Shaik Mohd Khadeer vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 828 Tel

Telangana High Court

Shaik Mohd Khadeer vs The State Of Telangana on 6 January, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.14385 of 2024
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the

petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the orders passed by the

learned Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cases, Hyderabad

in Crl.M.P.No.924 of 2024, dated 05.11.2024 in Crime No.147 of

2024, dated 08.09.2024 on the file of Kalapattar police Station,

Hyderabad, registered for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act.

2. Heard M/s.B.Shirisha, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.1 - State.

3. Though this petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in

the crime, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for

petitioner has sought for directions seeking for release of the seized

amount i.e. Rs.41,50,000/- which was deposited before Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate for Excise cases, Hyderabad on 20.09.2024 by

the SHO, Kalapathar Police Station.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court

failed to consider that the petitioner was not present at the alleged

location and had no involvement in the activities conducted there. As

per the principle established in catena of judgments, mere presence or

association does not imply guilt. The seizure of Rs.41,50,000/- was

executed without proper justification or legal basis, as the petitioner

was not connected to the alleged crime. Further the trial Court

dismissed the application for release of the seized amount upon the

petitioner's failure to provide documentation regarding the source of

the said amount. Hence seeks to release the seized amount.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the release of

the seized amount of Rs.41,50,000/-.

6. However, in the said circumstances, without going into the

merits of the case, as the trial Court has dismissed the application on

the ground that petitioner failed to provide documentation regarding

the source of the seized amount, the petitioner is directed to file the

proper documentation before the trial Court with regard to the source

of seized amount. Thereupon, the trial Court shall consider the

application on merits in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand

closed.

_____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 06.01.2025.

BV