Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State CBI Hyderabad

Order

Heard Ms. Jayasree Narasimhan, learned counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivasa Rao Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. 2-a) Crl.P.No. 10450 of 2017 is filed under Section 482 of CrPC by the petitioner/accused No.2 (A.2) in C.C.No.1 of 2016 challenging the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.l660 of 2016 in C.C.No.l of 2012 in R.C.No. l7(A) of 2009-CBl/l{yderabad, by the Principal Special Judgc fbr CBI Cases, Ilvdcrabad, and to set aside the same 2-b) Crl.P.No. 10915 o12022 is filed by thc petitioncr, daughter o1'A.2, challcnging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed Crl.M.P.No.23l9 of 2022 in the said C.C.No.i of 2012 and ro set aside the same. 2-c) Crl.P.No. 10917 ol 2022 is filed by the petitioner, son of

4.2, challenging the order dated 05 .09.2022 passed Crl.M.P.No.2381 of 2022 in the said C.C.No.1 ol2012. II 2 Kl- l arlp I o l1:l(ll0l7&batch 3-a) l rl ',1.P.No.1660 of 2016 was filed by '\'2 und'rr Sections 451 and'15i c CrPC, to grant interim custody of 105 terns of gotd ornaments. s,:i d lrom his residence' 3-b)'-.rl'l P.No.2379 of 2022 was filed by rhe tlatrg:ttel of A'2 1660 of l(t (r .Lnder Sections 451 and 457 of (lrPC' to dilcct the respondcnt l'( , l'CBl to release the proceeds pertairinil to Bond Ledger ,'\cc:-rt I i bearing No'TBSHC540202657' r'i'hich rnatured ou

03.04.20 12 trr (l 3-c) ( r Iv1.P-No.2381 of 2022 is filed b1 sorr of '\'2 under Sectionr; -l i l lrcl 45T of CrPC, to direct the resporrdctrt f'Jo l /CBI to release the :,1 ':eeds pertaining to Bond Ledger l\ccc,ttnt No.TBSHC 54020265rr ri 'tch uatured orr03'04'2012 to him' ,1. I'h: ;aid petitions were dismissed by the tlial Court vide separate or,lt ;. Challenging the said orders' the petition':rs fiied the present,:rrt'li I :l Pctitions.

li S,irr, , the parties are common and the lis irivolved in these Crimina.l ):'t t,ons is one and the same, these three Cr..iminal Petitions are being ht'r rJ together and disposed of by way of contmrtl order:

5.'f ,lt :rt'fences alleged against A2 are under Siectiot-ts 120-B' 379,409,.11 l, 120, 427,447,468 IPC an<l under Secliorts 13(2) read ", 3 KI,,J Crlp No.10450 of20l7 & batch with l3(1xd) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for shorr, ,the PC Act').

7. Petitioners filed the aforesaid Crl.M.Ps before the trial Court contending as follows:- A.2 was arested on 05.09.201 i . ii. At the time of his arrest, respondent/CBl seized various immovable properlies inclusive I05 items of gold omaments, having net weight of 53789.900 grams and cash of Rs.2,94,4g, 500/- found at his residential premises. The aforesaid bonds were purchased by A.2 in the name of his son and daughter, the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.10915 of 2017 and 10917 of 2022 Since they were minors, the said bonds wcre in the custody of

4.2 ll l. The said 105 items of gold omaments and cash are mentioned at Sl.Nos.90 ol Form No. 16. Originally list of propefties sent to leamed Magistrate annexed to the charge sheet. lv. The petitioner/ A.2 and his family members are the absolute and exciusive owners of the said gold ornaments and money seized. 'lhe said propefty is absolutely nothing to do with the case property 1 4 (J J ( rlp'io ltll 0 )ll0l7 & batch v. The : l,r after thorough investigation has allegcd that crime rure valued at 884.13 Crores l-l-rc Ellbtcement proc(,e d l-)ilec{o 2!) 0() .l te after thorough enquiry in ECIR/83'/tl '1'1"'010' dated 0 in respect of the said crim'', r'dc plovisional attac hn- : 11 orders No.08/2012 dated 04'1ll 20L'l lras iriready al.tac her properties in the form of shares o1'|4/s Brahmani Indus:t' :;. \r l. lhc l:l r tlid not attach the seized gold ()rllalnln's and cash ntentiir r rd in paragraph No 2 which clarifies :hat those items afe ll()t t,.: to do ri ith the alleged crime' 'l-he . tiorter/A.2 has de clared the said gold orna nents to the Incotft, iax Department, he has paid wealtJr titr' cvt:t'y year' and il le,1 t.. . :Llth tax retums. . Wh:' I icotne Tax Depa(ment has hled ar-r app Iit ation before

1.ht- t ir (louft lor custody of the cash, the trial (lorLrt dismissed lhc sai : application. 1X LIis ,l r,-.glrter is going to get married and tlle seized gold ol'nall- r nts are very much necessary to perform the wedding' -l'h,: r,.itioner/A.2 and his family membets at'e bt:'itlg deprived r-' x ol r;i r,: the gold omaments. The said gold ornarnerts' being the .1 5 KL,J Crlp N0.10450 of20l7 & barch personal propefties of the petitioners, are not subject confiscation. The Investigating Ofhcer has completed investigation in the present case and laid charge sheet. xll. If the said property is kept idle exposed to rust and dust for no purpose, they may lose their look, brightness, intensity and its value apart from causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.

