The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 ;;.a ying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of (- r minal Petition, .the High Court may be pleased to grant interim custody of rten- No 1 vide C.P.R. No. 189/2018, i.e.. an amount of Rs.5,80,65,0001 (Five C.crr Eighty-Five Lakhs and Sixty-Five thousand only) together with accrued in or )s[ [hereon to the petitioner. pending disposal. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing :t e firlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argu rre rts of lr4r. l\4 RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Publir. )rosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR WI{ANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7829 OF 2025 : ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fited under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sarhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the judgment dated

30.O1.2025 passed in C.C.No.762 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, to the extent of confiscation of Item No.1 vide C.P.R.No. 189 l2Ol8 i.e., an amount of Rs.5,8O,65,OOO/- (Five Crore Eighty Five Lakhs and Sixty Five thousand only) ald seeking a consequential direction to the respondent to refund Item No.1 vide C.P-R.No.l89 l2Ol8 i.e., an amount of Rs.5,8O,65,OOO/- (Five Crore Eighty Five Lakhs and Sixty Five thousald only), together with accrued interest thereon to the petitioner herein/A1.

2. Heard Mr. M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor appea-ring for re spondents. 2 Jr\K, J ( RLP 7829 202-5

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused I,k:. 1 submitted that prosecution failed to establish that the (.i.:,h seized was intended for bribing the voters. That trial ( tor-rrt passed juclgment dated 30.01.2025 in C.C.No.762 of j2rl 13 acquitting petitioner/ accused No. 1 and other accused urtder Section 248(ll of Code of Criminal procedure (for short ,, jr.p.C,). That trial Court ordered for confiscation of lte nr No.1 vide C.P.R.No. 189/2OI8 (i.e., an amount of Rs..j [10,65,000/_). Aggrieved by the order, present criminal petiti.r.r is iired.

3. i On the basis of a case (suo moto) r.r:.s,istered vide Cr.No.5l6 of 20i8, for offences under Secti.r.s 17 lB, 468, 47 1,420, l2OB of Indian penal Code, 1g6O (for_short .IpC,) at P.S. Jangaon, investigation was taken up. Chrrr-11e sheet was filed for offences under Sections 171E, 42C of IpC and Section 191 of Motor Vehicles Act, 199g. It is rt:f ected in the charge sheet that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ,.iolated the election code of conduct, transporting huge r-,naccounted money, to hand over the money to other accus;e d. It is also submitted that principa_l Junior Civil Judgc ,:rm_Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, after consicle r ng oral and 3 JAK. J CRLP 7829 2025 ,.a I l, documentarlz evidence, concluded that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused. It is lastly submitted that since a Court of competent jurisdiction has found the accused not guilty of offences, amount with accrued interest has to be paid to petitioner.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State submitted that against the order dated 28.06.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2019 (filed by petitioner herein) by the V Additional Sessions Judge, II-ffC, Warangal, State preferred Crl.P.No.852 O of 2019. That a iearned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2022 disposed of Crl.P.No.852O of 2019, directing the trial Court to decide in detail the issue of ownership or otherwise of the amount seized under the cover of panchanama and dispose of the property in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the trial Court decided the matter in respect of criminal case and acquitted the accused, but, the Court failed to give any finding nor passed aly order (as per the directions of this Court) concerning the ownership of Item No.1 vide C.P.R.No.189 /2018, amount confiscated by the State. 4 JAK, J cRt.P 7829 2025

5. Heard learned counsels, perused the recc,r'c , considered , the submissions

6. A vehicle bearing No.AP-37CK-4985 was i)rl.ercepted by Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S. Jarrgaon, with hir,, staff at SST check point, Pembarthy, an amount of Rs.5,8C).'a5,000/- rvas seized under the cover of panchanama. A r::r;e in Crime No.516 of 2018 came to be registered, inv,r:; igation \vas taken up, charge sheet filed. In C.C.No.762 of 2t.r.,23 ln Crime No.516 of 2018, Principal Junior Civil Judgr: < um-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, by juc g ment dated 3O.O1.2O25, held that Al to A3, A8 and A10 r:ot guilty for offences under Section 17 I E and 42O of IPC.

