Telangana High Court
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State, Cbi Hyderabad Rep. By Its Spl … on 6 March, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10450 OF 2017, 10915 & 10917 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER:
Heard Ms. Jayasree Narasimhan, learned counsel representing
Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Srinivasa Rao Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
2-a) Crl.P.No. 10450 of 2017 is filed under Section 482 of
CrPC by the petitioner/accused No.2 (A.2) in C.C.No.1 of 2016
challenging the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1660 of
2016 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 in R.C.No.17(A) of 2009-CBI/Hyderabad,
by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, and to set
aside the same.
2-b) Crl.P.No. 10915 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner, daughter
of A.2, challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.2379 of 2022 in the said C.C.No.1 of 2012 and to set
aside the same.
2-c) Crl.P.No. 10917 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner, son of
A.2, challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.2381 of 2022 in the said C.C.No.1 of 2012.
2
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
3-a) Crl.M.P.No.1660 of 2016 was filed by A.2 under Sections
451 and 457 of CrPC, to grant interim custody of 105 items of gold
ornaments, seized from his residence.
3-b) Crl.M.P.No.2379 of 2022 was filed by the daughter of A.2
1660 of 2016 under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC, to direct the
respondent No.1/CBI to release the proceeds pertaining to Bond
Ledger Account bearing No.TBSHC540202657, which matured on
03.04.2012 to her.
3-c) Crl.M.P.No.2381 of 2022 is filed by son of A.2 under
Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC, to direct the respondent No.1/CBI to
release the proceeds pertaining to Bond Ledger Account No.TBSHC
540202656 which matured on 03.04.2012 to him.
4. The said petitions were dismissed by the trial Court vide
separate orders. Challenging the said orders, the petitioners filed the
present criminal petitions.
5. Since the parties are common and the lis involved in these
Criminal Petitions is one and the same, these three Criminal Petitions
are being heard together and disposed of by way of common order:
6. The offences alleged against A.2 are under Sections 120-B,
379, 409, 411, 420, 427, 447, 468 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read
3
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the
PC Act‘).
7. Petitioners filed the aforesaid Crl.M.Ps before the trial Court
contending as follows:-
i. A.2 was arrested on 05.09.2011.
ii. At the time of his arrest, respondent/CBI seized various
immovable properties inclusive 105 items of gold ornaments,
having net weight of 53789.900 grams and cash of Rs.2,94,48,
500/- found at his residential premises. The aforesaid bonds
were purchased by A.2 in the name of his son and daughter, the
petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.10915 of 2017 and 10917 of 2022.
Since they were minors, the said bonds were in the custody of
A.2.
iii. The said 105 items of gold ornaments and cash are mentioned at
Sl.Nos.90 of Form No.16. Originally list of properties sent to
learned Magistrate annexed to the charge sheet.
iv. The petitioner/A.2 and his family members are the absolute and
exclusive owners of the said gold ornaments and money seized.
The said property is absolutely nothing to do with the case
property.
4
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batchv. The CBI after thorough investigation has alleged that crime
proceeds are valued at 884.13 Crores. The Enforcement
Directorate after thorough enquiry in ECIR/83/BZ/2010, dated
29.09.2010 in respect of the said crime, vide provisional
attachment orders No.08/2012 dated 04.12.2012 has already
attached properties in the form of shares of M/s Brahmani
Industries.
vi. The ED did not attach the seized gold ornaments and cash
mentioned in paragraph No.2 which clarifies that those items
are nothing to do with the alleged crime.
vii. The petitioner/A.2 has declared the said gold ornaments to the
Income Tax Department, he has paid wealth tax every year, and
filed wealth tax returns. .
viii. When Income Tax Department has filed an application before
the trial Court for custody of the cash, the trial Court dismissed
the said application.
ix. His daughter is going to get married and the seized gold
ornaments are very much necessary to perform the wedding.
x. The petitioner/A.2 and his family members are being deprived
of using the gold ornaments. The said gold ornaments, being the
5
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
personal properties of the petitioners, are not subject to
confiscation.
xi. The Investigating Officer has completed investigation in the
present case and laid charge sheet.
xii. If the said property is kept idle exposed to rust and dust for no
purpose, they may lose their look, brightness, intensity and its
value apart from causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.