8. Thc petitioners in other two criminal petitions, daughter. and son ol A.2, flled the aforesaid two criminal petitions vide Crl.M.P.No.238l and 2379 of 2022 seeking a direction to CBI to release the proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid two bonds contending as lbllows:- i. On 03.04.2006 certain Saving bonds with Stock Holding Corporation of lndia Limited ( for shor1, 'SHCIL') Folio Nos.TBSHC5 40202656 and T8SHC540202657 were purchased in the name of the petitioners. ll. As they were minors at the time of investment, A.2 remained as custodian of the aforesaid mentioned bonds till the petitioners attained majority i 6 kL.l i rlt) '.1 ll j0 ol l( l7 & batch iii. The riri ronds were matured on 03'04'2012' 'Ih: lrroceeds of the lL{o , rlaid bonds to be released to the petitionels' iv. The !,l llL informed the petitioners thal in lurlherance to noti:: rrclet section 102 of Cr'P C' issubd b1 C BJ duling the .,,l.1'''s ,rl investigation in RC'No 17(Ay2009 CBI/H1'd' from the ol l,,c ol the Additional Superintendent :1 I'otjcc' CBI' ,\Cl, :'iderabad, it is unable to release the plo!-tr-(s pcrtaining 1o the : aid bonds without specific instructions li' ln the CBI irnd tl-t the procecds therelrom have bectt lept in suspense tlcC Otl 1'be ir1 : qcd offences are nothing to do with thc sai<l bonds' The per ioc ',1' grant of minir.rg lease is lrom 2007 t'r l0 l0 ll.re said lact rr . rrld disclose from the charge sheet' vi. r-Bt I ,, flled a memo on 16'07'202I in CC No I of 2012 stalin . that the investigation is cornpletcd itr thr'r rnatter and thelc' r,.e no further repofls to be fiied urder Ser:tirru 173 (8) ol (lr,l) vii. Sc<lic 102 Cr.P.C. empowers a police olflcer to seize a pr r l( rt,\ which forms a suspicion for con''tnission of an cf hrn r:, a\ 7 KL,J Crlp N0.10450 of20l7 & batch viii. The subject bonds are nothing to do with the aforesaid proceedings in C.C.No.l of 2012. With the said submissions, they sought a direction to the respondents-CBl to release proceeds peftaining to the aforesaid bonds which were matured on03.04.2012.

9. The CBI filed counter opposing the said applications contended as follows:- The petitioners are not owners of the said propefiy and they have not filed any documents in proof of prl ma facie ownership of the said property.

11. The said propefty is proceeds of crime. The cash has been invested in the tbrm of term deposit for a period of three years. The gotd ornaments were seized during the search and the same was intimatcd to the trial Court which are deposited in the locker of Malkhana of CBI, I{yderabad, as per the directions of the trial Court. The allegations levelled against A.2 are serious and grave in nature. 1V The case against A.2 is of much magnitude, they looted public exchequer/property to a tune of several crores of property to 8 I l-J -r F'i I )l:t of 20l:' &batch ilk:ga ' rr r -ring inasmuch as the gold ornaments : or'ight to be returr'€ cl I o have been rnarked at the time ol' trit l' tl ey cannot be ler r rt , I to the petitioners A'2 has been delay n q t rial before friut-rir g , 'charge A.2 irr"e rl:d ilt-gotten money to a tune of 5 (lror:s rr SHCIL in o1- his son and daughter' I'he saic pr'rceeds are the ,l;tr L: pendi rS tlrsposal of the case and subject mattcr or'the crlme pr(1c33(: rr4rich cannot bc released at that stagc

