HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8126 OF 2008 ORDER: Accused No.1 in C.C. No.343 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed this Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 to direct the said Court to return an amount of Rs.5,00,350/- which was seized from petitioner - A-1. The petitioner – A-1 is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-3-2004, Musheerabad Police received credible information that the petitioner - A-1 was accepting Cricket betting for the Test match between Australia and Sri Lanka and the Police raided the place and seized an amount of Rs.5,00,350/- and a confessional statement of the petitioner – A-1 was also recorded. The Police after investigation laid charge sheet against the petitioner - A-1into the Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner - A-1 submits that the petitioner - A-1 filed Criminal M.P.No.2289 of 2008 in C.C.No.343 of 2006 before the trial Court for return of the property seized from his possession. However, the trial Court by its order dated 19-7-2008 has dismissed the said petition observing that as per the Panchanama, the amount seized by the Police belongs to the absconding accused and others. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner - A-1 filed Crl.R.P. No.131 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed. The learned counsel relying on the decision in A. BHASKAR AND OTHERS v. STATE of A.P[1] contended that the aforesaid amount was seized from the possession of the petitioner - A-1 and that since he was discharged, he is entitled to claim the said amount. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is bet amount of the absconding accused as well as other persons. Therefore, the petitioner - A-1 is not entitled to claim the amount. Returning of such amount to the petitioner - A-1 at this stage is premature, as observed by both the Courts below. He further submits that the Criminal Petition is misconceived and not maintainable as the petitioner – A-1 has not challenged the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.R.P.No.131 of 2008. Moreover, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner - A-1 is with regard to confiscation of instruments of gaming and it was a clear cut case of acquittal. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that since it is observed by both the Courts below that the amount belongs to the absconding accused and other persons, and since the case against A-2 and A-3 has to be disposed of, the petitioner – A-1 is not entitled to claim the amount. As such, it is not a fit case to grant the relief as prayed for by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J Date:10-11-2011 Stp [1] 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 411 (AP)