8. The petitioners in other two criminal petitions, daughter and
son of A.2, filed the aforesaid two criminal petitions vide
Crl.M.P.No.2381 and 2379 of 2022 seeking a direction to CBI to
release the proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid two bonds contending
as follows:-
i. On 03.04.2006 certain Saving bonds with Stock Holding
Corporation of India Limited ( for short, ‘SHCIL’) Folio
Nos.TBSHC540202656 and TBSHC540202657 were
purchased in the name of the petitioners.
ii. As they were minors at the time of investment, A.2 remained as
custodian of the aforesaid mentioned bonds till the petitioners
attained majority.
6
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batchiii. The said bonds were matured on 03.04.2012. The proceeds of
the aforesaid bonds to be released to the petitioners.
iv. The SHCIL informed the petitioners that in furtherance to
notice under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. issued by CBI during the
course of investigation in RC.No.17(A)/2009-CBI/Hyd, from
the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI,
ACB, Hyderabad, it is unable to release the proceeds pertaining
to the said bonds without specific instructions from the CBI
and that the proceeds therefrom have been kept in suspense
account.
v. The alleged offences are nothing to do with the said bonds. The
period of grant of mining lease is from 2007 to 2010. The said
fact would disclose from the charge sheet.
vi. CBI has filed a memo on 16.07.2021 in C.C.No.1 of 2012
stating that the investigation is completed in the matter and
there are no further reports to be filed under Section 173 (8) of
Cr.P.C.
vii. Section 102 Cr.P.C. empowers a police officer to seize a
property which forms a suspicion for commission of an
offence.
7
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batchviii. The subject bonds are nothing to do with the aforesaid
proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2012.
With the said submissions, they sought a direction to the
respondents-CBI to release proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid
bonds which were matured on 03.04.2012.
9. The CBI filed counter opposing the said applications
contended as follows:-
i. The petitioners are not owners of the said property and they
have not filed any documents in proof of prima facie ownership
of the said property.
ii. The said property is proceeds of crime. The cash has been
invested in the form of term deposit for a period of three years.
The gold ornaments were seized during the search and the same
was intimated to the trial Court which are deposited in the
locker of Malkhana of CBI, Hyderabad, as per the directions of
the trial Court.
iii. The allegations levelled against A.2 are serious and grave in
nature.
iv. The case against A.2 is of much magnitude, they looted public
exchequer/property to a tune of several crores of property to
8
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batchillegal mining inasmuch as the gold ornaments sought to be
returned to have been marked at the time of trial, they cannot
be returned to the petitioners. A.2 has been delaying trial before
framing of charge.
v. A.2 invested ill-gotten money to a tune of 5 Crores in SHCIL in
the name of his son and daughter. The said proceeds are
pending disposal of the case and subject matter of the crime
proceeds which cannot be released at that stage.
10. Vide orders dated 25.10.2016 and 05.09.2022, learned trial
Court dismissed the said applications holding that:-
i. C.C.No.1 of 2012 is posted for framing of charges against the
accused.
ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2012 were stayed by this Court in
Crl.P.Nos.6399 of 2016 filed by A.3.
iii. At this stage, A.2 filed a petition under Section 451 in
Crl.M.P.No.1660 of 2016 C.C.No.1 of 2012 to grant interim
custody of the gold.
iv. During the course of search in the residential premises of A.2 at
Bellary, gold ornaments, stated to be including certain diamond
9
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batchjewellery and platinum jewellery in all 53789,900 grams apart
from huge cash were seized.
v. The gold ornaments are in the custody of CBI in its Malkhana,
at Hyderabad.