10. \/ cl ' orders dated 25'10 2016 and 05 0!r'l0 ll' l':an.red trial Coufi dismir;; I lhe said applications holding that: ' i.C.C.|]cof2Ol2ispostedforframingofcharg.esagainstthe ac cL se( ii. Protie i rres in C'C'No'1 of 2012 were stai'cd b'r tl.ris Courl tn (lrl.P.) ,,s 6399 of 2016 filed by A'3' iii. r\t t'r i ; stage, A 2 hled a petition un<ler S:ct ion 45 I in (lrl.lr'x .No. 1660 0f 2016 c c'No'1 0f 2012 tr' 6rrant interim r:usrrd , of the gold' iv. Du'in the course of search in the residential pret-n; ses of A'2 at Bcll rr ' gold ornaments, stated to be inclucling t crr-ain diamond t1 9 KL.J Crlp No 104s0 of20l7 & batch jewellery and platinum jewellery in all 53789,900 grams apart from huge cash were seized. The gold omaments are in the custody of CBI in its Malkhana, at Hyderabad. VI Separate search proceedings were drawn by means of search list prepared on that day in the presence of mediators. vii. The contention of the A.2 that gold ornaments or cash are nothing to do with the alleged crime, they cannot be subject matter of the confiscation cannot be accepted at this stage. vl lt. He cannot take such ground which touches upon the merits ol the case. A decision has to be taken whether they are liable for confiscation or not. only afler full-fledged trial, after evidencc is let in by the prosecution in this case There is ref-erence to proceedings initiated by ED and petition filed by Income Tax Dcpartment x At the time of search, the request of A.2's wife -Smt.Aruna, 3590 grams of gold jewellery apart from cash of approximately 4 Lakhs fbund in an almirah attached to the bedroom of the petitioneriA.2 in their house were retumed citing reasons. -T I r0 l(l.J (l rp \,) 045001 201?&batch 'Ihr:re .,re, A.2 family can make use of the sard gold jervellery ln ,11,: ,''re of marriage of their daughter xl. Adrit,'Cty, A.2 made investments in SlICIl. in the form of lor ( ri 'r 2006. Same are proceeds of iiirne. I: I) ltas already pass,r( :rrovisional attachment order alleging rh,rt the proceeds of crrir r : rvere investigated by adjudicating authoritv. The matter I,c r,ling before the Apex Court. A.4-(iornpany filed \\. ).\,,,17210 of 2009 challenging G O.l\l:.No,467 dated 1 7.1 I lr.)09 against which writ appeal vide W.n. \c,.532 of 2010 wa:i i.ed and Division Bench of this (l()ur1 held that inr,:;t lrltion is limited only for the purposc of illcgal mining acf t t1 rs x1t. r\... Ls r: liberty for renewal of bonds with a vic'v ro change the anr)Lu 1 u,ithout keeping the samc in the sr-ispert:c tLccount. The alnlur l:; of the father were attached by the' EI-"-r iire so conferred

1.1 tJr,: rd.judicating authority. The matter is p:rding before the Ap: r .lour1. Therefore, the petitioners are r ot entitled for rec 3l\ r rg proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid bond; 1 1. r''l r',11.n*irrg the said orders, the petitioner:, llle d the present Criminal Pe . ons /-.- 1 l1 KL,J Crlp No 10450 of20I7 & barch

12. Leamed counsel for the petitioners and leamed Special Pubiic Prosecutor for CBI made their submissions extensively placing reliance on various judgments which will be dealt with in the following paragraphs

13. Leamed Speciat Public Prosecutor for CBI raised objections with regard to maintainability of the present petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of CI.P.C. According to him, the impugned orders are llnal orders. Therefore, the petitioners have to file a Revision in terms of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Instead of filing revision, they have filed the present Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the prohibition under Section 397(2) of CrPC, the criminal petitions are not rnaintainable. The order in Crl.M.P.No.166012016 in C.C.No.l of 2012 is dated 25.10.20t6. The petitioners have to file a Revision within a period of 60 days in terms of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. On expiry of the said period, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.l0450 of 2017 filed the said petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only on 27.10.2011 to get over from the said limitation. Therefore, Crl.P.No. 1045 0 of 2017 is liable to be dismissed on the said ground only. 1-hus, according to him, the impugned orders are finaloqders and they are not interim orders. I l :i I i I 7 t) KL,J ( rlf l.o lar4r0oi:0t7&batch 1 4. I r r - r: light of the same, it is relevarr t to 10 e that the petitioners ile 1 the aforesaid applications under Sectiorrs 4:j L and 457 of Cr.PC s::l irg inlerim custody of the gold and seel'ing a dilection to CBI to r,:l rse the proceeds of the aforesaid bonds lrhich were matured on 0l )4.2012.

