Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 743 (AP)

AKKU RAMAKRISHNA v. State Of A. P.

2000-09-25

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, in Cr. No. 7/acb. CR/98 dated 23-6-2000, directing confiscation of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- seized from the complainant which is alleged to have been given by the accused as bribe. ( 2 ) IT may be mentioned that the ACB recorded a FIR against the petitioner in cr. No. 7/acb. CR/98 on the basis of a complaint alleging that the accused, who is an advocate, placed some money and left it at the house of the complainant mr. D. Parthasarathy, advocate with an intention to pass it on to his daughter, who is a public servant and before whom a matter pertaining to the client of the accused was pending. After investigation, the ACB concluded that this amount was not intended to be paid to the said public servant and on that basis filed a final report dropping further proceedings in the matter, but directed confiscation of the sum of Rs. 25,000/- on the ground of some observations said to have been made by the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of A. P. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that having found that no offence has been made out and having accepted the final report, the learned Special Judge has no jurisdiction to order confiscation of the amount seized during the investigation. ( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for ACB states that the order passed by the learned Special Judge appears to be justified in view of the findings of the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Andhra pradesh. ( 5 ) A look at the findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Andhra pradesh would reveal that even they concluded that there was no material to come to a definite conclusion that the respondent s conduct "smacks of ill-motive". However, the Committee felt that the conduct of the petitioner was not in conformity with the high standard of professional ethics and on that basis, the petitioners was warned to be careful in future. However, the Committee felt that the conduct of the petitioner was not in conformity with the high standard of professional ethics and on that basis, the petitioners was warned to be careful in future. It would thus be apparent that even the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh has not found that there was any material to conclude that the petitioner has committed any criminal offence. At any rate, these findings are irrelevant for the purpose of passing the order by the learned Special Judge, when the Investigating Agency held that there was no material to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence and when the learned Special Judge has accepted the findings of the Investigating Agency there is no warrant for passing the impugned order directing confiscation of the amount seized. In fact, once the learned Judge has come to a conclusion that there was no material to proceed against the accused, it ceases to have any jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of impugned order confiscating the amount seized. ( 6 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order of the principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad in Crime No. ACB/cr/98 dated 23-6-2000 to the extent of directing confiscation of the amount stands quashed. The amount seized shall be returned to the petitioner.