vi. Separate search proceedings were drawn by means of search list
prepared on that day in the presence of mediators.
vii. The contention of the A.2 that gold ornaments or cash are
nothing to do with the alleged crime, they cannot be subject
matter of the confiscation cannot be accepted at this stage.
viii. He cannot take such ground which touches upon the merits of
the case. A decision has to be taken whether they are liable for
confiscation or not, only after full-fledged trial, after evidence is
let in by the prosecution in this case.
ix. There is reference to proceedings initiated by ED and petition
filed by Income Tax Department.
x. At the time of search, the request of A.2’s wife -Smt.Aruna,
3590 grams of gold jewellery apart from cash of approximately
4 Lakhs found in an almirah attached to the bedroom of the
petitioner/A.2 in their house were returned citing reasons.
10
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
Therefore, A.2 family can make use of the said gold jewellery
on the eve of marriage of their daughter.
xi. Admittedly, A.2 made investments in SHCIL in the form of
bonds in 2006. Same are proceeds of crime. E.D. has already
passed provisional attachment order alleging that the proceeds
of crime were investigated by adjudicating authority. The matter
is pending before the Apex Court. A.4-Company filed
W.P.No.27210 of 2009 challenging G.O.Ms.No.467 dated
17.11.2009 against which writ appeal vide W.A.No.532 of 2010
was filed and Division Bench of this Court held that
investigation is limited only for the purpose of illegal mining
activities.
xii. A.2 is at liberty for renewal of bonds with a view to change the
amount without keeping the same in the suspense account. The
amounts of the father were attached by the ED are so conferred
by the adjudicating authority. The matter is pending before the
Apex Court. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for
receiving proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid bonds.
11. Challenging the said orders, the petitioners filed the present
Criminal Petitions.
11
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI made their submissions extensively placing
reliance on various judgments which will be dealt with in the
following paragraphs.
13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI raised objections
with regard to maintainability of the present petitions filed by the
petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. According to him, the
impugned orders are final orders. Therefore, the petitioners have to
file a Revision in terms of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Instead of filing
revision, they have filed the present Criminal Petitions under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the prohibition under Section 397(2) of
CrPC, the criminal petitions are not maintainable. The order in
Crl.M.P.No.1660/2016 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 is dated 25.10.2016. The
petitioners have to file a Revision within a period of 60 days in terms
of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. On expiry of the said period, the
petitioner in Crl.P.No.10450 of 2017 filed the said petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only on 27.10.2017 to get over from the said
limitation. Therefore, Crl.P.No.10450 of 2017 is liable to be dismissed
on the said ground only. Thus, according to him, the impugned orders
are final orders and they are not interim orders.
12
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
14. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that the
petitioners filed the aforesaid applications under Sections 451 and 457
of Cr.PC. seeking interim custody of the gold and seeking a direction
to CBI to release the proceeds of the aforesaid bonds which were
matured on 03.04.2012.
15. Chapter XXXIV of CrPC deals with disposal of property.
Section 451 of Cr.P.C. deals with order for custody and disposal of
property pending trial in certain cases and the same is extracted
below:-
451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.
When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any
inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and,
if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise
expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks
necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.Explanation. – For the
purposes of this section, “property” includes -(a)property of any kind or
document which is produced before the Court or which is in its
custody;(b)any property regarding which an offence appears to have been
committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any
offence.
16. Section 457 of Cr.P.C. deals with procedure by police upon
seizure of property and the same is extracted below:-
13
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.
(1)Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a
Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not
produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate
may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such
property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the
possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the
custody and production of such property.(2)If the person so entitled is
known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on
such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is
unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a
proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and
requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him
and establish his claim within six months from the date of such
proclamation.
17. There is no dispute that the said gold and bonds were seized
during search by CBI from the residential premises of A.2. On
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet
against A.2 and others. The said properties are specifically mentioned
in the Annexure appended to the said charge sheet.
18. The issue as to whether the order passed under Section 451
of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the property is an interlocutory
order or final order, is no more res integra.