15. (,-rr f ier XXXIV of CrPC deats with drspostrl <'f properly' Section '151 t t CI.P.C. deats with order for custody errd disposal of propefl) pcn, tlg trial in certain cases and the salllc is extracted below:-

451. Orller I or t ustody and disposal of property Pending trial in certa n cases' ., property is produced before any Criminal ( !)LtrL during anv r . lhe Court may make such order as it thinks IrL lirl the proper , h property pending the conclusiotr of thc inqt ir " o r Lrial' and' is subject to speedy and natural decal' or iL L i;othcrrvise i., do. the Coufi may, after recording such cvicler ct: as it thinks rl(rr it to be sold or othenvise disposed olt xplz'nrLtir'n - L'or the nis section, "property" includes -(a)propert"' c1 :nv kind or rich is produced before the Court 'rr r'llich is ln its - l' propefty regarding which an offence iLppelLlt tt havc boen r rrhich appears to have been used lor thc co rlnission of any \\'hc r : inquili o ri cLrsto,-ll i j s if the or(,f cr cxpcdictti.;c llecesSal' . () Purposcs I )f docu'ler t custodl I L )r committ,rtl , offerLc e.

16. iic :r.ion 457 of Cr.P.C. deals with procedule b1 police upon seizure tl1 pr rrrefiy and the same is extracted belo*':- 7 13 KL.J Crlp No 10450 of20l7 & batch

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (l)Whenever the seizure of property by any police ofhcer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such properry is not produced beforc a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting thc disposal of such propefiy or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production ol such properly.(2)If the pcrson so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order thc property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Maglstrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistratc may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the arliclcs o1'which such property consisl.s, and requiring any person who may have a olaim thcreto, to appcar belore him and establish his claim within six months fiom the date ol such proclamation.

17. There is no dispute that the said gold and bonds were seized during search by CBI from the residential premises o1' A.2. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against A.2 and others. The said propefties are specifically mentioned in the Annexure appended to the said charge sheet

18. The issue as to whether the order passed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the property is an interlocutory ordef or final order, is no more res integra 7 14 rl lr i ( t.,J

1.1i0 ol2(rl7 & batch

19. It i: :elevant to note that in K'Prudhvi vs' l('liravanthir' this Cotrrt ; a nq reliance on the principle laid dorvn br.the Hon'ble Apex Court jr :ieveral cases in paragraph Nos 15,16, ]'' a'rd 25' hetd as follou's: - l5. Iir {trr interirr ancl other,.tcrls terminatiori arlcillan i,rt aid in de: tl l6 ,\.r interrr ct irt liabilit.ie; c termcrl I s a decickxl t,.t inter loc I lt,',1 result I appljcat I rr procced Lr t mainl airti Ll.r 24. lhi; ACC()rdr n !l maitttet an, clearlr s a rcr clari$, an interlocutory order is the one rvhich is . :nlporary in nature. lt is the oppositc of a fina order' in an intcrlocutory order will not rcsull in ':tllttt nati(ln or rf final proceedings. Interlocutory ']l-de's ar e llercly ,''s rvhich are decided at the intcrim stage aniI srtch ordcrs r 1-r thc final rights and liabilities of tlie parli':s ' ()rdcr passed in an interlocutory applicatiotr 'luring the stage of the proceedings might decicle thc ights antl ' parties. Such an order though inter locttro -,r' has to be r 'intermediate order'. An interlocutorl appli:at on can be r,:'r wavs. lf it is decided in onc rv rr ir mirlht bc an , ordcr. but if the samc is decided the othtrr ''rI )' i1 might . ulmination of procecdings. Thcretbre' tn clictcutory rvhcre the orders might result in t trlrn nation of rhall be treated as intermediate orclcrs asiLin;t r'vhich a 'rlication undcr Section 397 (2) af trc rlr'P C is r [Sce Girish Kumar Suneja (Supra) l' riloLrrt has perused all the abovemention -'d clecisions' . tlris Court, a revision againsl the or'ler 1 r rnl ng intcrim i is not maintainable. The decisions o1' the S up: 'cme Court . that a revision under Section 397 is mair Lalnable only ,Crl.k.{l".SR \ro.3 198 of 2022 t5 KL,J Crlp No.10450 of20t7 & barch against an intermediate order and a final order. As stated above, an intermediate order is an order which if decided in a certain way will havc the effcct of terminating or culminating the proceedings against one party. A claim for interim maintenance even if decided in lavour of the husband will not affcct the main proceedings. Interim maintenance is only a temporary relief granted to the wife till the main case is decided. The aggrieved husband always has the option of challenging the interim maintenance with the final order.

25. The bar on exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 391(2) of the Cr,P.C. is to prevcnr tiling ol applicarions challenging interim orders and thereby pr*,enting thc delay in the completing thc trial. Where only an interim order not cffecting thc final rights of the pafties is passed, a revision cannot be filed. Therefore, an order granting interim maintenance is only an interlocutory order and not an intermediate order.

20. In Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan2, three Judge Bench of the Apex Court categorically held that despite availability of alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable when there is manifest abuse ofprocess of law or other extra ordinary situations.

