High Court · 2025

blic Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. The Station House Officer, Suryapet I own Police Station, Suryapet District. ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BN S praying that in the circumstances the petition, the High Court may be cipal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial llow the petition filed by the petitioner 2o24, in C.C.No. 427 OF 2018 (Old mber the petition filed by the petitioner stated in the affidavit filed in support of pleased to direct the Court of the Pri Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet to Uls. 452 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.180 O C.C.No. 781 OF 2014) and to allow and n Uls. 473 of Cr.P.C. for condo nation of del Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Chinna Po aiah Rayamalla Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri M Vive Public P nanda Reddy, Assistant The Court made the following: ORDER FFry :1 ' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAI REVISION CASE No.578 OF 2o25 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed aggrievcd by the docket order dated 16.04.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 18O ot 2024 in C.C. No.427 of 2O18 (old C.C. No.781 of 2014) on the flle of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum-Judicial First Class Magistr:rt.e, Suryapet whereunder the application filed by the petitioner for return of seized property belonging to the petitioner was returnccl.

2. Heard Mr. Chinna Pochaiah Rayamala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learncd Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 ald 2 and with their consent the Criminal Revision Case is clisposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that thc petitioner is accused No. 1 in C.C. No.427 of 2018 (oid C.C. No.781 of 2ol4l for the offences under Sections 42O, 468, 471, 422 and 475 of IPC. In the above said C.C, the petitioner was acquitted on O2.I1.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner fiied an application viz., \\ 2 Cr1.M.P. No.18O of 2024 invoking e provisions of Section 452 Cr.P.C. seeking to return the se d property belongs to him. However, the Court below, witho t properly. appreciating the contentions raised by the petitione returned the application on the ground of maintainability as e pel il ioner Iiled application after expiry of the statutory period of the appeal time. Learned Counsel submits that in respect of t e very same C.C, the property seized from one of the witness app oached the Court beiow and filed applicatioo uide Crl.M.P. No 39 of 2024 and the learned Magistrate returned the said appli ation with sarne reasons as mentioned in the impugned order. 4- Aggrieved by the said order, t e witness viz., M. Rathnamal approached this Court and filed Cri inal Revision Case No.426 of 2025 and. this Court remanded the matter to the trial Court and directed the learned Magistrate to ss orders afresh on merits in accordance with law.

5. karned Counsel requested s Court to pass the very same order in the present Revision Case ,.Y i I I To, 3

6. The said submission was not opposed b1 the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties and taking into consideration of the orders passed by this Court on O2.O7.2025 in Crl.R.C. No.426 of 2025, it deems fit and appropriate to remit the matter to learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet for considering the matter alresh on merits and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellareous petitions, if any, pending in the Crimina.l Revisi.or-r Case, shall stand closed. SD/. N CHANDRASEKHAR, DEPUry REGISTRAR /\ \i J S ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet

2. The Station House Officer, Suryapet l Town Police Station Suryapet District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRI CHINNA POCHAIAH RAYAMALLA, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK 6 Along with a copy of order dat ed 02-O1-2025 in Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2025. _-:-_ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 '4 ORDER CRLRC.No.578 of 2025 H:: qI. o t_) 2 : t,tJB 2[?5 2: * "tcu!):|, ':: -2 * )a _s a, DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC D 'i: ORDER: THT HON'BLE SMT. JU ICE RENTIKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISION C SE No.4 5 ()F 2025 With the consent of both th learned counsel on record, the matter is taken up for he g and disposed of at the admission stage.

2. Heard Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Re y, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the res ondent-State. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision case is hled aggrieved by the docket order dated L6.O4.2O25 passed i Crl.M.P.No.139 of 2024 in C.C.No.427 of 2018 by the lea ned Principa-l Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicia-l Magistrate of irst Class at Suryapet.

4. A perusal of the record sho s that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 452 Cr. .C. for return of the case propert5r in the subject Calendar ase. The learned lylagistrate returned the said petition stating at the satne was filed with Z a delay of 128 days in spite of the fact that a specific order was passed to file the.petition under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. within the appeal time.

5. Having considered the reasons stated for delay in hling the petition, the matter is remanded back to the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet for considering the matter afresh on merits and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shall stand closed. Date: 02.O7.2025 SSP RTNUKA YARA, J