HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3027 of 2010 DATED 30.03.2010 Between: Md.Rafi Quadri @ Nadeem and others. … Petitioners And The State of A.P through SHO, Golkonda PS Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P Hyderabad. … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3027 of 2010 ORDER: A-1 to A-3 in Crime No.453 of 2009 of Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad are the petitioners. They are accused of offence punishable under Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (in short, the act). Subject matter of the crime is a Sherwani (long coat) of Nizam dynasty and more than 100 years old. It is alleged that when A-1 and A-2 were trying to sell the Sherwani, the Police caught hold of them. A-1 and A-2 are stated to have confessed that they procured the same from A-3 for the purpose of selling the same and getting good money. 2) It is stated that the Sherwani was examined by curator of Salarjung museum, Hyderabad who gave opinion that it is an antique of Nizam Dynasty and is about 100 years old. It is contended that it is not sufficient compliance of Section 24 of the Act because it is the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India who is competent authority to decide antique nature of an article. Section 24 of the Act provides for a decision in that regard not only by the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, but also such officer as the case may be. Therefore, it is not as if the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India alone is the competent authority to give decision under Section 24 of the Act. In any event, investigation of the case is pending. In case the investigating officer feels it necessary, then he may also obtain a decision from the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India also under Section 24 of the Act. Sanction for prosecution under Section 26 of the Act is required at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate and not for registration of a case under Section 25(1) of the Act by a police officer. 3) It is contended that the Sherwani is not an antique and that it is a private property of A-3 and that A-3’s late father was presented with the Sherwani and that since then it has become private property of A-3. It is a matter of fact which has to be investigated into. At this stage there are no grounds to stall further investigation in this case by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. During investigation, the police will also investigate whether the Sherwani is a private property of A-3 or not. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 30, 2010 KSH