21. Vide order dated 15j2.2021 in Crl.P.No.9175 of 202l,this Court held that a petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the property ls an 'interlocutory order' and '(2016) l6 scc 30 16 Kt-,J alrlD \i 01 i0 of2|ll & batch rctition filed under Section 4tJ2 ol- 'lr'P'C rs therefore, . maintainablr'

21. ln ! rnt. Anisa Begum vs. Masoom Ali3, D'ilri High Court held that a't rr ,leL under Section 451 of CrPC. ii not inte n'led even to decide the r g L s of the parties to pass on the propeny llrod rced before the coutt a lt it is only intended to ensure propet' cuslodl' of the propertl'dLrli r,:. the pendency of the trial' Of course, tlre order being discretionl.r -r l nature, the Court has to exercise the dis:r't tiorr vesting in it .!udicia ' ,:ceping in view all the circun-rstances o l-'he case ' In the pIoceSS. tlLt ( ' 'rr.ut moy incidentally be guided by the c'nr''ideration as to who ts tltc twson prima facie entitled to the possessiot L of the case propefl.]' irn (l r rrnd ovet its possession to him with a r' iew to safeguard his interc:;t I Lr - that tnay not be the sole considcratiott f'lt' the Courl rv!'rile ,:nt'-L s 'g custody of the case property or proll{ lt) used in the cotntnisst I I , l an oflence etc. to any of the ':iva :la imants One cannol t)( o , ' r'ious to the fact that the propefiy pro'1tL'':ed in Courl during th,: c, rrse of an inquiry or trial is custoditt legi'' aLrd it remains so even r,,lte ' its custody is entrusted to anyone of tlle lival claimants or an) Ol1() e r,r. because he is liable to produce the sarne as and when 't986Cl{tLJ5, l -, 17 KL,J Crlp No-10450 ot20l7 & barch directed by the Court. The power to recall entrustment for any reason which the Court may deem fit inheres in the Court in the very nature of the circumstances and the purpose for which the properly ts entrusted on Superdari. The duration of such entrustment can at best be until the conclusion of the trial. So, in the eye of law, his possession or custody is only that of Court. Section 452 specifically deals with the disposal of such property at the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. It is, at that stage, that the Court has to determine as to which of the rival claimants is entitled to possession thereof. As a necessary corollary, it would follow that the entrustment of the case property to any of the rival claimants under Section 451 CrPC does not amount to ad.iudication of any right, much less, the competing rights of the rival claimants. Of course, other ways of the disposal of the case property as envisaged in the said Section have also to be considered. Looked at the whole matter from this angle, it cannot be said that the order of the lear:red Magistrate purported to decide or affect the right ol the rival claimants in the instant case. Obviously, he made the order giving custody of the seized goods to the petitioner as she was the complainant and had claimed that the goods in question beloqeed so her deceased husband 7 18 KL.J CrlT \ ' lar 151) oi.'017 & batch 2i. 'I rt rccused in the said case also produced some documents to shorv that : had purchased such goods but it rvas rl()t the stage for tl-re learnc,j \ Irgistrate to embark upon a detailed inqtrir". 1'he stage for eviden:': ( qarcling the stolen nature of the [oods hns'r'et to arrive and it is o-r,', Lt the conclusion of the trial that the Coutt :an conle to thc conclus o r ,,r'hcther the goods in question belongetl 1o the deceased husbancl o1' I r: cornplainant or not. So, the order 'lf the leamed Magistlati, .:i trot be said to suflbr from any judicial or lepral infirmity' Il cartnot ,. srid to be even unjust. impropel t'r c'tpricious as adverseiv a1 f ' rtinp. the rights of the respondent thereott il4. t h ' Delhi High Courl also placed reliance 01 t-Ic jLrdgment of the r\ps r . lottrt in Amar Nath and others v. State t'f Haryanaa ancl in \'lad rr-r Limaye v. State of Nlaharashtras 'rt'd hetd that an orcler pass:i rrttdcr Section 45 1 CrPC seeking interin: custody of properly is a jtrterlocutory order.

25. Ir. .4.mar Nath (supra), the Apex Coun e'tplained the meaning o I llie tetm "interlocutory order" under Se:tirln 397(2) of CrPC that it rrerely denote orders of a purely intetirrr ()r temporary ' etR IglB s-r.' .. ' etn tq;g s:' l9 KI- I Crlp No.10450 of20l7 & batch I i I nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the rights olthe accused or decides cerlain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an 'interlocutory order'