14
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
19. It is relevant to note that in K.Prudhvi vs. K.Sravanthi1,
this Court placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in several cases in paragraph Nos.15,16, 24 and 25, held
as follows:-
15. To further clarify, an interlocutory order is the one which is
interim and temporary in nature. It is the opposite of a final order. In
other words, an interlocutory order will not result in culmination or
termination of final proceedings. Interlocutory orders are merely
ancillary orders which are decided at the interim stage and such orders
aid in deciding the final rights and liabilities of the parties.
16. An order passed in an interlocutory application during the
intermediate stage of the proceedings might decide the rights and
liabilities of parties. Such an order though interlocutory has to be
termed as an ‘intermediate order’. An interlocutory application can be
decided either ways. If it is decided in one way it might be an
interlocutory order, but if the same is decided the other way it might
result in culmination of proceedings. Therefore, interlocutory
applications where the orders might result in culmination of
proceedings shall be treated as intermediate orders against which a
revision application under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is
maintainable [See Girish Kumar Suneja (Supra)].
24. This Court has perused all the abovementioned decisions.
According to this Court, a revision against the order granting interim
maintenance is not maintainable. The decisions of the Supreme Court
clearly state that a revision under Section 397 is maintainable only
1
Crl.R.C.SR.No.3198 of 2022
15
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
against an intermediate order and a final order. As stated above, an
intermediate order is an order which if decided in a certain way will
have the effect of terminating or culminating the proceedings against
one party. A claim for interim maintenance even if decided in favour
of the husband will not affect the main proceedings. Interim
maintenance is only a temporary relief granted to the wife till the main
case is decided. The aggrieved husband always has the option of
challenging the interim maintenance with the final order.
25. The bar on exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section
397(2) of the Cr,P.C. is to prevent filing of applications challenging
interim orders and thereby preventing the delay in the completing the
trial. Where only an interim order not effecting the final rights of the
parties is passed, a revision cannot be filed. Therefore, an order
granting interim maintenance is only an interlocutory order and not an
intermediate order.
20. In Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan2, three Judge
Bench of the Apex Court categorically held that despite availability of
alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. a petition
filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable when there is
manifest abuse of process of law or other extra ordinary situations.
21. Vide order dated 15.12.2021 in Crl.P.No.9175 of 2021, this
Court held that a petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking
interim custody of the property is an ‘interlocutory order’ and
2
(2016) 16 SCC 30
16
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
therefore, a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
maintainable.
22. In Smt. Anisa Begum vs. Masoom Ali 3, Delhi High Court
held that an order under Section 451 of CrPC. is not intended even to
decide the rights of the parties to pass on the property produced before
the court and it is only intended to ensure proper custody of the
property during the pendency of the trial. Of course, the order being
discretionary in nature, the Court has to exercise the discretion vesting
in it judicially keeping in view all the circumstances of the case. In the
process, the Court may incidentally be guided by the consideration as
to who is the person prima facie entitled to the possession of the case
property and hand over its possession to him with a view to safeguard
his interest but that may not be the sole consideration for the Court
while entrusting custody of the case property or property used in the
commission of an offence etc. to any of the rival claimants. One
cannot be oblivious to the fact that the property produced in Court
during the course of an inquiry or trial is custodia legis and it remains
so even when its custody is entrusted to anyone of the rival claimants
or anyone else, because he is liable to produce the same as and when
3
1986CRILJ503,
17
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
directed by the Court. The power to recall entrustment for any reason
which the Court may deem fit inheres in the Court in the very nature
of the circumstances and the purpose for which the properly is
entrusted on Superdari. The duration of such entrustment can at best
be until the conclusion of the trial. So, in the eye of law, his
possession or custody is only that of Court. Section 452 specifically
deals with the disposal of such property at the conclusion of the
inquiry or trial. It is, at that stage, that the Court has to determine as to
which of the rival claimants is entitled to possession thereof. As a
necessary corollary, it would follow that the entrustment of the case
property to any of the rival claimants under Section 451 CrPC does
not amount to adjudication of any right, much less, the competing
rights of the rival claimants. Of course, other ways of the disposal of
the case property as envisaged in the said Section have also to be
considered. Looked at the whole matter from this angle, it cannot be
said that the order of the learned Magistrate purported to decide or
affect the right of the rival claimants in the instant case. Obviously, he
made the order giving custody of the seized goods to the petitioner as
she was the complainant and had claimed that the goods in question
belonged so her deceased husband.
