Janardhan Sambaraju vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 177 Tel

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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