26. Paragraph No.6 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:- Lct us now proceed to interpret the provisions of s. 397 against the historical background of these facts. Sub- section (2) of s. 397 of the 1973 Code nray bc cxtracted thus : "The powers of revision cont-errcd by Sub- scction (l) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appcal, inquiry, trial or othcr procceding." 'l'he main question which lalls for determination in this appeal is as to, the what is the connolation ofthe term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-s. (2) ofs. 397 which bals any rcvision of such an order by the High Court. 'Ihc tcrm "interlocutory order" is a term of rvcll-known lcgal significance and does not present any serious diffident. It has been used in various statutes including thc Codc of CiviI Procedure, Letters Patent of the I Iigh Courls and other like statutes. In Webster's Ncw World Dictionary "intcrlocutory" has been dehned as an order other than final decision. I)ecided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide 'the rights and liabilities of the parties conccrning a pa(icular aspect. It seems to, us that the term "interlocutory order" in s. 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important \ v 70 Kl-,' Crn, I -l50ofl0ll&batch rights. or tl-( iabilities of the parties. Any order which sr-rbsti ntirlly affects the, right ,,1' I re accuscd, or decides cerlain rights of lhe p,uticl catlrlot be said to b: l, interlocutory order so as to bar a rcvisic,n to tJre {igh Court againsl I rrr: formccl t r, 1 973 tlol: . r'cLer', becausc that would be against the ver'1 obiect which r.:;is lor insertion ol this particular provision in ;. 197 of the, 'LLus, for instance. orders summoning \\'itneistrs. adjourning cases pa;: ir r orders lor bail, calling for reporls and srrch cLhel rteps in aid of thr: p,'r'il against r. I ic orders r h ir rights :f tlr -' interlr)cu c rJ jurisdicti rr r r:. proceeding, rnal' no doubt amounl to intcrlocur.orv orders r ro rcvision would lie under s. 397 (2) ol- thc l()7--] (lode. But irrc miltters of moment and which aflcct ol rd.judicate thc r r;cuscd or a particulal aspect of the trial canro' br -said to bc lrr-der so as to bc outside the purvie',v o ie revisional I -hc Hish Court. 21 . I')r t ing reliance on Prabhu Chawla (suPL r'), in the said judgmerrt, t'1, I)ivision Bench of High Court of Andlu: I'radesh vide common rrrd r dated 07.12.2022 held that in ste,rcl of arailability of the relic'1' ol' .:r'ision under Section 397 CrPC, Lhe irhe'ent powers under Sec-i:r ,182 ol CrPC can be exercised when thi:r-e is manifest abuse o1 p'(). r is of the Court or other extra ordinar)- s tLrJ.t ons. 2tl. Irl::ing reliance on the aforesaid judgmenr.s in K.Prudhvi (supra). t[, i r ourt hcld that order passed by the learrre c] Magistrate granting irrter rn maintenance is an 'interlocutory order' ard therefore, petition filc'-1 nder Section 482 of CrPC challenging thc said.order is maintain atr[':' 2t KL,J Crlp No 10450 of20l7 & baroh

29. In the light of the said precedential background, coming to the I'acts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, the petitioners in all the aforesaid three Criminal Petitions fited by the said petitioners under Section 45 I of CrPC to retum the gold, and issue a direction to CBI to reiease proceeds of the aforesaid bonds. The said applications were filed during trial in C.C.No.l of 2012.

30. If the aforesaid petitions are allowed, the custody of the propefty sought lbr interim custody is only during trial and the same is subject to result of enquiry or trial of the said CC. If the said petitions are disrnissed, subject to result of trial or enquiry, petitioners can file applications under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the relief sought by the petit.ioners before the trial Court is only temporary interlocutory, in nature. 'fhere is finality of rights of parties were nof adjudicated and decided. Thus, there is no trapping of finality in the impugned orders. The aforesaid applications were dismissed by trial Couft on the aloresaid grounds. There is no trapping of finality in the aforesaid orders. The aforesaid orders are 'interlocutory' in nature They are not final orders. Rights of the parties are not determined in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid three impugned orders are 'interlocutory' in nature i I I : 7 22 i't"J ( rlt 1.. I ll: l.'f20l7 & batch Thus, the l)r e ('rt criminal petitions filed by the petiriorrers under Sections 48,1 oi Cr.P.C' challenging the sairl orc et; are not maintainab t 3 i. lr l": light of the said findings' the contcnti rtrs of the learned Sp::i Public Prosecutor for CBI that the p:esel.rt Criminal Petitions at e r t t.naintainable, is unsustainable'

32. In s rrlport of his case, the learned Specirll Prrtlic Prosecutor for CBI. ha; ,'rcecl rcliance on the principle laid do'vrr by tl're Apex Court in II'rr liah T.H. vs' State of Karnataka6 u'he te n it is held that A co lt , atl exercise its revisional jurisdiction rLge inst a flnal order ol rcrlr ttal ot conviction, or an intermedlate o'del not being interlocut()r\ r1 nature. In Amar Nath (supra)' th: \pex Court explained t ti meaning of the tenn 'interlocutory ortler in Section rPC. 'lhe Apex (louft held tr'rrrt thc erpression 391(2) of 'interlocu"t,:- order' denotes orders ol a purely intel irn ('r [emporary nature u4r jcl clo not decide or tough upon the impotlrLnt rights or liabilitie s o 1' 1'rrt1ies. Hence, any ordcr rvhich substattt ally affects the right ofthc J ,'tties cannot be said to be an 'interlocutol v c'rder'' 6Crl.A.No.l !'. ).022 (arising out of Sl-P(Crl)No2021 of2022 23 KL-J Crlp No.10450 of20l7 & barch

33. Thus, the facts therein are altogether different to the facts of the case on hand. However, applying the said principle, since the rights of the parties are decided by the trial Court vide impugned orders. Therefore, the criminat petitions are maintainable.