7. At the crime state, Crl.M.P.No. 100 of 201! came to be filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. by one Kirthi Kumar Jain (petitioner herein) for interim custody of the s,: zed amount i.e., 5,80,65,OOO/-. It was submitted by Kirrhi Kumar Jain (respondent therein-petitioner herein) that the rmount was intended for purchasing land and was meant lirr payment as part of agreement of sale. Tria,l Courr dismissed v ,'l . 1 1 ) JAK, J CRLP 7829 2025 Crl.M.P.No.1O0 of 2Ol9 on L3.O2.2019. Aggrieved, Crl.R.P.No.1l of 2Ol9 carne to be filed under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. (by petitioner herein) before the V Additional Sessions Judge, II-FTC, Warangal, at jangaon, the Court passed orders on 28.06.20 19 committing the case to the Special Court dealing with the offences relating to money laundering.

8. Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.06.2019, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 126 of 2Ol9 was filed seeking revision of orders and the said petition was disposed of on 19.ll.2Ol9 by the following order: "In the result, the petition is disposed of moditytng the order, dated 2a.O6.2O19, passed in Crl.R.P.No.1l of 2019, by remanding the matter to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jargaon, in Crl.M.P.No. 1O0 of 2Ol9, dated 13.02.2019 wrth a direction to dispose of the petition according to iaw a-fresh".

9. Aggrieved, Cr1.P.No.852O of 2Ol9 came to be hled by State before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 14.07.2022 held as follows: " 18. The orders of the revisional Court dated 2A.O6.2OL9, did not speak or mention that the orders of the trial Court in Cr1.M.P.No.1O0 of 2O19 were set aside. So long as the orders of the trial Court are not set aside, again it creates a confusion, if a direction is given to the trial Court to re-hear 6 JAK, J cRr.P 7829 2025 the mattcr in Crl,M.P.No.lOO of 2O19. In ar-,.,, :vent, the orders of the rer.isional Court in Crl.M.P.No.l.l r of 2019 cannot sustain as criminal Court cannot enle rtain any rer.iew of orclers.

19. It is also further to be noted that beforr. rraking an order to thc tnal Court to re-here and dispose o: he matter afresh, the rcvisional Court must frnd out as tc why and under u,hat ground the matter has to be reman:1,.d back to the trial Court. On perusal of the order under clli llenge, no reason mentioned as to why the matter was rcrorl rded back to trial Cou rt.

20. Learnecl Public Prosecutor sought for quashn en1 of the orders passcd b1. the Sessions Judge in Crl.l\l .P \o.126 of 2019 in Crl.R.P.No.ll ot 2019, dated 19.11.2019. If this petitron is allowed in total, it amounts to uoh rlding the orders passcd b_v the revisional Court in Crl. Fl. ,.No. 1 1 of 2019 dated 28.06.2019, wherein a direction \ .rJ grven to the trial Court to refer the matter to the Spe.ia,l Court undcr the PML Act, which itself is incorrect. Ir r:, rse, if this petition rs dismissed, it a-lso amounts to uph,)[c rng of the orders of the revisional Court in permitting the rr:''iew- Consiclering the circumstances discusse(i. above, in order to meet tJ.e ends of justice, tJle followillS rrdcrs are passcd-

21. Th,e criminal petition is disposed of setting aside the orders datcrl 19.11.2019 passed by the revisioni:l Court in Crl.M.P.No.l26 ot 2019 in Crl.R.P.No.11 of t,t()19. The orders of the revisional Court directing the tr-1,1 Court to refer Lhe matter to the Special Court constitut,::l under the Money Laundering Act are also set aside.

