In the Court of the II Additional Special Judge for C.B.I.
Cases,
Visakhapatnam
Present: M. Venkata Ramana,
II Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Monday, the 28th day of March, 2022
Crl.M.P. 251/2022 in C.C. 3/2018
Between:
M. Siva Shankar Naik, Son of Hanuman Naik,
Hindu, aged 46 years, ITO, Head Quarters,
O/o. Principal CIT, Hyderabad.
... Petitioner/A1 in FIR
And:
State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation, ,
Visakhapatnam.
... Respondent/ Complainant
This petition is coming on 25.03.2022 for final hearing before me
in the presence of Sri [Link], Advocate for the petitioner
and of Smt. [Link], Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant
and having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Section 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C. praying the
court to order for return of documents mentioned in the petition and
cash of Rs.1,25,000/- which was seized from the residence of
petitioner.
2. The gist of contents of the petition is as follows:
That the petitioner is shown as A1 in crime No.15(A)/2017-
CBI/VSKP when the petitioner was working as Income Tax Officer, Ward
-2, Visakhapatnam and the second accused in the said crime was
working as Senior Tax Assistant (sic Assistance), in the office of
Additional Director of Income Tax, 5th Floor, MVP Colony,
Visakhapatnam and that the trap was laid against the 2nd accused by
2
Crl.M.P.251 /2022 in CC.3 /2018
II CBI Court/Vsp.
the Respondent herein on 27-09-2017 at the building of Income Tax,
MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam on the allegation that he has demanded
and accepted bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- from the defacto
complainant for doing an official favour. It is nextly contended that on
the same day the residential premises and office premises of the
Petitioner were also searched and C.B.I., seized petition mentioned
documents and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was found in the
residence of the petitioner and out of it Rs. 25,000/- was returned and
the balance of Rs. 1,25,000/- was seized. It is nextly contended that
after seizure of below mentioned documents and cash of Rs.1,25,000/-,
the same were produced before the court and taken by Investigation
Officer for the purpose of investigation and that to the best of the
knowledge of the petitioner, they are in Malkhana of C.B.I Office,
Visakhapatnam. It is nextly contended that a separate case in crime
No.1(A)/2018 was registered against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 and once
again search was conducted at the residential premises of the
petitioner and number of documents were seized. It is nextly
contended that after completion of through investigation, final report in
crime No. 1(A)/2018 was filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI
cases at Visakhapatnam stating that no prima facie case is made out
for prosecution against the petitioner and the same was accepted. It is
further contended that the investigation officer filed an application
before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases in crime No.1(A)/2018
praying the court to permit him to return the seized documents to the
petitioner and the same was allowed and later the documents were
returned by Investigation Officer to the Petitioner. It is nextly
3
Crl.M.P.251 /2022 in CC.3 /2018
II CBI Court/Vsp.
contended that the Investigation Officer after completion of
investigation filed charge sheet in Crime 15(A)/2017 against A2 only
and the same was registered as CC 3 of 2018 and said case is pending
on the file of this Court. It is further contended that the documents
mentioned below and seized cash of Rs.1,25,000/- are not relevant for
deciding the case against accused in C.C.3/2018 and that there are no
other proceedings pending against this petitioner in any other C.B.I.
Courts. As such the petitioner is entitled to claim the documents and
cash.
3. The Public Prosecutor filed counter stating that the C.B.I.,
Visakhapatnam registered a case in Crime No. RC 15(A)/2017 against
this petitioner for the offence punishable U/s 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sec.120-B IPC. It is nextly
contended that the petitioner while working as Income Tax Officer,
Visakhapatnam demanded an amount of Rs.30,000/ - as bribe from the
complainant Pachigolla Krishna Murthy for closing the complaint
against Smt. Rama Ratnam, wife of complainant. During Post trap
proceedings an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with documents listed
as No.1 to No.19 in petition were seized from his residential premises
and documents listed as No. 1 to 5 were seized from the office
premises of the petitioner. It is nextly contended that the documents
No.1, 2, 3 & 5 seized from the office premises were filed along with the
charge sheet. It is nextly contended that the cash of Rs.1,25,000/-
mentioned [Link].20 and remaining documents 1 to 19 (mentioned in
the petition) are not relied by the prosecution. As such they are not
filed along with the charge sheet. It is prayed to pass appropriate
orders.
4
Crl.M.P.251 /2022 in CC.3 /2018
II CBI Court/Vsp.
4. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner has any merits?
5. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of
either party.
6. POINT:
Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. They argued
in support of respective contentions of petition and counter. Perused
the material on record consisting of petition and counter and charge
sheet. After thorough and careful going through the entire material on
record and after considering the arguments of both the sides, I find
sufficient force in the contention of counsel for petitioner. As rightly
contended by the counsel for petitioner though F.I.R was registered
against the petitioner and one [Link] Rao, the
respondent/complainant filed charge sheet against [Link] Rao
only in Crime No.15(A)/2017. In the charge sheet it is categorically
mentioned that the petitioner issued notices under section 142(1) of
Income Tax Act to various assesses, including Smt. [Link] Ratnam
wife of Pachigulla Krishna Murty and this petitioner issued said notices
in a routine process. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that
the petitioner was not sent for trial as no criminal involvement on his
part was revealed during investigation and accordingly, he has
transposed as prosecution witness. It is the contention of the petitioner
that the C.B.I., Visakhapatnam though registered a case in Crime
No.1(A)/2018, they filed report before Principal Special Judge for C.B.I
Cases, Visakhapatnam stating that no prima-facie case made out for
prosecution against this petitioner and the same was accepted by said
court. It is also contended that the investigation officer filed an
5
Crl.M.P.251 /2022 in CC.3 /2018
II CBI Court/Vsp.
application before Principal Special Judge for C.B.I Cases,
Visakhapatnam in crime No.1(A)/2018 praying the court to permit him
to return the seized documents and the said petition was allowed. The
Public Prosecutor had not denied the contentions of petitioner
mentioned in the 3rd para of the petition. The Public Prosecutor stated
that the court may pass an appropriate order. After considering the
contents of both the sides and material on record, I am of the view the
petitioner is entitled for return of cash of Rs.1,25,000/- and documents
mentioned in the petition. As such I find merits in the petition.
7. In the result, petition is allowed. The office is directed to return
[Link].35 to 38 on proper identification and acknowledgment. The
respondent/C.B.I., Visakhapatnam is directed to return cash of
Rs.1,25,000/- and all other documents mentioned in the petition on
proper identification and acknowledgment.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me this the 28th day of March, 2022.
II Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Visakhapatnam.
Appendix of evidence
-Nil –
II Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Visakhapatnam.
6
Crl.M.P.251 /2022 in CC.3 /2018
II CBI Court/Vsp.
7
Crl.M.P.251 /2022 in CC.3 /2018
II CBI Court/Vsp.
