APHC010136042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 157/2025 Between: Gunda Lakshmi Pamuleti ...APELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Apellant: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal is filed by the defacto-complainant in Crime No. 141 of 2018 of Allagadda Town PS registered for offences under Sec.s 341, 364(A), 323, 397, 506 r/w 34 IPC and PW1 in SC.No. 155 of 2020 before the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Allagadda. 2. According to the case of the prosecution in the Sessions Case, the appellant/PW1 was kidnapped by the accused and they demanded the appellant to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- failing which, they would kill him. 2 Dr.VJPJ, CRLA.No.157/2025 Therefore, PW1 informed him brother to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- and handover the ransom to the accused as per their instructions. On receipt of money, the accused released the appellant/PW1 from their custody. Basing on the report by the appellant, the police registered FIR and during enquiry, the police seized Rs.4,26,000/- from A2 to A4, Rs.90,000/- from A5 and Rs.1,80,000/- from A1 in the presence of mediators, under MOs 6, 9 and 11 respectively. During the course of trial, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused were acquitted. 3. The trial court vide Judgment dated 28.08.2024 in SC.No. 155 of 2020 ordered that the cash which was seized by the police under MOs 6, 9 and 11 be confiscated to the state. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard Sri. P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, representing the State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the police have seized Rs.6,96,200/- from the accused which is a part amount given by the brother of the appellant to the accused. The appellant was granted interim custody of the said amount by order in Crl.M.P. No. 86 of 2019. The Trial Court erroneously ordered for confiscation of the cash to the state instead of returning the same to the appellant. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no rival claim against the said cash either from the accused or from the prosecution and the 3 Dr.VJPJ, CRLA.No.157/2025 appellant is entitled to the custody of the cash. The accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt since the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is not a clean acquittal. The PW1 in his chief- examination also stated that he was kidnapped by the accused and they demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for his release and the PW1 arranged the said amount through his brother, i.e. PW3. The PW5 who is the bus conductor in which PW3 travelled deposed that he witnessed PW3 boarding the bus at Chinthagunta bypass, later he got down from the bus and dropped a bag at roadside. The limitation period for appeal is also elapsed by now. 7. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state would submit that there is no rival claim against the cash seized by the police and court may pass appropriate orders. 8. Considering the submissions made and material placed on record, it is true that the appellant was granted interim custody of the cash seized from the accused under MOs 6, 9 & 11 during the trial. It is the case where the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction of the accused. Further, the PW1 deposed before the Trial Court that he has given Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused through his brother on the threats made by the accused. There is no other plausible explanation submitted by the prosecution as to how the accused is in possession of such cash. In such a case, the appellant is entitled to receive the cash of Rs.6,96,000/- seized under MOs. 6, 9 & 11. 4 Dr.VJPJ, CRLA.No.157/2025 9. In that view, the direction in Judgment dated 28.08.2024 in SC.No. 155 of 2020 that the cash under MOs. 6, 9 & 11 be confiscated to the state, is hereby amended and the learned Trial Judge is directed to return the MOs 6, 9 & 11 to the appellant herein on proper identification, acknowledgement and undertaking to produce the same as when directed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.03.2025 UPS 5 Dr.VJPJ, CRLA.No.157/2025 305 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.A.No.157 of 2025 Dated.21.03.2025 UPS