IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4330 of 2009 Between: K. Srinivas Rao .. Petitioner AND The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to Crime No.411 of 2009 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad and to quash the proceedings thereon. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nageswar Rao Palle, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondents, the Court made the following: ORDER: Sri Nageswar Rao Palle, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents are heard. Crime No.411 of 2009 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad was registered under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on interception of Tata Safari vehicle, in which the petitioner was travelling on 13-04-2009 and on finding the petitioner to be carrying Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. The petitioner was stated to have informed then itself that he withdrew the amount from his account in ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ameerpet, but was stated to have been unable to mention the purpose for which the money was withdrawn. Suspecting the likely use of the money as bribe in the parliamentary elections, the case was registered. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the money for purpose of paying advances to junior artists and for purchase of make-up items as part of his avocation as make-up man and supplier of junior artists in the cine industry. He claims to have just taken a lift in the vehicle from Ameerpet cross roads to Jubilee hills on payment of Rs.200/- to the driver and was unfortunately subjected to the criminal proceedings. He, hence, sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings and return of money. The copy of his bank account shows that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred to the petitioner’s account and withdrawn from the same on the same day on 13-04-2009 itself with no balance before or after. During the pendency of the criminal petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the requirement of appearance of the petitioner before the concerned Income Tax Authorities and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station was also requested to help in this regard. The petitioner filed a copy of the statement said to have been made by him before the Section Officer, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad on 17-07- 2009 furnishing the relevant information and details. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Mehar India Enterprises v. State of A.P.[1], wherein also a case under Section 41 and Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure resulted in seizure of the properties, the ownership of which was not in dispute and the possession of which was not shown to disclose the commission of any specific offence. Following an earlier decision about the impropriety of registering a first information report under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge held that in the absence of any prima facie indication of committal of any cognizable offence concerning the property, the continuance of further proceedings was not sustainable. That apart, the learned counsel also relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat[2], wherein the Apex Court emphasized the need for prompt action for exercise of the powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the properties seized in crimes. In the present case, the police do not state till now about any further investigation, which can even remotely strengthen their suspicions and the money being seized from the possession of the petitioner is admitted. The copy of bank account of the petitioner shows that the amount was credited to and withdrawn from his account on the same day and his saying that he made a statement before Income Tax Department also after this case, is not seriously factually in dispute. The credit and withdrawal of the money on the same day in the nil balance account before and after, the carrying of the money in the vehicle permitted in connection with parliamentary elections and the other circumstances relied on by the police for registration of the crime, may raise some suspicions, which may need to be allowed to be investigated into without quashing the proceedings themselves. But in the absence of any material till now to attribute any illegitimacy to the money, its interim custody can be or has to be entrusted to the petitioner in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, subject to appropriate conditions. Therefore, the interim custody of the cash of Rs.5,00,000/- seized from the petitioner in Crime No.411 of 2009 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad shall be entrusted to him on his execution of a personal bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, further subject to the petitioner undertaking to produce the cash of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Court whenever directed, The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-08-2009 Svv [1] 2008 (1) ALD (Cri) 372 [2] AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 638