Telangana High Court
Janardhan Sambaraju vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.184 & 185 of 2026
DATE: 31.03.2026
BETWEEN:
Janardhan Sambaraju
.....petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Through its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
and another
.....Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Dis No.88 of 2026 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2
SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026
2. The brief facts of the cases are that M/s. Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd. was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,99,455/- received from accused No.1/Timmari Vijaya Lakshmi and the petitioner/accused No.3 towards purchase of flats as case property by way of Fixed Deposit in the name of the Court in connection with Crime Nos.60 and 61 of 2025 investigated by EOW, Cyberabad. The said crimes were registered based on complaints alleging that M/s. Srinadhan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. had collected huge amounts from investors under the guise of investment schemes and sale of plots. During investigation, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act, 1999 were invoked. The petitioner contends that he has no role in the alleged offences and that he was falsely shown as Chairman of the company though he is only a private employee. He further claims that the amount in question relates to a bona fide independent transaction concerning a flat booked with Aparna Constructions and that he was neither given notice nor made a party before passing the impugned order directing deposit of the amount. Aggrieved by the said order treating the amount 3 SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026 as case property and directing its deposit in court, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard Sri Challa Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no material to show that he is the Chairman of the alleged company involved in the offence and that the amount directed to be deposited relates to a bona fide independent transaction between the petitioner and accused No.1 concerning the purchase of a flat and has no nexus with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the trial Court wrongly treated the said amount as case property without any prima facie evidence and passed the order without issuing notice to the petitioner. He contended that when proceedings are governed by the provisions of the TSPDFE Act, the trial Court could not have exercised powers under the BNSS and the mandatory procedure for attachment of property was not followed. 4
SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026 Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing these Criminal Revision Cases.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation it was revealed that the accused persons had collected huge amounts from several investors under the guise of investment schemes and sale of plots and thereby cheated the public. He further submitted that the amount paid by accused No.1 and the petitioner to M/s. Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd. was part of the funds collected from the victims and therefore the trial Court rightly treated the said amount as case property and directed it to be deposited in the Court to safeguard the interests of the victims. He contended that the investigation disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the affairs of the company and that the order passed by the trial Court was necessary to preserve the property pending investigation. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Criminal Revision Cases.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on 5 SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026 record, it appears that the principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order directing deposit of the amount of Rs.1,00,99,455/- as case property was passed without following the procedure contemplated under Section 3 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (TSPDFE Act). According to the petitioner, when the crimes were registered invoking Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act, any attachment of property alleged to have been acquired out of the deposits collected from investors must necessarily be effected only in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided under Section 3 of the said Act, which contemplates issuance of an ad-interim order of attachment by the Government, followed by further proceedings before the competent Court. It is the specific submission that no such procedure was followed in the present case and that the trial Court, without there being any order of attachment issued by the Government under the Act, proceeded to treat the amount paid by accused No.1 and the petitioner to M/s. Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd. as "case property" and directed the said company to deposit the amount before the Court by way of a fixed deposit. 6
SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount does not represent proceeds of any alleged fraudulent deposit scheme but relates to an independent and bona fide transaction between accused No.1 and the petitioner concerning the purchase of flats from M/s. Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd. It is also asserted that the said amount was neither seized by the investigating agency during the course of investigation nor produced before the Court as property recovered in connection with the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the contention is that the trial Court could not have invoked the provisions of the BNSS to direct deposit of the said amount by treating it as case property, particularly in view of the non- obstante clause contained in Section 14 of the TSPDFE Act, which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the said special enactment. According to the petitioner, once the offences are registered under the TSPDFE Act, the procedure prescribed under the said Act alone governs the attachment or preservation of properties alleged to have been acquired out of deposits, and the trial Court could not have bypassed the statutory mechanism provided therein.
7
SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the fact that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 3 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court was not justified in directing deposit of the amount of Rs.1,00,99,455/- by treating the same as "case property", in the absence of any order of attachment issued by the Government and without the said amount being seized or brought within the custody of the investigating agency. Further, when the field is occupied by a special enactment containing an overriding clause under Section 14, the invocation of general procedural powers under the BNSS to pass such a direction is unsustainable in law.
9. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed, and the order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Dis.No.88 of 2026 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 3 of the TSPDFE Act, 1999, if it 8 SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos.184 & 185 of 2026 seeks to attach or deal with any property alleged to be connected with the deposits collected from investors.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 31.03.2026 SAI