22. The orders of the trial Court passed in Crl \ .P.No.l0O of 2O 19 arc hereby conhrmed with a direction t r tJ.e tria-l Court to complete the tria.l as expeditiously as po tsible may be within (3) months from the date of receipl ,: f a copy of this order ald to decide in detail the ou,r: ership or otherwise o[ the monev seized to a tune of Rs.5,;,i( ),65,000/- on 3rd ald 4th o[ December, 2018 under t:r, cover of panchalama and disposc of the property accord rrgly as per law." - '7 JAK, J CRLP 7829 2025 /t'- 1 O. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Crl.P.No.852O of 2019, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, passed judgment dated 30.01.2025 in C.C.No.762 of 2023. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: "38, Findings: 38. 1. The prosecution failed to establish that the cash was intended for bribing voters. No witnesses from the alleged constituencies (Khamrnam, Warangal East, artd Parkal) were examined, and no evidence was presented to prove the money was disturbed or intended to influence voters. 38.2- The prosecution's inadequate investigation was riddled with procedural irregularities, including the absence of on-site seizure parrhcanamas, non-examinaLion of independent witnesses, and the failure of produce material evidence like call records and forged documents. 38.3. The defence of Al successfully demonstrated that the money was intended for a Iegitimate purpose (land purchase). The agreements (Ex.D1 to D5) and DW1's testimony were credible and consistent, casting reasonable doubt on the prosecuLion's allegations. 38.4. The prosecution failed to link these accused A8, A10 ald All to the seized cash or the alleged offence of voter bribery. Mere association or ownership of the vehicle does not establish culpability without supporting evidence. 39. Basing on the above frndings the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented was insuflicient, inconsistent, and marred by procedura.l lapses. The defence's evidence, on the other hand, raised reasonable doubt about the allegations. 40. In the result, the accused/A1 to A3, A8, AlO are not found grrilty for the offences under Sections l7l(E),42O of IPC and Section 191 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, A1 to A3, A8, A10 & AII are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/Al to A3, A8, A10 & A11 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the 8 JAK, J CRLP 7829 2025 r date of ttris judgment as per Sec.437-A of' t-lr'.P.C. for preferring appeal to higher Court. Item I' o.1 vide C.P.R.No. lag l2ol8 shall be confiscated to ste [( and t]re remaining casc properties and lvlO I and l1()3 r,ide C.P.R.No. l8gl2Ol8, vide CPR.No.15al2O2l shal. be made absolutt: after expiry of appeal period. "

11. This order dated 30.01.2025 ts under ch1 Lenge in the present crimina-l petition. As stated supra, lezrrned counsel for petitioner/ accused No.1 submitted that he arnount seized should be returned u-ith interest. Learne,r:l rtounsel also prayed for quashing of the judgment dated :;t.01.2025 in C.C.No.762 of 2023. That petitioner was tallrng the said arnount for the purpose ol his business a-I1d tl-r,: prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. [r is further submitted that amount was deposited, but was lrot refunded to petitioner, hence, refund is being sought arrrl the quashing of judgment dated 30.01.2025 in C.C.No.762 ot2O23.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing frl' respondent- State submitted that in the judgment of the tria I Court, there is no finding rendered in respect of the own€r;hip of Item No.1 vide C.P.R.No. l89/2018 i.e., confiscatt:r1 amount (of Rs.5,8O,65,OOO/-) and the trial Court failed 1.< decide the ownership of the amount seized. Hence, matter lre remanded ----7 L 7 9 JAK. J CRI_P 7829 2025 to trial Court to decide the issue in the light ol the evidence and record available with the trial Court.

13. This Court, having considered the entire factual matrix of the case, is of the opinion that interests ofjustice would be met, if trial Court be requested to decide the ownership with regard to Item No.1 vide C.P.R.No. l89 l2Ol8, as trial Court has not rendered a hnding nor adjudicated in respect of Item No. 1 vide C.P.R.No. 189/2OI8 i.e., confiscated amount of Rs.5,8O,65,OOO/-. L4. For reasons aforesaid, judgment dated 3O/OLl2025 in C.C.No.762 of 2O23 passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The trial Court is requested to decide the ownership of item No.1 vide C.P.R.No.La9 l2OLa and pass orders afresh.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowedl Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Note: This order is modified as Per Court order dated 14-10-2025 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.P. No. 7829 of 2025 al ParagraPh Nos. 14 and 15. Sd/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR This revised copy of the order dated 11-08-2025 substitutes the earlier order dispatched on 07-10-2025 //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL )l:\U REGIS 1 dS "lCTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 The Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Jangaon Dist The Station House Officer, Jangaon Police Station, Jarg;ron Dist. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS a1 11rderabad One CC to Mr tvl RAM |\,4OHAN REDDY, Advocate [Of, JC] Two CD Copies (our) a I I i S'iA I€ I I 2$i5 tI P Z C).\ ti:. {i7 ." .., -,,rl-)y'' 1-' J- -/' i3 1 * l_ HIGH COURT DATED: 1110812025 1411012025 ORDER CRLP.No.7829 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PET!T!ON IS DISPOSED OF. { LI