JUDGMENT :

(Lalitha Kanneganti, J.)

1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 11 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") assailing the order dated 17.03.2021 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 16 of 2020 and 326 of 2018 on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in connection with Cr. No. 2/RCA-TCT/2017 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed by the appellants not to attach the properties shown in Annexure-IV attached thereto, was dismissed.

2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.M.P. No. 16 of 2020 for the sake of convenience.

3. The 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac. 2.54 cents situated in Sy. No. 295/1 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The petitioners executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 28.11.2013 in favour of 3rd respondent without any consideration to manage the said properties. But the ACB authorities registered crime against the 2nd respondent, who is brother-in-law of 3rd respondent. ACB authorities under the impression that the said properties are benami of his brother-in-law, had seized the documents and filed Crl.M.P. No. 326 of 2018 before the Special Court seeking attachment of properties. However, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 16 of 2020 before the Special Court seeking not to attach the GPA properties, but the said petition was dismissed.

Assailing the said order, the present appeal is filed.

4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of 1st respondent contending that this is a case of disproportionate assets, wherein the 2nd respondent/Accused Officer was' found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.2,46,29,318/- during the check period from 27.11.2006 to 26.04.2017. During the searches, incriminating materials/documents were seized under the cover of inventory proceedings. During the investigation, the 2nd respondent was found to have acquired assets worth Rs.2,14,75,574/- having known sources of income of Rs.1,03,95,040/- and expenditure of Rs.1,35,48,784/- with excess expenditure of Rs.31,53,744/-. The investigating officer has seized movable and immovable properties that stood in the name of 2nd respondent, his wife Srija Venkat, his mother Angelamma, his nephew i.e. 3rd respondent herein on the ground that those properties were purchased from ill-gotten monies of 2nd respondent.

It is stated that as per the contention of appellants, they presented a deed of revocation of GPA on 20.05.2019, but the same was not considered by the Registration Officials and the appellants so far not challenged the same in any Court. The appellants have taken a lame excuse that 1st appellant is visually impaired, as such they gave GPA to 3rd respondent. But as per the record, the 1st appellant as well as his two daughters are majors and of sound mind. Thus, as per Section 203 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the appellants are answerable for all the things done by 3rd respondent prior to cancellation of GPA. The respondents 2 and 3 sold large extents of land in Survey No. 295/1 to many persons and executed registered sale deeds, as such-counsel for the appellants in the Court below contended that their interest is only for Ac. 1.00 cents in Survey No. 295/1. The said contention was not accepted by the Court below observing that Ac. 1.00 cents of land has not been identified out of Ac. 2.54 cents, as such the question of releasing the said-property from attachment does not arise. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel representing Sri B. Dhanumjaya, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for ACB.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of 3rd respondent by the appellants discloses that the same is not coupled