34. In P.Hussain Chiddu Master vs. State of Andhra PradeshT, the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the same is not good law.

35. ln Vipin Sahni vs. Central Bureau of Investigationr, i, u case where a petition was filed under Section 239 of Cr.p.C. to discharge the accused. Therefore, the facts of the said case are also different to the t'acts ofthe present case.

36. In Angayarkanni vs. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thiruvarure, it was held that an application filed under Section 45 I of Cr.P.C. has to be treated as a petition under Section 452 of Cr.p.C. Therefore, Registry of Madras High Court has retumed the papers etc, ' 201I Lau Suir (AP) tl6 *:o:+ tNsc :ra e Order dared 2 L07.2023 in Crl.A.No. l 90 of 2012 of Madras Hish Court 1 24 K-,J (.rlt .(, llrJ 0Dl20l7&batch and thereafttl: r.he same was numbered as an appeal 'l'herefole' the facts oflhe sai I case are different to the facts of the pres€jlt case' 3r Irtl , I ight ol the same, this Court is of the co rsidered view that the Ples:t t applications filed by the petitionelr; unilcr' !iection 482 of Cr.P.(1. ,:he r:nging the impugned orders arc marntajn:b e

38..\s was flled t r-t' the jewe ller" iscussed supra, the aforesaid Crl P'No 1045() of 2017 r.2 before commencement of trial iJe sotLglrt retum of rr', three grounds i.e. i) the subject pt'opt'l tl i:l nothing to do with thc c 'rne proceeds, ii) if the subject pl'opefi"' is kept idle in the custodI r I the CBI, it will be exposed to rrtst rrrcl dust for no pulposo. tln'r r:ray Iose its look, blightness, intens:tv anrl r a)ue etc, iii) his dauglrteL' , n,edding. Or-r the said grounds, he callttol ieek interim custodv ol' ' h :;aid propeftY. 39 \\ daughter s ; ,dding of A.2's daughter was pettotu're'l lorrg back' His .o before this Courl by way of filing ( r'P.'rlo'10915 of 2022 seel in1 a direction to CBI to release proct'eds t'f rlle aloresaid bonds. Mctt .,'r'er on the request rrade by A 2 s q il'e -Smt'Aruna' 3590 grats Lakhs tirrLrt ,,f gold jewellery apart lrom cash of allp oximately 4 I in an almirah attached to th e beclroom of the pethicner/,\ I iLr their house were retumed to hel to u:'c rn the eve of 25 KL,J Crlp No.t0450 of20l7 & barch her daughter's marriage. Therefore, on the said ground, he carmot seek release of the jewellery.

40. with regard to relief sought by the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.l09l5 and 10917 of 2022, daughter and son of A.2 i.e. petitioners in Crl.P.No. 10450 of 2017 , a direction to CBI to release the proceeds peftaining to the aforesaid bond ledger accounts matured on03.04.2012, it is the speciflc case of the CBI that A.2 invested the ill-gotten money in SHCIL in the name of the petitioners and the said proceeds are pending disposal before the trial Court in the aforesaid CC. It is a tainted money of A.2. Therefore, the said crime proceeds cannot be released during pendencl, of the said CC, more particularly, when CC is posted fbr trial.

41. It is relevant to note that both the petitioners contended that their father purchased subject saving bonds in their names and he stood as Custodian since they werc minors at the time of purchasing the said bonds. At the time of investment as well as maturity, they were minors and therefore, his father remained as Custodian of said bonds till they attained majority. ;rtasat-il -i.ia€t( 7 26 i.l..J Crln \ 10. i0 of21)17 & balch 4'2.ln t r light of the said contentions, it is lbr t[rt'trial Court to decidethellriaspectonconclusionoftrialinthesaicl(L].].hereafter, thev can ti e : 'plications under Section 452 of CrPC'

43. t1 apt to note that while considerir.rg ap1'lications filed under Sec.i:,r : '151 and 457 of CrPC, trial Cou't crttrno: cottduct a mini trial.

