Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 45 (AP)

V. Prabhakar Chowdary v. Kanakam Ramesh

2008-01-25

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2008
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P .C. seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 462 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, (Prohibition and Excise), Anantapur. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the first respondent, though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. On a complaint given by the first respondent herein, police registered a case in Cr.No. 54 of 2004 under Section 5 of A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement of Open Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable Poster and Advertisement Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner and filed a charge sheet before the Magistrate for the above said offence and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No. 462 of 2006. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 16 of the Act, no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under the Act except on a complaint filed by the District Collector or any Officer not below the rank of Mandai Revenue Officer, authorized by him. 5. Section 16 of the Act reads as follows: "Section 16-cognizanceofoffence: No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint filed in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada by the Commissioner of Police or by any Police Officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police authorized by him in this behalf and elsewhere by the District Collector or any Officer not below the rank of a Mandai Revenue Officer authorized by him in this behalf," 6. A perusal of the above provision of law discloses that when a complaint is filed elsewhere outside of Hyderabad, Secunderabad, Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada, the complaint ought to have been filed by the District Collector or officer not below the rank of Mandai Revenue Officer, authorized by the District Collector. In the present case, the Inspector of Police, Anantapur II Town PS, filed charge sheet. The charge sheet does not disclose that the District Collector or any Officer not below the rank of Mandai Revenue Officer, authorized by the District Collector, gave any complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, taking cognizance of the offence based on the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police is bad in law. The charge sheet does not disclose that the District Collector or any Officer not below the rank of Mandai Revenue Officer, authorized by the District Collector, gave any complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, taking cognizance of the offence based on the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police is bad in law. Therefore, further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 462 of 2006 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (prohibition and Excise), Anantapur are not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result the criminal petition is allowed accordingly.