Kunupudi Vijaya Kumar v. The Director General of Police, State of A.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Order
This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing and not returning the documents seized, pursuant to Seizure Panchanama on 25.7.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. A crime is registered against one Nooka Raju in Cr.No.13/2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent for the offences under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w 109 IPC. In the aforesaid case, the wife of the petitioner is Accused No.7. In connection with the said investigation, it is the case of the petitioner that his house was searched and the respondents have seized several documents numbering about 8, relating to various properties owned by the petitioner and his family members.
In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he is not connected with said Nooka Raju and such documents are seized illegally and as such he seeks Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing such documents, as illegal. When the documents have been seized in connection with a crime, which is already registered and reported to the concerned Special Court for ACB cases in Visakhapatnam, it is for the petitioner to approach the said court. But, when the matter is pending investigation and enquiry, the petitioner is not entitled for declaration from this Court as prayed for. The documents sent are the subject matter of ‘case property’ in Cr.No.13/2011, which is registered for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
If the petitioner seeks release of such documents, while it is open to the petitioner to approach the said court, the petitioner is not entitled for any direction at this stage, as prayed for in this writ petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned court for release of the documents, if he is entitled. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the miscellaneous petitions also stand disposed of. ________________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY DATE: 29.3.2012 CVM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Mar 2012. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.