THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.898 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused officer against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.307 of 2024 in C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Crl.M.P.No.307 of 2024 was filed under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C., and under Section 4(4&8) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1944 (for short ‘Act’) to raise the attachment orders issued against Item No.3 of assets and to return original document No.385/97 marked as Ex.P.45, document No.386/97 marked as Ex.P.51, document No.786/99 marked as Ex.P.46 and document No.787/99 marked as Ex.P.47 seized under Ex.P.9 search list dated 09.02.2003 to the petitioner with a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Toopran and MRO, Masaipet Mandal, Medak District who is the competent authority to register under Dharani Act to permit transactions pertaining to the said sale deeds and consequently to take action against the SRO, Ramayampet, SRO, Toopran for entertaining series of registrations inpsite of attachment orders issued by the Court apart from taking criminal action against the parties to such sale deeds.

3. Heard Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is accused in Cr.No.2/ACB-CIU/2003 registered for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after completion of investigation the ACB officials filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.82 of 2011 and it is pending before the ACB Court. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer seized several documents including the Bank passbooks, FDR’s, Locker keys and other valuable documents and the present documents are one of such seizure and these properties are shown as Item No.3 in Annexure-I assets schedule in the charge sheet filed against the appellant. The total extent of land covered by these documents is Acs.22.20 guntas and the total value is Rs1,80,000/- as against which the ACB had shown the value as Rs.20,00,000/- in the charge sheet. These assets were attached as such the appellant and his wife filed Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2016 for return of original sale deeds and the same was dismissed on 18.10.2016 aggrieved by the said order Crl.P.No.15912 of 2016 was filed for quashing and the same was also dismissed by this Court.

5. The trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.307 of 2024 on the ground that the accused himself is not a bonafide purchaser of the property and the property valuation was entered in multiple transactions and the matters are pending in various courts. Even though he had full knowledge of sale transactions in respect of these lands, he filed the present petition. However, in view of clause (8) of the Act, the appellant is entitled for raising of said attachment by furnishing security which was not considered by the trial Court. As per Section 8 of the Act, Ordinance clearly says that any person at any time can apply to the Court for release of property in lieu of attachment by furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court and the property was already attached in the year 2015 and till today, the lis is pending before the trial Court. He further submitted that while purchasing the property, the same was intimated to the employer of appellant and after taking permission from the concerned department he purchased the same. Therefore, there is no illegality in purchasing the property and the appellant is a bonafide purchaser, as such requested this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

6. The learned Standing counsel opposed the same stating that the trial Court has already concluded trial and it is coming for the cross-examination of investigating officer. Therefore, at this stage, the petition is not maintainable and requested this Cou