PERICHARLA VENKATA KRISHNAM RAJU V. CH.ELECTION COMMISSIONER,HYD,AND 4

WP/24001/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around the seizure of Rs.2,23,500 from the petitioner, Pericharla Venkata Krishnam Raju, during an election period by a special flying squad. The money was alleged to be intended for illegal distribution to voters, based on a complaint by rivals. The petitioner contended that the money was from the sale of cashews and was meant for agricultural expenses and daily wages, not for electoral bribery. The court examined the evidence, including the petitioner's agricultural income records and the lack of substantial proof from the respondents to justify the seizure under the election code.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726176 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 CPC, Section 102 of CrPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V V RAO; GP FOR REVENUE; GP FOR HOME
• Assessee Lawyers: K V RAO
• Keywords: Agricultural income; Seizure of money; Seizure of money; Writ of Mandamus; Election Code; Illegal Distribution to Voters
• Section: 102; 151; 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24001 OF 2014 Between: Pericharla Venkata Krishnam Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. J.Annavaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad. The District Collector, (The District Election Officer), East Godavari District. Kakinada. The Tahsildar, Yeleswaram Mandal, Yeleswaram, East Godavary District The Deputy Tahsildar, Yeleswaram Mandal, Flying Squad In'charge, (Elections) East Godavary District. The Station House Officer, Yeleswaram PS., Yeleswaram, East Godavari District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the hard earned money of the petitioner is illegal and direct to release the seized amount of Rs.2,23,500/-. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 30051 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the seized amount of Rs.2,23,500/- forthwith, pending disposal of the Main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. V. SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V.V. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24001 of 2014 ORDER: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the hard earned money of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and direct to release the seized amount of Rs.2,23,500/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the farmer and having Ac 5.51 cents of land in his name and Ac 4.72 cents in the name of his wife. The entire land is under covered by mango and cashew garden. In the end of the crop year 2013-2014 an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs were fetched from In addition to this amount, the petitioner has the crops. placed a sum of Rs.23,500/- in his almirah. At that time of elections of MLA and MP, the 4^^ respondent, a special flying squad constituted under the control of the 3^^ respondent came to the petitioner’s house basing on the wrong complaint given b}^ rivals stating that the said money was being distributed to the voters. Under this false complaint, all the money had been seized by the 4^^ respondent and lodged a complaint and the petitioner before the respondent and later the 5^^ respondent registered a crime vide FIR No.47/2014 ■—.-j 2 dated 7.5.2014 under Section stated that the said 102 of CrP.C.. It is further amount of Rs.2,23,500/- was kept in the the authorities.. treasury office of Prathipadu by The petitioner is having all proofs pertaining to the said amount. The petitioner approached the seized respondents for refund of the amount by placing all proofs representation dated 17.7.2014 but the responding to release the said writ petition. and he mad a respondents are not Hence, the present amount. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the No.3 denying all the allegations made in the petition, stated that during the enquiiy held by the Flying Squad it was revealed that the said unauthorized ready for illegal distribution to for getting the benefit of questioned the petitioner stated the by way of sold cashew respondent It is Team, amount was kept voters by the petitioner herein vote bank. The 4th respondent when was his own, got amount nuts and produced a rough note book towards evidence. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has not furnished any bills, vouchers or accounts for the above mentioned amount of Rs.2,23,500/-and squad Team, come to conclusion that the with an intention to distribute as such the Flying cash was kept ready to the voters illegally in the w 3 village. It is further stated that total process of seizure was recorded in Videography and the relevant ideo cassette was handed over in original to the 5* respondent herein. The Panchanama conducted was also handed over to the 5* respondent in original by the 4* respondent. The seized amount of Rs.2,23,500/- was handed over to the 5* respondent who registered the case as FIR No.47/2014 dated 7.5.2014 under Section 102 CrPC on the file of Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yeleswaram. The 5^^^ respondent ha produced the seized amount of Rs.2,23,500/- before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yeleswaram and the 3'^'^ respondent has deposited the amount in the District Treasury Kakinada vide Safe Custody Article Receipt No.72. The petitioner has not produced valid evidence showing the amount seized was relate to agricultural income. The petitioner also stated before the Flying Squad Team, that he has no other evidence except the evidence stated above. 4. The 5* respondent also filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that basing on the complaint a case in Cr No.47/2014 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. has been registered on 7.5.2014 against the petitioner herein 4 on the file of this respondent police station and investigation has been taken up by the Sub Inspector of Police. 