Managerandauth Sign., M/S.Srk Foods Private LTD., Rr Dist vs. Prl Secy, Dept Of Home, Hyderabad And 7 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SRK Foods Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the raid and search conducted by the 3rd respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam) on December 8, 2016, and the subsequent seizure of its products and other items as illegal, highhanded, and without lawful authority. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to hand over the seized goods and packaging material by unlocking its premises. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and police authorities, contended that the search and seizure were conducted in connection with Crime No. 245 of 2016. They stated that the seized articles were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, and subsequently transferred to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, where the matter was still pending. The respondents argued that the petitioner's claim of illegal seizure was therefore unjustified.

Held

The Court perused the materials on record and considered the assertion by the respondents that the seized articles/products from the petitioner's company had been properly produced before the concerned Court. Based on this, the Court found the petitioner's contention that the respondents conducted the search and seizure without lawful authority to be unacceptable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitioner's argument in this regard. However, the Court reserved the rights of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the Court concerned regarding the seized property. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the raid and search conducted by the 3rd respondent on December 8, 2016, on the petitioner's company and the seizure of its products and other items were illegal, highhanded, and without any power or authority, and against the procedure contemplated under law? 2. Whether the respondents 1 and 3 should be directed to forthwith hand over the seized goods and packaging material by unlocking the petitioner's premises? The petitioner argued that the raid, search, and seizure were illegal and conducted without proper authority. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, contended that the search and seizure were part of an ongoing investigation in Crime No. 245 of 2016 and that the seized items were duly produced before the competent Magistrate. They argued that the petitioner's contest regarding illegal seizure was therefore unjustified.