IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 of 2006 DATE:31.01.2011 Between: Dasari Harikumari …… Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel For A.C.B cases. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by wife of the deceased A-1 questioning that portion of the judgment dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Vijayawada in C.C. No.31 of 2000 relating to confiscation of M.O.1 cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and also giving liberty to the prosecution agency to take the necessary steps for confiscation of the properties belonging to the deceased A-1. 2) The appellant is under a misapprehension that the lower Court passed an order confiscating properties of A-1 to the extent of Rs.18,58,748/- which amount is found to be disproportionate to his income. By the judgment under appeal, the lower Court did not order for confiscation of the said properties. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that no opportunity was given by the lower Court to A-1’s legal heirs and also the persons in whose names the properties were registered to lead evidence. As and when the prosecution takes steps for confiscation of the properties belonging to the deceased A-1, then the lower Court will issue notices to all the persons interested in the properties and will permit to lead evidence by the respective parties in support of their contentions with regard to the properties proposed to be confiscated. 3) In so far as M.O-1 cash of Rs.1,50,000/- is concerned, it was seized from the house of A-1 during his life time. The appellant claims that the said cash of Rs.1,50,000/- belongs to her as Stridhana property. During trial in the lower Court, the appellant did not either took steps to implead herself as a party to the criminal case or did not file any claim petition before the lower Court either under Section 452 Cr.P.C claiming the said amount as her Stridhana property. In the absence of the appellant making a claim before the lower Court, the lower Court is legally justified in confiscating cash of Rs.1,50,000/- (together with interest accrued thereon) to the State as it is the cash which was seized from the house of A-1. 4) Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 31, 2011 ksh