Kurapati Ramesh vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal revision cases, setting aside the trial court's orders. The Court noted that the final report filed by the Investigating Officer stated that upon due investigation and verification of purchase bills and tax paid receipts produced by the petitioners, it was revealed that they purchased the seized gold in a proper way, paying all government GST and IGST. The Court also considered the registration certificates filed by the petitioners, which showed them as proprietors of their respective firms. Based on these findings and documents, the Court was of the opinion that the seized gold could be released in favour of the petitioners. The trial court was directed to release 4.121 kgs of gold to the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.782 of 2023 and 1.080 kgs of gold to the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.784 of 2023, without furnishing any security, in accordance with the procedure. The ratio decidendi is that when an investigation report confirms the legitimate purchase of goods and payment of applicable taxes, and ownership documents are produced, interim custody of seized goods should be granted.

Facts

Two criminal revision cases were filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging orders passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet. The cases arose from Crime No. 23 of 2023, registered at D.V. Satram Police Station. During a vehicle check, police intercepted two cars and found 5.201 kgs of gold pieces in total, carried by four individuals (accused Nos. 1-4). As the accused could not produce documents for the gold, it was seized along with the vehicles. Petitioners, proprietors of "Sri Namo Raghavendra Bullion & Jewellers" and "Sri Rajamatha Devi Jewellers," claimed ownership of 1.080 kgs and 4.121 kgs of the seized gold, respectively. They stated they purchased the gold on 09.05.2023 from "Aryan Gold" at Bangalore under invoices and sent it with their workers (accused Nos. 1-4) to Narasaraopet on 10.05.2023. The trial court dismissed their interim custody petitions, finding discrepancies and deeming the submitted bills unbelievable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitions for interim custody of the seized gold, despite the petitioners producing purchase invoices and tax paid receipts, and the final report indicating proper purchase and tax payment? The petitioners argued that the final report filed by the police, after investigation, supported their claim. They contended that the investigation revealed they purchased the gold from Aryan Gold, Bangalore, and paid all government GST & IGST properly. They also submitted registration certificates showing them as proprietors of their respective firms. The petitioners relied on the findings in the final report that the seized gold was purchased in a proper way, with all taxes paid. The revenue or State did not record any arguments in the judgment.