(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment passed in CrI.A.No.27 of .2016, dated: 18.04.2017 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District & Session Judge, Vijayawada in so far finding/observation in para 37 of the Judgment that "... the unmarked case property i.e.., the cloths seized is confiscated to the state. The same shall be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds must be remitted to the state " and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2017 (CRLRCMP 3523 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment passed in C.C.No.389 of 2010, dated 16.08.2016, on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

IA NO: 2 OF 2017 (CRLRCMP 3524 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the unmarked case property seized in C.C.No.389 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.)

1. The present Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/A1, assailing the confiscation order dated 18.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.271 of 2016 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short, “the 1st Appellate Court”), whereby the 1st Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the calendar and judgment dated 16.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.389 of 2010 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for short, “the Trial Court”).

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. As seen from the record, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC and framed charges accordingly. During the pendency of the proceedings, A.7 passed away, resulting in the abatement of the case against him.

4. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 15 and documents Exs.P1 to P18 were marked, and on behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked, but no witnesses were examined. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses against them in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that they had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

5. The accusation against the revision petitioner/A.1 is that he visited the shop of PW.1, the victim, and placed an order for the purchase of cloth; PW.1 accordingly supplied cloth worth Rs.5,16,000/-; the petitioner/A.1 assured PW.1 that payment for the goods would be made within fifteen days; however, he failed to make the payment; similarly, PWs.2 to 10 deposed that they had supplied cloth bundles to A.1, but he did not pay any amount to them either.

6. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 16.08.2016, convicted the revision petitioner/A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and acquitted him of the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court, the petitioner/A.1 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.271 of 2016.

7. The 1st Appellate Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 420 of the IPC and further directed that the unmarked case property be sold by public auction, with the sale proceeds to be remitted to the State after the expiry of the appeal period. Aggrieved by the observations made and the ordering confiscation of the property instead of releasing it in his favour, A.1 has preferred the present revision.

8. Heard Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State.

9. Learned counsel contends that, upon acquittal, the 1st Appellate Court ought to have ordered release of the unmarked cloth bundles to the petitioner, as the material on record establishes his ownership; the courts erred in treating shifting of the cloths as denial of seizure; property unconnected with the offence cannot be forfeited, and its continued retention violates the petitioner’s right to property; the cloths have no nexus with the charges, the dispute being purely civil; hence, the criminal court can only order return of the property; continued retention or public auction would cause deterioration and irreparable loss, entitling the petitioner to interim custody pending disposal of the case.

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order of confiscation passed by the 1st Appellate Court; the remaining submissions are addressed in the subsequent part of this order.

11. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

                  Does the order of confiscation of property passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrant interference?

12. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand((2004) 7 SCC 659), that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court”.

13. At this juncture, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that throughout the criminal proceedings, A.1 never made any claim over the property alleged to have  been seized. Even the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (A.1) has not placed any material evidence on record to show that the revision petitioner/A.1 had asserted any right over the seized property. On the other hand, the 1st Appellate Court, in paragraph No.31 of its judgment, observed that the Appellant (A.1), for reasons best known to him, had disowned the clothes alleged to have been seized from his possession. Further, in paragraph No.21, the 1st Appellate Court observed that the case of the Appellant (A.1) was one of total denial of the prosecution’s case, wherein he asserted that he neither purchased clothes from PWs.1 to 10 on a credit basis nor did the seized clothes belong to him, and that the case had been foisted against him.

14. Having maintained a specific stance throughout the course of the trial that he neither purchased clothes from the prosecution witnesses (PWs.1 to 10) on a credit basis nor had any clothing items seized from his possession, the petitioner (A.1) now seems to have shifted his defence strategy. In an apparent attempt to derive benefit from the acquittal judgment passed by the 1st Appellate Court, the petitioner (A.1) is seeking to assert a claim over the property that was previously confiscated. This shift of defence suggests that it may be driven more by a desire to leverage the legal outcome than by the facts as contended and argued in the trial court.

15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (A.1) has submitted that the observations rendered by the 1st Appellate Court are factually erroneous and, therefore, ought to be reconsidered. It is, however, noteworthy that despite the submissions advanced, the petitioner has failed to place before this Court any substantive or cogent material that could demonstrate, at any stage of the proceedings, that the revision petitioner had asserted or claimed any legal right over the property which was subject to seizure.

16. Upon consideration of the record and the factual matrix, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions of the 1st Appellate Court regarding confiscation of the property are reasoned and justified and do not warrant interference. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to disturb or set aside the findings of the 1st Appellate Court, which has delivered a judicious and well-reasoned judgment after due consideration of the material on record and the submissions of both parties. The impugned confiscation order suffers from neither perversity nor illegality. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed, and the point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, thereby confirming the Judgment dated 18.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.271 of 2016 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

                  Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.