18
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
23. The accused in the said case also produced some documents
to show that he had purchased such goods but it was not the stage for
the learned Magistrate to embark upon a detailed inquiry. The stage
for evidence regarding the stolen nature of the goods has yet to arrive
and it is only at the conclusion of the trial that the Court can come to
the conclusion whether the goods in question belonged to the deceased
husband of the complainant or not. So, the order of the learned
Magistrate cannot be said to suffer from any judicial or legal infirmity.
It cannot be said to be even unjust, improper or capricious as
adversely affecting the rights of the respondent thereon.
24. The Delhi High Court also placed reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana 4
and in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 5 and held that an
order passed under Section 451 CrPC seeking interim custody of
property is an interlocutory order.
25. In Amar Nath (supra), the Apex Court explained the
meaning of the term “interlocutory order” under Section 397(2) of
CrPC that it merely denote orders of a purely interim or temporary
4
AIR 1978 SC 2185
5
AIR 1978 SC 47
19
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the
liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the
rights of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be
said to be an ‘interlocutory order’.
26. Paragraph No.6 of the said judgment is relevant and the
same is extracted below:-
Let us now proceed to interpret the provisions of s. 397 against the
historical background of these facts. Sub- section (2) of s. 397 of the 1973
Code may be extracted thus :
“The powers of revision conferred by Sub- section (1) shall not be
exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal,
inquiry, trial or other proceeding.”
The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to,
the what is the connotation of the term “interlocutory order” as appearing in
sub-s. (2) of s. 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High
Court. The term “interlocutory order” is a term of well-known legal
significance and does not present any serious diffident. It has been used in
various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the
High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster’s New World Dictionary
“interlocutory” has been defined as an order other than final decision.
Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable
must be those which decide ‘the rights and liabilities of the parties
concerning a particular aspect. It seems to, us that the term “interlocutory
order” in s. 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and
not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely
interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important
20
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
rights, or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects
the, right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be
said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court
against that order, because that would be against the very object which
formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in s. 397 of the,
1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning
cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid
of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders
against which no revision would lie under s. 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But
orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the
rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be
interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court.
27. Placing reliance on Prabhu Chawla (supra), in the said
judgment, the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide
common order dated 07.12.2022 held that in stead of availability of
the relief of revision under Section 397 CrPC, the inherent powers
under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised when there is manifest
abuse of process of the Court or other extra ordinary situations.
28. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments in K.Prudhvi
(supra), this Court held that order passed by the learned Magistrate
granting interim maintenance is an ‘interlocutory order’ and therefore,
petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC challenging the said order is
maintainable.
21
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
29. In the light of the said precedential background, coming to
the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, the petitioners in all
the aforesaid three Criminal Petitions filed by the said petitioners
under Section 451 of CrPC to return the gold, and issue a direction to
CBI to release proceeds of the aforesaid bonds. The said applications
were filed during trial in C.C.No.1 of 2012.
30. If the aforesaid petitions are allowed, the custody of the
property sought for interim custody is only during trial and the same is
subject to result of enquiry or trial of the said CC. If the said petitions
are dismissed, subject to result of trial or enquiry, petitioners can file
applications under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the relief sought by
the petitioners before the trial Court is only temporary or
interlocutory, in nature. There is finality of rights of parties were not
adjudicated and decided. Thus, there is no trapping of finality in the
impugned orders. The aforesaid applications were dismissed by trial
Court on the aforesaid grounds. There is no trapping of finality in the
aforesaid orders. The aforesaid orders are ‘interlocutory’ in nature.
