Point of law: Member of the Family" in relation to a Government employee, includes the spouse, son, daughter, step-son or step-daughter of such employee, whether residing with, such employee or not, and any other person related to, and residing with such employee and wholly dependent on such employee, but does not include a spouse legally separated from such employee, or a son, daughter, step-son, or stepdaughter who is no longer in any way dependent upon such employee, or of whose custody such employee is deprived by law

JUDGMENT :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944, being aggrieved by the order of interim attachment of his properties, dated 04.01.2020, passed by the I-Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No. 20 of 2020 arising out of Cr. No. 25/RCA-CR-2/2018 of ACB, City Range -2, Hyderabad. The said Crime is registered against V. Vara Prasad, the then Additional District Judge, who is the father of the appellant.

2. During the course of investigation, the respondent herein filed Crl.M.P. No. 20 of 2020 seeking ad-interim order attaching movable and immovable properties of the Accused Officer and his family members as per Annexure-I to V of G.O. Ms. No. 21, dated 10.04.2019 of Law (LA&J, Spl. B) Department, T.S., Hyderabad. By an order, dated 04.01.2020, the learned I-Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while issuing notice to the Accused Officer, his wife and brother, ordered issuance of ad-interim attachment of the property in Annexure I to V appended to G.O. Ms. No. 21, Law (LA&J, Spl. B) Department, dated 10.04.2019.

3. It is the submission of the appellant that when the property of the appellant was attached, the appellant moved an application before the Special Judge claiming that the said property belongs to him and his father/Accused Officer has not contributed any part of consideration while purchasing the said property, but however, the Special Judge orally observed that such claim will be considered during the course of trial. As such, he filed the present appeal to set aside the impugned order in respect of attachment of his properties mentioned in Annexure-III of G.O. Ms. No. 21, dated 10.04.2019.

4. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contends that there is documentary evidence in the shape of bank accounts to show that he has contributed the entire consideration for the acquisition of the property. It is submitted that the appellant is an earning member, working in USA and while studying abroad, he was remitting his salary income to his Bank Account in USA from which it was transferred to his Bank Account in India, and from that account only the consideration is paid to the vendor.

5. It is further submitted that when the father of the appellant (Accused Officer) applied for permission for acquisition of the property by his son, the Additional Special Judge replied that because the appellant is not dependent on the accused, no such permission is necessary for purchase of the property. It is, therefore, submitted that the Special Judge, without applying his mind to the material on record, simply refused to exercise his jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of the appellant and committed irregularity. To substantiate such contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in K. Somasekhara Reddy & others vs. The State represented by its SHO, Inspector of Police, Kadapa 2015 (3) ALT (Cr) 32.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, while supporting the orders of the Special Judge, strenuously contended that all the documents produced by the appellant to show that the consideration was paid by him and that accused has not contributed anything for acquisition of property, have to be considered at the time of trial of the case on the charge of his possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He argued that without evidence relating to documents, it is not desirable to lift the interim attachment order on the property and hence he urged to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments of both the learned Counsel, I have considered the documents filed along with the appeal. The facts of the case appearing from the arguments and the documents are required to be referred for appreciation of the case of both sides.

8. The facts of the case are that, respondent officials regist