TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the process of election to the State Legislative Assembly of the State of Telangana for the year 2023, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners vide FIR No.1323 of 2023 on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171-B read with 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 123 (1) (A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 alleging that on 22.11.2023, when the Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar Police Station during routine vehicle inspection on the National Highway 65, intercepted the vehicle i.e., Hyundai i20 Car bearing No.AP-23-AG-3719, in which petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 were travelling, and seized cash amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- to hand over the same to the contesting MLA candidate i.e., Sri Komatireddy Rajagopala Reddy from Munugodu Assembly Constituency for Election purpose. Petitioner Nos.3 and 5 were travelling in Innova Car bearing No.TS-13-G T/R 7153. Aggrieved by registration of said FIR, the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.4033 of 2024 before this Court seeking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 2 (10) of the Act, 1988. Despite issuance of summons and show cause notice, there was no response or supporting documents were submitted by any of the petitioners within the stipulated period. The details of notices issued/served on the petitioners are extracted as under : Sl. No. Type of Notice /Communication DIN/ Reference Number Date of Service Mode of Service Status Remarks 1. Summons under Section 19 of PBPT Act 1.ITBA/COM/F/17/204-25/1069982022 (1) 2.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982272 (1) 3.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982539 (1) 4.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982762 (1) 5.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069983189 (1) 28.10.2024 Registered Post/Email Not complied 1.Sri Sampathi Shiva Kumar 2. Sri Tatikonda Mahender Reddy 3. Sri Nimma Vinay Kumar Reddy 4. Sri Nimma Vinay Kumar Reddy 5. Sri Surakanti Mahender Reddy failed to appear on 04.11.2024 2. Summons under Section 19 of PBPT Act 1.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070161063 (1) 2.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070161212 (1) 3.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/106998253....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ami property, respondent No.1 has illegally classified the petitioners as 'Benamidars.' 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality as respondent No.2 failed to disclose the material particulars of the transactions on the basis of which the petitioners were declared as "Benamidars." He further contended that the said unclaimed cash of Rs.2.00 crores cannot itself be considered as 'benami property', in the absence of fictitious transaction, so as to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1988. He further contended that the seized amount would not come within the definition of 'benami property' and learned counsel for the petitioners tried to point out the definition of 'benami property' under Section 2 (8) of the Act, 1988, which means any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction, which includes the proceeds from such property. He also pointed out to Section 2 (10) 'Benamidar' as per whichmeans 'a person or a fictitious person, as the case may be, in whose name the benami property is transferred or held and includes a person who lends his name' and Section 2 (26) defines the 'property' means 'broadly as assets of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating Officer under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Since petitioners did not choose to appear on any of the dates mentioned in the notices, respondent No.2 has no other option and he was forced to pass the impugned order and came to the conclusion that the transaction is 'benami' and said cash seized is a 'benami property.' Further, it is also not the case of the petitioners that they are not being provided any opportunity to put up their case or the respondents have committed any breach of non compliance of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioners disown the said property seized and also did not choose to place before the authorities as to the details of ownership of the said property. 9. A perusal of the record would clearly show that the petitioners were given ample opportunity before passing the impugned order, as such under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit over the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 as an appellate authority and so also to adjudicate upon the provisional attachment order passed by respondent No.2, as respondent No.3, being the Adjudicating Authority, which is competent to sit....