HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7535 of 2009 Dated : 23.09.2009 Between : Purushothaman Nagarajan and others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7535 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioners herein under Sections 109 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District, in crime No.180 of 2008 of Amadalavalasa Police Station. The allegations against the petitioners are that they were intercepted while travelling in an Ambassador car on 08.12.2008 and found to be in possession of 65.600 kgs. of silver ingots in three bags and cash of Rs.2,01,000/- in a bag. As they allegedly could not account for the silver or cash, the same were seized and the crime was registered on the strength of a mediators report and panchanama. The charge sheet further alleged about the petitioners not producing any bills or documentary evidence. It is not known as to under what provision of law, the petitioners can be considered to have committed an offence in respect of the silver ingots or cash merely because they were unable to produce any bills or documentary evidence in this regard as alleged by the prosecution, even if the allegations of the prosecution were to be taken as true. The petitioners claim that the silver ingots were purchased from New Saibaba Jewellers, Narsannapet, Srikakulam District, and that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the silver ingots. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the cash also belonged to the first petitioner, which was already returned to him, due to which the present criminal petition is confined only to the relief of custody of the silver ingots. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on two decisions of this Court in Kilaparthi Suri Appa Rao v. State[1] and Mehar India Enterprises vs. State[2] in which it was held that mere suspicion of the property being stolen, per se, does not amount to commission of a cognizable offence and in the absence of any information or complaint from anybody about any theft or any other cognizable offence in respect of the property, any seizure of such property will be without any justifiable reason. If there is no allegation of commission of cognizable offence against any of the petitioners with respect to the subject property, the proceedings against them were considered to be liable to be quashed. The factual back ground in the present case is almost identical and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the principles laid down therein. Consequently, not only the proceedings shall be quashed, but also the silver ingots shall be ordered to be released to the custody of the petitioners. Therefore, the further proceedings in M.C.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Amdalavalasa, Srikakulam District, against the petitioners are quashed and the silver ingots weighing 65.600 kgs. seized by the Police from the petitioners shall be entrusted to their custody under proper acknowledgment and on proper identification. The criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 23rd September, 2009 SUR [1] 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 333 (A.P.) [2] 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 372 (A.P.)