IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1930 OF 2010 DATED:25.2.2011 Between: Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner having its registered office at First Floor, Elegance Tower, Plot No.8, Non-hierarchical Commercial Centre Jasola, New Delhi; Branch Office at 6-3-563/26/a Flat No.1/1&2, Somavarapu Heights Hilltop Colony, Erramanzil Hyderabad (represented by its Area Manager Ms. Bhavani Aytha, D/o. Radhakrishna Aytha Hyderabad And State of A.P. rep. by C.I.D. (Economic Offences Wing) Hyderabad, through its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1930 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dt.30.6.2010 passed by the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl. M.P. No.3772 of 2009 in C.C. No.125 of 2008. The petitioner company is engaged in direct marketing of certain products which include consumer and healthcare. The said products were stored by the petitioner in a warehouse/godown. It appears, there was a complaint by one A.V.S. Satyanarayana in the month of 2006, on the basis of which a case in Crime No.10 of 2006 was registered on 24.9.2006. As the godown and the entire stocks were seized at the time of registration of the crime, the petitioner approached the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, and filed Crl.M.P. Nos.5258 and 5259 of 2006 under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C., for interim custody. However, the said applications were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his order dt.10.10.2006. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition Nos.136 and 137 of 2006 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the said revision petitions were also dismissed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition Nos.4980 and 4981 of 2006 before this Court and this Court allowed the said petitions, by order dt.12.7.2007, with the following directions: “Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed in part directing the trial Court to return the only products which are in conformity with the standards to the petitioner viz., G & H body shampoo, glister cinnamon mouth refresher spray, attitude face wash, attitude sunscreen lotion, and dynamite after shave splash. In respect of other products, some of the products are allegedly adulterated and misbranded and therefore they shall not be given interim custody. In respect of products whose samples have been sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application before the trial Court after receiving the opinion from the Central Food Laboratory.” Though the crime was registered as early as in the year 2006 and the charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as C. C. No.125 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, there is no progress in the matter and the godown is under seizure. The petitioner again moved the Court below for release of the said godown and filed M.P. No.3772 of 2009 seeking release of the said godown, but the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, refused to order release of the said godown stating that there is no direction by this Court for release of the godown. In those circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present revision. It is mainly contended by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner is paying Rs.1,42,700/- per month towards rental charges for the godown and for the last more than five years the said godown is under seizure and the petitioner has been facing great hardship. It is further stated that the articles, which were not found to be adulterated, were released in favour of the petitioner and similarly those articles found adulterated were also released to the petitioner in the light of the second report furnished by the Central Food Laboratory. However, for obvious reasons, the said stocks could not be released and the godwon is loaded with the said stocks and unless and until the godown is handed over to the petitioner, he cannot carry on the business. According to the learned Senior Counsel, even if ultimately it is held that the charge is proved, it is only the stocks which will be ordered to be confiscated and not the godown, but the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate refused to release the godown only on the premise that there is no direction by the High Court. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the order passed by this Court dt.12.7.2007 in Criminal Petition Nos.4980 and 4981 of 2006, and in view of the fact that the godown in question is under seizure since 2006 and the C.C. is pending, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for release of the godown. Accordingly, this revision case is allowed and the godown in question along with the stocks, which were already ordered to be released, shall be handed over to the petitioner forthwith. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 25.02.2011 bnr