5. Heard Sri K.V. Seshagiri Rao, learned appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. counsel 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having all proofs pertaining the said seized amount. to At the time of seizure of the the mediator reports were also in favour of the petitioner. money, he further submits that at the time of checking petitioner’s house, the petitioner stated that the said amount is pertaining to the was kept in the He further submits that the petitioner placing revenue records pertaining to himself and his wife’s lands and with the said mainly contended that the petitioner has to pay daily wages to the workers form the said amount therefore the sale of cashews in his land. The said amount house due to the enforcing of election code. amount. He money is very petitioner for investment of the much needed for the cultivation of the land for the necessities of the households and to release his loans etc. Learned counsel further that the petitioner has made a detailed representation to the submits 5 respondent authorities for refund of the seized amount but the respondents have not taken any action. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that basing on the complaint a case in Crime No.47/2014 under Section 102 Cr.P.C has been registered against the petitioner and investigation has also been taken up by the Sub Inspector of Police. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, as of now, the petitioner did not submit any document about the seized amount. During the course of investigation the complainant and 3 other witnesses have been examined and recorded their detailed statements. He further submits that on 24.5.2014 the 5^^ respondent deposited Form-60 along with seized amount before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yelleswaram and after completion of investigation an appropriate report will be filed before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yelleswaram at the earliest. 8. As seen from the complaint of the Tahsildar, Yeleswaram vide Ref.No.C/102/2014, dated 22.07.2014 which is filed at page No.21, wherein it is observed that, during the 6 General Elections 2014 Team Yeleswaram on 6.5.2014 on credible information made a surprise check over the house of Pericherla Venakta Krishnam Raju of J.Annavaram village of Yeleswaram Mandal and seized Rs.2,23,500/- as the amount was kept ready for illegal distribution to voters in the village for getting illegal benefit of vote bank and the flying squad Yeleswaram deposited the seized amount in District Treasury, Kakinada and made a complaint before the SHO, Yeleswara team P.S on the file of Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yeleswaram. Therafter, the Yeleswaram P.S has registered the case in Crime No.47/2014 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and produced the seized cash before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Yeleswaram. 9. As per Section 102 Cr.P.C, “power of Police Officer to seize property”, which reads as follows: 102. Power of police officer to seize certain property. iilAny police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of offence. 121Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer-in-charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. 131[ Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, [or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continue retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation) jlnserted by Act 45 of 1978, Section 10 (w.e.f 18-12-1978).], he may give custody any 7 thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.] [Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sales.] (Added by Act 25 of2005, Section 13 (w.e.f 23-6-2006).] 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the amount . of Rs.2,23,500/- which was seized, is the petitioner’s hard earned money and it is pertaining to the sale of cashews in his land. The said amount was kept in the house due to the enforcing of election code. It appears that whenever the claimants/ petitioners are claiming that the source of income is an agricultural income, the respondents are not supposed to harass them to show the valid evidence, because. Agricultural income is not taxable under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, since it is not included in a person’s total income. Accordingly the category of agricultural income is also exemptable under Election code claims. It is observed from the material that even though the petitioner has made a detailed representation dated 17.7.2014 to the respondent authorities, but they have not taken any action, even Mandal Executive Magistrate also not conducted proper enquires and 8 simply seized the amount. Therefore, the respondents liberally accept the Returns as per the procedure. are 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that, directing the respondents to release the seized amount of Rs.2,23,500/-, which is the hard earned money of the petitioner, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to on 12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SDI- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Vijayawada. 2. The District Collector, (The District Election Officer), East Godavari District. Kakinada. 3. The Tahsildar, Yeleswaram Mandal, Yeleswaram, East Godavary District 4. The Deputy Tahsildar, Yeleswaram Mandal, Flying Squad In'charge (Elections) East Godavary District. 5. The Station House Officer, Yeleswaram PS., Yeleswaram, East Godavari District. 6. One CC to Sri K. V. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr SK HIGH COURT DATED:09/02/2024 ORDER WP.No.24001 of 2014 . /fPP s)olm ^39 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS "