Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 565 (AP)

K. C. Murali (Vision Impaired) v. State of A. P.

2021-08-23

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) 1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 11 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") assailing the order dated 17.03.2021 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 16 of 2020 and 326 of 2018 on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in connection with Cr. No. 2/RCA-TCT/2017 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed by the appellants not to attach the properties shown in Annexure-IV attached thereto, was dismissed. 2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.M.P. No. 16 of 2020 for the sake of convenience. 3. The 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac. 2.54 cents situated in Sy. No. 295/1 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The petitioners executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 28.11.2013 in favour of 3rd respondent without any consideration to manage the said properties. But the ACB authorities registered crime against the 2nd respondent, who is brother-in-law of 3rd respondent. ACB authorities under the impression that the said properties are benami of his brother-in-law, had seized the documents and filed Crl.M.P. No. 326 of 2018 before the Special Court seeking attachment of properties. However, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 16 of 2020 before the Special Court seeking not to attach the GPA properties, but the said petition was dismissed. Assailing the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of 1st respondent contending that this is a case of disproportionate assets, wherein the 2nd respondent/Accused Officer was' found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.2,46,29,318/- during the check period from 27.11.2006 to 26.04.2017. During the searches, incriminating materials/documents were seized under the cover of inventory proceedings. During the investigation, the 2nd respondent was found to have acquired assets worth Rs.2,14,75,574/- having known sources of income of Rs.1,03,95,040/- and expenditure of Rs.1,35,48,784/- with excess expenditure of Rs.31,53,744/-. The investigating officer has seized movable and immovable properties that stood in the name of 2nd respondent, his wife Srija Venkat, his mother Angelamma, his nephew i.e. 3rd respondent herein on the ground that those properties were purchased from ill-gotten monies of 2nd respondent. The investigating officer has seized movable and immovable properties that stood in the name of 2nd respondent, his wife Srija Venkat, his mother Angelamma, his nephew i.e. 3rd respondent herein on the ground that those properties were purchased from ill-gotten monies of 2nd respondent. It is stated that as per the contention of appellants, they presented a deed of revocation of GPA on 20.05.2019, but the same was not considered by the Registration Officials and the appellants so far not challenged the same in any Court. The appellants have taken a lame excuse that 1st appellant is visually impaired, as such they gave GPA to 3rd respondent. But as per the record, the 1st appellant as well as his two daughters are majors and of sound mind. Thus, as per Section 203 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the appellants are answerable for all the things done by 3rd respondent prior to cancellation of GPA. The respondents 2 and 3 sold large extents of land in Survey No. 295/1 to many persons and executed registered sale deeds, as such-counsel for the appellants in the Court below contended that their interest is only for Ac. 1.00 cents in Survey No. 295/1. The said contention was not accepted by the Court below observing that Ac. 1.00 cents of land has not been identified out of Ac. 2.54 cents, as such the question of releasing the said-property from attachment does not arise. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel representing Sri B. Dhanumjaya, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for ACB. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of 3rd respondent by the appellants discloses that the same is not coupled with interest, as consideration is not part of the said document and if it is coupled with interest, the appellants would not have filed the claim petition, if right or interest is parted away by taking consideration. He submits that the Court below predetermined the issue by passing the impugned order, as such it would be interests of justice to set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to pass order independently in the petition filed by ACB seeking for attachment of properties. He submits that the Court below predetermined the issue by passing the impugned order, as such it would be interests of justice to set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to pass order independently in the petition filed by ACB seeking for attachment of properties. He submits that as per Section 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, any person having interest in the property can file claim petition. He submits that the 1st appellant filed O.S. No. 31 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi against the respondents 2 and 3 for rendition of accounts etc. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for A.C.B. would submit that Court below has considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellants. He submits that though appellants contended that they presented a deed of revocation of GPA on 20.05.2019, the same was not considered by the Registration Officials and so far the appellants not challenged the same in any Court. Insofar as filing of O.S. No. 31 of 2019 is concerned, he submits that it is a collusive suit, as observed by the Court below and the civil Court has not even granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellants. He submits, that even the contention of appellants that their claim is for only Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac. 2.54 cents, is not accepted by the Court below by observing that said Ac. 1.00 cents has not been identified, as such the question of releasing the said property from attachment does not arise. He finally submits that the appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Court below as such he urged to dismiss the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either and perused the material available on record. 9. The main contention of the appellants is that though they have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of third respondent, but the same is not coupled with interest and further though they presented a deed of revocation of GPA on 20.05.2019, the same was not considered by the registration officials. However, there is no piece of document placed before the Court below that the appellants preferred any appeal against the same. However, there is no piece of document placed before the Court below that the appellants preferred any appeal against the same. Further, it is the contention of appellants before the Court below that their interest is only in respect of Ac. 1.00 cents in S. No. 295/1, but the Court below has rightly observed that such contention cannot be accepted, since the said Ac. 1.00 cents has not been identified, as such the question of releasing the said property from attachment does not arise. Insofar as filing of O.S. No. 31 of 2019 by the appellants against the respondents 2 and 3 is concerned, admittedly the said suit is filed subsequent to raid conducted by 1st respondent and also after filing Crl.M.P. No. 326 of 2018 by 1st respondent seeking attachment of properties. Hence, the conduct of the appellants speaks volumes that it is collusive suit at the instance of respondents 2 and 3. 10. The Court below observed that it is admitted by petitioners themselves that property in S. No. 295/1 to an extent of Ac. 2.54 cents was alienated to several persons at the instance of the 2nd respondent. Even as per General Power of Attorney all the; rights including the right of alienation were given to the 3rd respondent. Further, learned counsel for the appellants filed income tax assessment orders along with a memo and submits that the properties mentioned in General Power of Attorney were reflected in the said assessment orders, as such the properties cannot be attached. It is needless to mention that the said contention cannot be considered in the petition filed by the appellants not to attach the properties from attachment. 11. The 1st respondent sought attachment of properties, which belong to 2nd respondent, who allegedly acquired the same during his service, which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is no doubt clear that economic offences are class apart and these kind of offences will have larger impact on the economy of the country. Hence the contention of the appellants has no legs to stand. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Court. 12. In the result the criminal appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stands closed.