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana would firstly argue that both the warrant and consequential acts were in utter disdain to the order dated 17.1.2020 in IA No. 1/2020 in WP No. 922/2020 wherein this Court while granting interim direction to the present respondents not to arrest the petitioner in connection with Cr. No. 1/2020, further directed not to take any coercive steps under the guise of investigation which could infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under the provisions of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Despite, he