M.Sulochana & Anr. v. Challenging the orders

Challenging the orders, dated 18.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.570 and 572o12Q24 in C.C.No.137 ot2024 (otd C.C.No.6 of 2018) by the learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of SpE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), these Criminal Revision Cases are flled. By the impugned orders, the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 8 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (for short 'Ordinance'), read with Section 45.1 of Cr.p.C., seeking to defree:ze and return of gold ornaments, were dismissed.

Since both the criminal revision cases are arising out of C.C.No.137 ot 2024, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this comrnon order. l 2

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for the ACB submits that any person aggrieved 5y the orders passed by the learned Special Judge under Sectionsi4, 6, 8 and 9 of the Ordinance is required to prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Ordinance within (30) days from the date of such order. When a Statute provides a specific remedy for redressal, the aggrieved person has to resort to the same. He further submits that in the instant cases, the petitioners have filed applications under Section 8 of the Ordinance, which were dismissed by the learned Special Judge. lf really the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 8 of the Ordinance, the appropriate remedy available to them is to file an appeal by invoking Section 11 of the Ordinance. Therefore, the filing of the present criminal revision cases amounts to nothing but circumventing the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Ordinance, which is impermissible in law. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the presentcriminal revision cases.

ln view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present revisions, with liberty to file an appeal, and has made an endorsement to that effect on the case bundles.

Permission is accorded 3

Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought for. PenrJing miscellaneous apprications, if any, shail stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR (;z' SECTION OFFICER To,

The Princigral special Judge for Trial of sPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri. V PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC tc Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy (SC for ACB, SPL PP TS), Advocate

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, loPUCl Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Oopies CIVlR/PSL JW HIGH COURT DATED:06.10112026 ORDER CRLRC.N o.2 ot 2026 I gTA? 1 S 06 ttg 2u6 * I |:i t).,' CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ARE DISSMIED AS WITHDRAWN. -t-xs #llee