Telangana High Court
Sayyed Mohmood vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.23773 of 2025
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in returning
the petitioner's property, which was the case property in
M.O.No.19, ordered to be released vide Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 in
C.C.No.943 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda
(herein after referred as trial court) and letter Dis. No.120/2025,
dated 19.04.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondent No.2 to
release the case property.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is
involved in scrap business for more than three decades at
Chennai. He is doing the business legally by complying all the
statutory formalities. It is further submitted that the petitioner
never committed any offence nor involved in any criminal cases.
Based on a fictitious complaint filed by one K.Suribabu, Manager
(P &A) Department in USTPL Company, a case has been
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.232 of 2013 of PS
Narketpally for the offences under Sections 420, 264 and 265 of
IPC by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed
charge sheet for the offences under Sections 420, 264, 265, 267,
407, 408 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 65 and 66 of
Information Technology Act, 2000. During the investigation, the
petitioner's property i.e. scrap load has been seized by the
Investigating Officer i.e. respondent No.2. It is further submitted
that the respondent No.2 filed charge sheet along with the seized
scrap load weighing 65,000 kgs worth of Rs.16,25,000/- and
deposited the same vide Form No.60 before the trial court. The
trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and conducted
trial vide C.C.No.943 of 2014. Thereafter, the trial court
acquitted the petitioner of all the charges since the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt vide its judgment dated 26.07.2016.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the de facto complainant filed a
Criminal Appeal vide Crl.A.No.155 of 2016 and the same was
dismissed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda, confirming the judgment of the trial court, on
23.06.2023. It is further submitted that after dismissal of the
criminal appeal, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 in
C.C.No.943 of 2014 for return of his property, which was marked
as M.O.No.19 and the said application was allowed by the trial
court directing respondent No.2 to return the case property in
favor of the petitioner vide letter Dis.No.120 of 2025. It is
further submitted that the petitioner approached respondent
No.2 with the said letter requesting to return his property. But
the respondent No.2 failed to comply the order of the trial court.
Questioning the action of respondent No.2, the present Writ
Petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Home placed a copy of
instructions before the Court issued by Sub-Inspector of Police,
Narketpally Police Station - respondent No.3, wherein it is
submitted that a complaint is lodged by
Sri Kodavati Suribabu, Manager (P &A) Department in USTPL
Company, Narketpally. On receipt of the complaint, FIR No.232
of 2013 was registered against the petitioner (A1) on 19.09.2013
and other accused for the offences under Sections 420, 264,
265, 267, 407, 408 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 65
& 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 by the Station House
Officer, Narketpally Police Station, Nalgonda District. It is
further submitted that since there was no sufficient place in the
premises of Police Station to keep the said scrap, the same was
handed over to the complainant company with instructions to
keep the same under safe custody until further orders.
Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has enquired and recorded the
statements of the employees, who worked in the USTPL
Company. After recording their statements, the seized iron scrap
was dumped in the complainant's company and photographs
were taken on 20.08.2025 and the same were annexed to the
copy of instructions.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to
4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent No.2 has not complied the order passed in
C.C.No.943 of 2024 dated 26.07.2016 and the letter dated
19.04.2025 vide Dis.No.120 of 2025, which was directed to
return the seized iron scrap to the petitioner. However, in
contravention, the iron scrap was dumped in the complainant's
company premises and it is for the respondent No.2 to handover
the same to the petitioner.
6. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2 is directed
to take the stock of the iron scrap, which has been dumped in
the complainant company's premises and comply the order dated
19.04.2025 vide letter Dis.No.120 of 2025 within a period of four
(04) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also
made clear that for the purpose of identification and for receiving
the material, the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent
authorities and the petitioner shall make their arrangements in
removing the stock from the complainant's company.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this
petition, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 20.08.2025
Nsk