41. lt , also apt to-note that the amounts of th: 1 rthel of the petitiont:t''s i . A.2, were attached by the ED q'hich l cr: confirmed by the Ar! u , r:ating authority. Matter is pending bc iil e tl-re Apex cour1. Tlllrs lrD has already passed a provisional rttttrchtnellt order No.08/201.1.i:ted04.12.2022inECIR/83lBzl2}i0,<latet1910'2010 r,"'ith |ega:'r I , r subject propefiy. According to the F. t), thc alleged proceeds I ' I itne were invested in the fbrm of 1i8,4 1 ' l0 000 number of shares irr ..,s Rrahmini Indrrstries and ED has alrt,a:lr, attached the said sha,'r s rrnd properties of M/s Brahm'ni I ldr rstlics' The adjudicating..uthority,videitsorderdated050:l'20l3inOriginal Complairt'',:r.l68of2Ol2,hadconfirmedr.hesrriclprovisional attachrnerrl r ttlcr. Now the matter is pending in Ape'< (lourt in SLP No.4467 o1'llL7. The said facts were admitted by p,:lil ioners. Even then, thc pc' ioners failed to take steps including artrigring ED as a I fii, 27 KL,J Crlp No 10450 of20l7 & barch pafty to the petition. Thus, ED is also claiming right over the aforesaid bonds and gold omaments. According to ED, the afbresaid amount i..e proceeds of crime to a tune of gg4. 13 Crores of A.2 is a tainted money.

45. Perusal of the record, including the impugned orders, would reveal that that Income Tax Department has also filed a petition Crl.M.P.No.918 of 2014 seeking custody of the cash. The petition filed by the Income Tax Department was dismissed. Therefore, Income Tax is also ctaiming right over the gold omaments and bonds. Thus, there is rival claim with regard to the subject property. CBI has already issued a notice under Section r02 of crpc to the SHCIL to attach the bonds.

46. With regard to the direction sought by the petitioners in Crl.P.No. 1091 7 of 2022 and I 09 I 7 ot- 2022 ro rhe CBI lor release of the proceeds pertaining to the aforesaid two bonds, leamed trial court categorically held that the same are proceeds of crime and the petitioners' father i.e. A.2 has purchased the said bonds on 03.04.2006 when they were minors. There is rival claim with regard to the said bonds by the ED and the petitioners. The same will be decided only on conclusion of the trial. Thereafler, petitioners can file applications i I I i : , 28 k L,-r dr1.) \, L0,li0 oi2(rl7 & batch t under Sec .i:rr 452 of CI.P.C. Trial categorically lre|1 that the petitione|s hI' , not filed documents in proof of orvner ship of the said propertl'. -l'l u there are several issues rvhich are triabte by the trial Couft and t'lt 452 of (lr.P ( r : after, the petitioners can file petitions un'ler Sectiotr on consideration of the entire aspects' -he trial Coutl dismissed 1,,: , lbresaid apPlications. 41 . ()r :;onsideration of the said aspects' trilL C curt rightly disu'rissed t', said applications filed by the petitioner' fhere is no el'or in th,: : I 413,,,\: brought tc .lt examin:r1i,t I r I orders and the same are rcasoned ot'der: rliscussed supra, during the cout se ol h'':aring' it is notice of this Courl that C.C'No' i ':f 20 r 2 s posted for rf the accused under Section 3 1 3 ol t ]"P'C' The aforesaid pr' ,rerty including the gold and bonds \\'cr'l seized on

05.09.2011 'incc then. the same are in the custod'; of CBI' l'he petitiolie r'r\. : cannot contend that if the same is kept idlc, il wjll be exposecl -c, tst and dust for no purpose, thel tnrl l'rse its look' brightnes';. i r t.ensity and value etc. On the saiC grot l1c s' hc cannot seek inte'irr ::ustody of the said property. On con sidelation of the aforesaid lts r.:cts, the learned trial Court rightlv disrl.rirsed the said applicrrticrrrs t'hcre is no error. The impugned orders are reasoned and '-..:.! 29 KL,J Crlp No 10450 of20t7& barch well - founded. The petitioners failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Courl by invoking its inherent powers under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. Therefore, these criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.

49. In the light of the above discussion, these criminar petitions arc dismissed. However, subject to result of trial or enquiry in C.C.No. I of 2012, liberty is granted to the petitioners to flle applications under Section 452 of Cr.Ir.C. before trial Court. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at ra bad HyderabadIOUT]

3. One CC to Sri Rajesh Maddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Plp/DL HIGH COURT DATED:06103 2025 I J r1f. S :"i i \ c 23 ' ll75 ,.t :) ) \oa\ 'tu \ 2' COMMON OF DER CRLP.Nos.l0 450 of 2017, 10915 and 10917 of 20',2', DISMISSING ]'HE ALL CRIMINAL F'IJTITIONS