Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Crime No.2/Rca-Acb-Tct/2017 Of ... vs Unknown on 21 June, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.192 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the order dated 30.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.326 of
2018 on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in connection with
Crime No.2/RCA-ACB-TCT/2017 of ACB, Tirupati Range,
Tirupati, the appellants/third parties, filed the above criminal
appeal under Section 11 of Criminal Law (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1944.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Inspector
of Police, ACB, Tirupati registered the above case against the 1st
respondent herein, who is Accused officer for the offence under
Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 on the ground that 1st respondent herein, being a public
servant accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known
sources of income. The investigating officer, filed petition under
Section 3 and 4 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944
seeking attachment of the properties, which are shown in
Annexure Nos.I to IV therein. Learned District Judge, after
enquiry allowed the said petition ordering attachment of the
properties shown in the Annexure Nos.I to IV. Aggrieved by the
same, the appellants, who are third parties filed the above
appeal stating that they having share in item No.1 of property
shown in Annexure-I.
3. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for
appellants and Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for
ACB and Special Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants
are not aware of the attachment order passed by the learned
District Judge, as they are not parties to the said petition, as
such being aggrieved by the attachment order passed by the
learned District Judge, they are before this Court.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special
Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State, would submit that
the remedy is always available to the appellants under Section 8
of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 to approach the
learned Special Judge to raise the attachment by furnishing
security in lieu of the same.
6. Section 8 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944
reads thus:
"8. Security in lieu of attachment. Any person whose
property has been or is about to be attached under this
Ordinance may, at any time apply to the District Judge to
be permitted to give security in lieu of such attachment
and where the security offered and given is in the opinion
of the District Judge satisfactory and sufficient, he may
withdraw or, as the case may be, refrain from passing, the
order of attachment."
7. A perusal of the above section makes, it clear that the
appellants can work out remedies available to them under
Section 8 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 by
making an appropriate application before the learned Special
Judge, instead of knocking the doors of this Court. At this
juncture, learned counsel for the appellants urged the Court
that liberty may be given to the appellants to file an appropriate
application before the learned Special Judge under the above
section.
8. In view of the same, the appellants are at liberty to file an
appropriate application before the learned Special Judge for SPE
& ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Nellore under Section 8 of Criminal Law (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1944 and on such application being filed, learned
Special Judge shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law
as expeditiously as possible.
9. With the above observations, the criminal appeal is
disposed of.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
21st June, 2022
PVD