They are not final orders. Rights of the parties are not determined in
the aforesaid orders. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that the aforesaid three impugned orders are ‘interlocutory’ in nature.
22
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
Thus, the present criminal petitions filed by the petitioners under
Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the said orders are not
maintainable.
31. In the light of the said findings, the contentions of the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that the present Criminal
Petitions are not maintainable, is unsustainable.
32. In support of his case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
for CBI, has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex
Court in Honaiah T.H. vs. State of Karnataka 6 wherein it is held
that A court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final
order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being
interlocutory in nature. In Amar Nath (supra), The Apex Court
explained the meaning of the term ‘interlocutory order’ in Section
397(2) of CrPC. The Apex Court held that the expression
‘interlocutory order’ denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary
nature which do not decide or tough upon the important rights or
liabilities of parties. Hence, any order which substantially affects the
right of the parties cannot be said to be an ‘interlocutory order’.
6
Crl.A.No.1147 of 2022 (arising out of SLP(Crl) No.2021 of 2022
23
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
33. Thus, the facts therein are altogether different to the facts of
the case on hand. However, applying the said principle, since the
rights of the parties are decided by the trial Court vide impugned
orders. Therefore, the criminal petitions are maintainable.
34. In P.Hussain Chiddu Master vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh 7, the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh is contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the same is not good law.
35. In Vipin Sahni vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 8, is a
case where a petition was filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to
discharge the accused. Therefore, the facts of the said case are also
different to the facts of the present case.
36. In Angayarkanni vs. State rep. by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Thiruvarur9, it was held that an application filed under Section 451
of Cr.P.C. has to be treated as a petition under Section 452 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, Registry of Madras High Court has returned the papers etc,
7
2021 Law Suit (AP) 336
8
2024 INSC 284
9
Order dated 21.07.2023 in Crl.A.No.390 of 2022 of Madras High Court.
24
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
and thereafter, the same was numbered as an appeal. Therefore, the
facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case.
37. In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered view
that the present applications filed by the petitioners under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned orders are maintainable.
38. As discussed supra, the aforesaid Crl.P.No.10450 of 2017
was filed by A.2 before commencement of trial. He sought return of
the jewellery on three grounds i.e. i) the subject property is nothing to
do with the crime proceeds, ii) if the subject property is kept idle in
the custody of the CBI, it will be exposed to rust and dust for no
purpose, they may lose its look, brightness, intensity and value etc, iii)
his daughter’s wedding. On the said grounds, he cannot seek interim
custody of the said property.
39. Wedding of A.2’s daughter was performed long back. His
daughter is also before this Court by way of filing Cr.P.No.10915 of
2022 seeking a direction to CBI to release proceeds of the aforesaid
bonds. Moreover on the request made by A.2’s wife -Smt.Aruna,
3590 grams of gold jewellery apart from cash of approximately 4
Lakhs found in an almirah attached to the bedroom of the
petitioner/A.2 in their house were returned to her to use on the eve of
25
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
her daughter’s marriage. Therefore, on the said ground, he cannot seek
release of the jewellery.
40. with regard to relief sought by the petitioners in
Crl.P.Nos.10915 and 10917 of 2022, daughter and son of A.2 i.e.
petitioners in Crl.P.No.10450 of 2017, a direction to CBI to release
the proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid bond ledger accounts matured
on 03.04.2012, it is the specific case of the CBI that A.2 invested the
ill-gotten money in SHCIL in the name of the petitioners and the said
proceeds are pending disposal before the trial Court in the aforesaid
CC. It is a tainted money of A.2. Therefore, the said crime proceeds
cannot be released during pendency of the said CC, more particularly,
when CC is posted for trial.
