'"*"[if,;i,'p**,,i#$rJ#drr,**ipirf v. Ii&::1'

PetitionunderSectionl5lofCPCprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit tir"o"i. .rppi.t ot tn" pLtit.n, the High Court may be Dleased to direct the Police Suraram to remove the seal from the Factory n, e nprrc rndustriar Park, Kondaparri, :;,:,:1;; ;i ;i;i'i.{; Viiavawada, Andhra p,,0"""n tt"f"U in Crime No 299 of 2023 on the file of llllfr,l"vrri ijji cnrt r,rr?i"p"ritr" Masistrate Court at Athevelli, under Sec. 8(c) r/w. 29 NDPS n"t t"'iit"iiitt" polic"e deposit the property before Hon'ble Court. -5s ti. ""Jst Counset for the petitioner: Counset for the Respondent No.1: ADDTTTONAL pUBLIC counser for the Respondent No.2:,r^fl SRI p VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY 'ROSECUTOR ltyHlt?tTlyffi;r, KRTSHNA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT' JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI cRl MINAL REVrst ON CASENo.1 32 ot2 025 ^ ^_.,t\- oRDER Challenging the order' dated 26 07 2024 passed rn Crl.MPNo13 54 of 2024 in Crime No299 of 2023 of PS Suraram, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge' Medchal tvlalkajgiri District at Kushaiguda (for short 'trial Court')' this criminal Revision Case is filed' By the impugned order' the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to remove the seal put on the factory and handover the same to the petitioner towards interim custody' was dismissed'

2. Heard tr/lr'P'Vishnuvardhan Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State Perused the record Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 3. is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he is the owner of thefactorywhichwassealedinCr.No.2ggol2023bythepolice Suraram. He further submits that the accused No'2 was the tenant of the factory who obtained the factory premises on lease for an amount of Rs.6,60,0001 p'a. for a term of 3 years from the petitioner ,. pJ ifra terms and conditions mentioned in the registered lease r 2 crt.R.c.No.l 32 of zi;'J deed vide document No. 1167 of 2021 dated 17.02.2021. He also submitted that there is a specific condition in the lease deed that the lessee i.e. accused N o.2 herein shall not carry on any illegai or unrawfur activity in the said unit' But the prosecution filed the present crime stating that the accused No.2 had been involved in the preparation of alprazolam in the said factory and delivering it to other accused as per their requirement, due to which the said factory was sealed. However, he filed a criminal petition vide Crl.P.No 4600 of 2024 before this Court seeking removat of the seal on the properly and this court on 1g.06.2024 directed the petitioner to file a petition seeking such relief before the tr.ial Court. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition.

4. lt is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered that the petitioner rs the owner of the property and has invested huge amounts and paying the bank loan every month by way of coilecting the rents from the tenant. Due to the registration of the present case and arrest of accused No.2, the entire factory premises have been sealed by the respondent-police on deed was expired on 27.12.2023. Even the registered lease 09.03.2024 and since then' the respondent No 2-accused was not even paying rents for the said factory premistt ---''' .-- 3 ls,l crl.R C.No'132 of 2025

5. He submits that due to the seizure of the said factory he suffers irreparable loss as he has to pay the loan and seeks interim custody of the factory premises lt is further. submitted that the petitioner undertakes to file an affidavit before the trial Court that he would preserve the machinery seized in this crime without disposing or changing the nature of the machinery till conclusion of the trial Hence, PraYS to allow the revision' 6. On the other hand' the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is not a fit case for release of the factory premises to the petitioner and he submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in this case However' he clearly admits that the revision may be allowed subiect to filing an affidavit by the petitioner before the trial Court by undertaking that he wi, not dispose or arter the machinery tiil conclusion of the trial. ln the light of the above submissions' this Court is inclined to 7. direct the petitioner to file an affidavit before the trial Court undertaking that he will not dispose or change the nature of the machinery/equipments which were seized as per confession cum seizure panchnama dated 26 12'2023 from the alleged factory premises which were marked as EQ1 to EQ23 and further directed ( { 4 t c'r.n.c.rvo.r:z orzJiJ for inspection to preserve whenever reguired the said rn2r.h;^^- I machinery and rnake It i trial court till by the petition"'' "ont"'*"'o'" tr'u t'i"' l'iling such an affidavithe investigating n of the trial Upon to"t shall direct the officer k position and hand oru' ro rhe petitione."-r"r::T"t'** ' ''" ;"#":"".t.ffi;' 8 With the above r 'u'ntt"t" the sealed "'t' :ff:;;:;:#";::,:::":,,;:, by the rearneo , ooo,,j District at Kushaiguda in crime No 299 ot 2027: onal sessions Judge, ;il: ffi; Revs.n case s passed in Miscellaneous applications, stand closed. if any pending, shall atso SD/- A.PRATHIMA UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// i SEcrroru oFFtcER To,

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri, Kushaiguda 2. The Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Athvelli, Cyberabad 3. The Station House Officer, Suraram Police Station, Cyberabad 4, Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at s O'i"ic a S'n p vitr'nu'urdhana Reddy' Advocate [oPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI 6p14 /PSI :.=-"'*'*<'--'- 7'=-''7--'=----"':*-'-1 --' HIGH COURT DATED: 2it}gt2o2s _:- -:: -:: --il: ,-'..i ,,t-. i iitr. .1 . .. ', .,: . ._- ORDER CRLRC.No.132 ot zOZs 10 ItT iiilt ALLOWING THE CRLRC I I i i