Dwarapudi Swaminaidu Bujji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1260 AP

         THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

             Criminal Revision Case No.783 of 2022

ORDER:

This revision under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC is preferred

aggrieved by order, dated 02.08.2022, dismissing Crl.M.P.No.1329

of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial First Class

Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise), Visakhapatnam, in Crime No.19 of

2022 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam, filed under

Section 457 CrPC for interim custody of the seized cash of

Rs.7,24,340/-.

2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent/State.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Pendurthi, registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2022 for the

offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P Excise Act, 1968

(Amendment Act 17 of 2000) against the petitioner/A1 and others.

During the course of investigation, the police seized 209 boxes

containing 10,032 bottles. A cash of Rs.7,24,340/- was also seized

on 09.02.2022 from the possession of the petitioner/A1 in the

presence of mediators. It is alleged that the petitioner/A1 was in

BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.783 of 2022

possession of Non Duty Paid Liquor ('NDPL') bottles. The petitioner

filed petition under Section 46(e) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968,

before the Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau

(SEB), Visakhapatnam, for interim custody of cash. The said

petition was dismissed with an observation that the seized cash is

the sale proceeds of (41) illegal liquor boxes said to have been sold

by the petitioner/A1 and that the question of acquisition needs to be

decided by a competent Court after launching of prosecution against

the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the present petition

in Crl.M.P.No.1329 of 2022 before the trial Court under Section 457

CrPC seeking interim custody of the seized cash of Rs.7,24,340/-.

(b) The prosecution filed counter and opposed the petition stating

that the cash seized is material for trial which is to be marked as

material object and further depending on the outcome of the

judgment, acquisition of seized cash has to be decided and it is

premature to decide the same at this juncture.

4. On contest, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that

the Supreme Court in Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai v. State of

Gujarat 1 held that the seized property should not be kept idle,

unused and misappropriated and that there are specific directions to

the effect that when seized articles are not handed over to the

AIR 2003 SC 638

BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.783 of 2022

claimant, then, the Court may direct that such articles be kept in

Bank lockers, and that therefore, the seized cash of Rs.7,24,340/- is

ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit in State Bank of India, District

Court complex, Visakhapatnam branch.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred this revision

contending that the seized cash is in no way related to the present

crime, and therefore, there cannot be confiscation of the cash.

Further, in view of the guidelines issued in the decision of the apex

Court in Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai (supra), the seized cash has

to be handed over to the petitioner/A1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition

was dismissed by the trial Court on erroneous grounds and that the

cash seized cannot be confiscated. Therefore, he submitted to order

return of the property by following the procedure laid down in the

decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai case

(supra).

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the

amount seized is also part of the property involved in the

commission of the offence as it was procured by selling the NDPL.

He further submitted that the trial Court has rightly directed the

seized cash to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, i.e.,

BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.783 of 2022

State Bank of India, and therefore, the impugned order does not

require any interference.

8. The respondent/State also filed counter which is sworn by the

Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau, Pendurthy,

contending that the petitioner confessed in the presence of

mediators that the seized cash is sale proceeds of NDPL which was

seized and with a mala fide intention of getting back the seized

cash, he falsely alleged that the cash is no way related to Crime

No.19 of 2022. It is further submitted that the seized cash is the

material evidence to establish the commission of the offence by the

petitioner and that three more accused persons are yet to be

apprehended.

9. Insofar as the present case is concerned, as rightly submitted

by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has rightly

passed the order and the cash seized is relatable to the property

involved in the offence, and therefore, there is no merit in the

revision.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 03.03.2023 RAR