41. It is relevant to note that both the petitioners contended that
their father purchased subject saving bonds in their names and he
stood as Custodian since they were minors at the time of purchasing
the said bonds. At the time of investment as well as maturity, they
were minors and therefore, his father remained as Custodian of said
bonds till they attained majority.
26
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
42. In the light of the said contentions, it is for the trial Court to
decide the said aspect on conclusion of trial in the said CC. Thereafter,
they can file applications under Section 452 of CrPC.
43. It is apt to note that while considering applications filed
under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC, trial Court cannot conduct a
mini trial.
44. It is also apt to note that the amounts of the father of the
petitioner’s i.e. A.2, were attached by the ED which were confirmed
by the Adjudicating authority. Matter is pending before the Apex
Court. Thus, ED has already passed a provisional attachment order
No.08/2022, dated 04.12.2022 in ECIR/83/BZ/2010, dated 29.10.2010
with regard to subject property. According to the ED, the alleged
proceeds of crime were invested in the form of 88,41,30,000 number
of shares in M/s Brahmini Industries and ED has already attached the
said shares and properties of M/s Brahmini Industries. The
adjudicating authority, vide its order dated 05.04.2013, in Original
Complaint No.168 of 2012, had confirmed the said provisional
attachment order. Now the matter is pending in Apex Court in SLP
No.4467 of 2017. The said facts were admitted by petitioners. Even
then, the petitioners failed to take steps including arraigning ED as a
27
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
party to the petition. Thus, ED is also claiming right over the aforesaid
bonds and gold ornaments. According to ED, the aforesaid amount
i..e proceeds of crime to a tune of 884.13 Crores of A.2 is a tainted
money.
45. Perusal of the record, including the impugned orders, would
reveal that that Income Tax Department has also filed a petition
Crl.M.P.No.918 of 2014 seeking custody of the cash. The petition
filed by the Income Tax Department was dismissed. Therefore,
Income Tax is also claiming right over the gold ornaments and bonds.
Thus, there is rival claim with regard to the subject property. CBI has
already issued a notice under Section 102 of CrPC to the SHCIL to
attach the bonds.
46. With regard to the direction sought by the petitioners in
Crl.P.No.10917 of 2022 and 10917 of 2022 to the CBI for release of
the proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid two bonds, learned trial Court
categorically held that the same are proceeds of crime and the
petitioners’ father i.e. A.2 has purchased the said bonds on 03.04.2006
when they were minors. There is rival claim with regard to the said
bonds by the ED and the petitioners. The same will be decided only on
conclusion of the trial. Thereafter, petitioners can file applications
28
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. Trial categorically held that the
petitioners have not filed documents in proof of ownership of the said
property. Thus, there are several issues which are triable by the trial
Court and thereafter, the petitioners can file petitions under Section
452 of Cr.P.C. on consideration of the entire aspects, the trial Court
dismissed the aforesaid applications.
47. On consideration of the said aspects, trial Court rightly
dismissed the said applications filed by the petitioners. There is no
error in the said orders and the same are reasoned orders.
48. As discussed supra, during the course of hearing, it is
brought to the notice of this Court that C.C.No.1 of 2012 is posted for
examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The
aforesaid property including the gold and bonds were seized on
05.09.2011. Since then, the same are in the custody of CBI. The
petitioner/A.2 cannot contend that if the same is kept idle, it will be
exposed to rust and dust for no purpose, they may lose its look,
brightness, intensity and value etc. On the said grounds, he cannot
seek interim custody of the said property. On consideration of the
aforesaid aspects, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the said
applications. There is no error. The impugned orders are reasoned and
29
KL,J
Crlp No.10450 of 2017 & batch
well – founded. The petitioners failed to make out any case to
interfere with the impugned orders by this Court by invoking its
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, these
criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.
49. In the light of the above discussion, these Criminal Petitions
are dismissed. However, subject to result of trial or enquiry in
C.C.No.1 of 2012, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file
applications under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. before trial Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these
Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:06 .03.2025.
vvr
