The High Court · 2025

The State of A.P., through S.l. of Police Chiwemula P.S., Nalgonda District, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT(COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER -7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE gI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.846 OF , oo8 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed, seekirr release of amount to an extent of Rs.g,4g,9Oo conhscated by the trial Court, pursuant to th _, ;an ordcr lor - rvhich was Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and confirmed lr the Appellate Court.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Chatakani '/:nkata yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri . ithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prose ) rtor for the respondent-S tate.

3. The case of the prosecution beforc the triir. Court is that the accused is a notorious criminal and worked n pDSU from 1981 to 1983 and thereafter worked as District pr .sident in the year 1984 and from 1985 to l9B9 he worked as.lr rdhra pradesh Vice President and from 1992 Lo 1992 he workr:rl as Member of Rylhu Coolie Sangham, from 1997 he rvorked i Janashakthi Rajannavargam and thereafter, he worked il:i Secretarv in Rajanna Group at Warangal, thus, he Lhrcatenecl t le Contractors and Busrness men and collccted huge amoun I s lowards party fund on point of revolver It is allegcd that cn n.At .,2OOO he wenr .{ 2 D TD,J CRLRC.No.816 2008 to Gundala Village and met Manoj Kumar Jain of Jain Trading Company who is a Managing Director and demanded a sum of Rs. I0,O0,OOO/- towards party fund, but he refused to pay such huge amount, on which he threatened him on the point of revolver and demanded an amount of Rs.g,5O,OO0/-, pursuant to which the said person-Manoj Jain has given an amount of Rs.S,OO,OOO/- and that thc accused threatened him on the point of knife and snatched au,ay thc suitcase from him containing remaining amount of Rs.3,49,90Ol _, while the accused was coming towards Penpahad, he r.r,as caught by the Police and the police could recover the amount and also the arms and explosive from the accused. A case u,as registered and investigated and the accused was charged with 3g4 of IpC, Section 2S(f )(a) of Arms Act and Sections 3 and S of Explosive Substances Act. The trial Court after examining the entire evidence placed on record has held that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, has acquitted the accused and the amount seized from the accused was confiscated, as the accused could not place any evidence on record to show that the amount belongs to him. Subsequently, the accused has approached the Appellate Court for release of the said amount and the same was dismissed vide its Judgment dated 2g.Ol.2006 in Crl.A.No. t3O of 2OO4. / / J I]TD,J CRLRC No 816 200E

4. The petitioner counsel has submitted tl) rt \^.hen the accused is found not guilty, the amount has to be : turned to the petitioner from whom it is seized and when the ,: ial Court has acquitted the accused, it ought to have released thc said amount. It is the case of the appeltant and his brother I W1 that they invested Rs.3,0O,O0O/- each in Sneha Chemicals [,urajpally and that they received the said amount on 1,2 .06.21 lO and while getting the amount the Police have apprehended Lc appellant ,. Though they have taken such a plea there is no i,a of evidence on record that they have invested Rs.3,00,O00/ and that the Sneha Chemicals has paid them Rs.8,48,9OO,r in return on

12.06.2000. Thus, the Appellate Courr has dismiss :d the appeal. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision i; preferred.

5. Perused the record

6. A perusal of the record reveals that th: accused was charged with serious offences under Section 384 ,t IpC, Section 25(t)(b)(a) of Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of Il I Act, but was acquitted as the prosecution could not prove t I r case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, he was acquittecl. 1 dmittedlv, the offence of extortion i.e., 384 of IPC could not be pr rved before the trial Court as prosecution failed to examine Ma r r har Jarin , from w}gm the accused is atleged to have cxtortcd rn( -tey. When the )- { EI'D.J CRLRC.No 846 2008 offence of extortion is not proved, the contention of the accused is that the amount belongs to him and thus, it has to be returned to him, but the onus lics on thc petitioner to show and explain how he has received such a huge amount. No explanation is offered by the petitioner for receiving such amount, except their contention that they have invested in Sneha Industries i.e., his brother and himself had invested Rs.3,0o,000/- each and that in return Sneha Industrics has paid them the said amount of Rs.8,48,900/ on

12.06.2000. To substantiate their defense, the accused must have produced some evidence atleast to show that they have invested amounts in Sneha lndustries. Further, they must have placed evidence to shou' that the Sneha Industries has paid them Rs.8,48,90O/- on the said date. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted to be true. :'DW I got examinecl before the trial Court, but no evidence in this regard. When the petitioner cannot explain unt i.e., Rs.8,a8,900/- which was seized from course of inves[igation, he is not entitled for the i there are no merits in the petition and the same a,r rqirult the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. I.ID.J CRLITC No 816 2008 Miscellaneous applications pending, iI anr, shall stand closed S,I /- A.V.S. PRASAD DI: ,UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER To, .1. The ll Additronal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet \ 2 The Assistant Sessions Judge at Suryapet 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S,t rte of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav Advocate [OPUC ] 5. Two CD Copies VII/PSL I HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER CRLRC.No.846 of 2008

4.: 0 .t -' l..t T A ,qN 2l]2[ 7 () 3 . .i,' DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. q J $