Telangana High Court
CRLRC/2/2026 of Smt. M. Sulochana , Vs The State of Telangana, through by the Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU, Hyderabad. on 6 January 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 2 and 3 OF 2026 Between: Smt. M. Sulochana, Wo Thimma Reddy, Occ:House Wife, Aged about 80 years, R/o Flat
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 2 and 3 OF 2026
Between:
Smt. M. Sulochana, Wo Thimma Reddy, Occ:House Wife, Aged about 80 years, R/o Flat No.305, NVS Heights, Cyber Hills, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
...REVISION PETITIONER
AND
1 . The State of Telangana, through by the lnspector of Police, ACB, ClU, Hyderabad., Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, High Court, Hyderabad.
2. The Manager, Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,, Himayatnagar Branch, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Revision filed under Section 4381442 of BNSS to set aside the order dated 18.09.2025inCrl.M.P. No.570 of 2024 inC.C. No.137 of 2024 (oldC.C. No.06of
2018) on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE &
ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
lA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to immediately release the gold of the Petitioner on any reasonable conditions in c.c. No.1 37 ot 2024 (old c.c. No.06 of 201 8) on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case- Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. V PRABHAKARA RAO
Counsel forthe Respondents: T BALA MOHAN REDDY'
(SC FOR ACB SPL PP TS)
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN TI{E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
.THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIC E JUWADISRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2 and 3 ot 2026
06 JANUARY 2026
Between:
M.Sulochana and another
.. Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana
rep. by Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
.. Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
: COMMON ORDER:
Challenging the orders, dated 18.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.570 and 572o12Q24 in C.C.No.137 ot2024 (otd C.C.No.6 of 2018) by the learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of SpE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), these Criminal Revision Cases are flled. By the impugned orders, the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 8 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (for short 'Ordinance'), read with Section 45.1 of Cr.p.C., seeking to defree:ze and return of gold ornaments, were dismissed.
2. Since both the criminal revision cases are arising out of C.C.No.137 ot 2024, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this comrnon order. l
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for the ACB submits that any person aggrieved 5y the orders passed by the learned Special Judge under Sectionsi4, 6, 8 and 9 of the Ordinance is required to prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Ordinance within (30) days from the date of such order. When a Statute provides a specific remedy for redressal, the aggrieved person has to resort to the same. He further submits that in the instant cases, the petitioners have filed applications under Section 8 of the Ordinance, which were dismissed by the learned Special Judge. lf really the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 8 of the Ordinance, the appropriate remedy available to them is to file an appeal by invoking Section 11 of the Ordinance. Therefore, the filing of the present criminal revision cases amounts to nothing but circumventing the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Ordinance, which is impermissible in law. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the presentcriminal revision cases.
4. ln view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present revisions, with liberty to file an appeal, and has made an endorsement to that effect on the case bundles.
5. Permission is accorded
To, CIVlR/PSL //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Princigral special Judge for Trial of sPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad.
2. One CC to Sri. V PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate IOPUC]
3. One CC tc Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy (SC for ACB, SPL PP TS), Advocate loPUCl
4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]
5. Two CD Oopies
6. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought for. PenrJing miscellaneous apprications, if any, shail stand closed SD/- V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR (;z' JW
HIGH COURT DATED:06.10112026
ORDER
CRLRC.N o.2 ot 2026 S 06 ttg 2u6 gTA? |:i * t).,' I CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ARE DISSMIED AS WITHDRAWN. -t-xs #llee I