THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the order dated

12.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2013 in Crime No.10 RCT-CR-2/2024 in C.C.No.2 of 2015 by the Principal Special judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, wife of the accused officer against whom a case was registered by the ACB for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, filed the present petition under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. read with Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, seeking to raise the attachment order in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 0.33 guntas in Sy.No.475 of Peddamberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District, which was shown as item No.20 of the attached assets, offering to deposit Rs.3,30,000/- being its value as security. The petitioner contended that she purchased the property under a registered document in her name and intends to establish a petrol pump on the said land under a franchise from Nayara Energy. The prosecution opposed the petition contending that the property was purchased by the accused in the name of his wife without prior permission, forms part of the disproportionate assets, and any release would defeat the object of the Ordinance. The trial Court after hearing both sides, relying on judgments of the High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition holding that releasing the property would frustrate the purpose of attachment and permit the petitioner to enjoy proceeds of an attached asset. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

3. Heard Sri Anurag Badeti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property was purchased by the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.1998 from her independent income through her proprietary concern, M/s Radhika Enterprises, and that the ACB had wrongly included it as the asset of the accused officer without considering her business records, IT returns, and the financial transactions. He further submitted that the appellant, aged about 68 years, intended to establish a Nayara Energy fuel outlet on the said land and was even willing to deposit the land value as security under Section 8 of the Ordinance, yet the trial court dismissed her petition without appreciating these factual aspects. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the submissions made by the appellant, stating that if the attachment is raised, the appellant may alienate the property, which would hamper the trial and the subsequent steps to be taken by the ACB. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal appeal.

6. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, and in view of the judgment in A. Sambaiah Nayak and another v. State of Telangana, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the relief sought subject to the condition that the appellant furnishes a bank guarantee for an amount equivalent to the market value of Rs.1.4 crores, as reflected in the market value certificate, in terms of Section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Upon furnishing such bank guarantee, the trial Court is directed to raise the attachment, return the original documents to the appellant, and obtain certified copies of the same along with an affidavit of undertaking that the appellant shall not alienate or encumber the said property until the disposal of the criminal case pending before the trial Court.

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Miscellaneous a