ORDER:

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed challenging the order, dated 01.02.2024, dismissing the petition in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024 in Crime No.6/RCA-CIU/2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram, filed by the petitioner/accused officer under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC for interim custody of the gold articles.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Chalasani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases appearing for the respondents/

State.

3. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly are as follows:

The petitioner is accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for having acquired assets disproportionate to the known source of income. During the course of investigation, on 28.04.2016, search of the residential premises of the petitioner was conducted and several documents, cash, gold and silver articles/ornaments were seized; and, on 17.05.2016 search of locker No.18 of the petitioner at Mapakshi Finance Limited, Hyderabad, was conducted and 46 jewelry items and 17 made up files of the petitioner were seized. Now, as the petitioner is performing the marriage of his daughter scheduled on 18.02.2024, this petition is filed for interim custody of a total of 40 items out of the property seized both at the house and in the locker of the petitioner.

4. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent/ State/complainant on the ground that in the search 1782.500 grams of gold ornaments numbering 76 items were seized during the search of the residential house of the petitioner on 29.04.2016 and they worth Rs.39,52,728/- and 46 items of gold ornaments weighing 2372 grams worth Rs.40,63,299/- were seized from the locker No.18 on 07.05.2016 and thus, a total of 4154.500 grams of gold ornaments were seized worth Rs.80,16,027/- and later, G.O.Ms.No.65 of the Transport, Roads & Buildings [VIG-Tr(1)] Department, Andhra Pradesh, dated 24.11.2017, was issued authorizing the respondent/State to attach the properties of the accused and his dependent family members and consequently, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.2227 of 2017, dated 08.12.2017, before the Court of Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases, Vijayawada, and order of attachment was passed under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance Act, 1944 (‘Ordinance Act, 1944’, for short) and the attachment is in force. It is further stated that the petition under Section 451 and 457 CrPC cannot be invoked when the properties were attached under the provisions of the (‘Ordinance Act, 1944’) and moreover, as per the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishna Gouda and another1, return of property cannot be ordered.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition vide impugned order observing that the interim custody of the gold property under Section 451 & 457 CrPC is not tenable in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. Krishna Gouda (1 supra).

6. Aggrieved by the same, this criminal petition is filed contending that as per Section 10 of the Ordinance Act, 1944, the order or attachment remains in force for a period of one year only and thereafter, the order of attachment is to be extended from time to time, but not so extended in the present case. It is further contended that the prosecution did not file charge sheet so far since the year 2016, i.e., even after lapse of 8 years from the date of seizure of the property, and therefore, the attachment made against the properties is illegal. It is further stated that the trial Court did

12005 Cri.L.J 259

not follow the decision of this High Court passed in similar circumstances in State of A.P (ACB) Vs. Shaik Hussain and another 2 . The petitioner denied the allegation of acquiring properties disproportionate to