Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 523 (AP)

Narra Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2010-06-24

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2010
ORDER Petitioner is accused No.26 in CC No.159 of 2005 renumbered as 24 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and he filed the present petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. 2. It may not be necessary to refer to the various facts mentioned in the charge-sheet and it is suffice to state the allegations that are levelled against the petitioner and 25 others are that they all have caused huge loss to the Government by registering a false document and are thus liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477(A) of IPC. 3. The main contention of the leall1ed Counsel for the petitioner is that the D.I.G. Registration and Stamps (Market Value) Domalguda, Hyderabad conducted an enquiry and submitted a detailed report to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Letter N9S.29788/Enqy/95 dated 21.4.1997 and another dated 21.6.1998. On the basis of the said report only the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner herein along with 25 others. He has drawn my attention to the said enquiry report submitted by the DIG and stated that as per the said report there is absolutely nothing against the petitioner, but, however, the charge-sheet has been filed arraying the petitioner as accused No.26. According to him, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he assisted the accused Nos.18 and 19 viz., B. Yanadaiah and B. Venkata Ratnam and in a petition filed by them the Court below discharged them invoking the power vested in it under - Section 239 Cr.P.C and thus requested this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the said submissions made by the leall1ed Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is clear evidence of LW80 i.e. Nisankararao Nanda Kishore to establish the complicity of the petitioner herein and it is not a case for quashing of the proceedings and according to him if ultimately the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned he is entitled for acquittal. 5. 5. In the light of the said submissions made by both the Counsel, this Court looked into the record. 6. On the basis of the statements of the list of witnesses and also the statements of the accused recorded by the Dy. Inspector General a detailed report was submitted by way of two letters dated 21.4.1997 and 21.6.1998. As stated supra, in the light of the said enquiry report the Inspector of Police cm, RCC, Vijayawada filed the charge-sheet against as many as 26 accused. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court gave its anxious consideration to the statements made by the list of witnesses as well as the accused persons. The said enquiry report is on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of enquiry. It is true that LW80 i.e. N. Nanda Kumar had stated about the complicity of the petitioner and others. In the enquiry report the DIG after recording the statements of various persons at Para No.46 had observed as follows: 46 Sri N. Venkateswarlu, Junior Assistant, Registrar Office, Guntur joined duty in January 1995 worked under the control of Sri B. Yanadaiah, Joint Sub- Registrar-I and Sri B.V. Ratnam, Joint Sub- Registrar -II Guntur. Sri N. Venkateswarlu confirmed that due to enhancement of Market Value the stamp vending Registers, ledgers were collected by Sri Rama Shastry kept under the custody of Joint Sub-Registrar I, Guntur. Sri N. Venkateswarlu confirmed that the Verification Certificates were given to the parties directly as well as to Sub Registrars of Vijayawada by the Assistant District Registrar and Joint Sub Registrar-I. 46.1 The Verification Certificates Sl. Nos.1, 2, 3, 3(b), 4, 6, 7 and 50 were prepared by Sri N. Venkateswarlu, whose initials are added beneath the Asst. District Registrar's endorsement to whom the A.D.R. asked to prepare the certificates. This fact also agreed by the Assistant District Registrar in his deposition. In view of this fact he is not responsible for the loss of revenue on the documents registered based on these certificates and attributes to Sr. K. Babu Rao only. 46.2 But the Verification Certificate Sl. Nos.5, 8,9,48,49,65,66,67,68 and 53 to 64, 78 to 80 and 82 to 91 were also prepared by him on the orders of Joint Sub- Registrar Sri B. Yanadaiah whose initials are forthcoming underneath the endorsement. K. Babu Rao only. 46.2 But the Verification Certificate Sl. Nos.5, 8,9,48,49,65,66,67,68 and 53 to 64, 78 to 80 and 82 to 91 were also prepared by him on the orders of Joint Sub- Registrar Sri B. Yanadaiah whose initials are forthcoming underneath the endorsement. On all these certificates, the concerned sale of entries noted in the registers either tampered or erased. While preparing the certificates by the Junior Assistant will definitely gives an opportunity to look into the entries in the books and without any objection he has prepared the certificates on the orders of the Joint Sub-Registrar - I is not convincing. 46.3 Verification Certificates Sl. Nos.11 to 47, 69 to 81 and 88 were issued to the parties directly and it is a fact that those certificates were not prepared by him but the initials of Sri N. Vellkateswarlu have been forged to give impression as if prepared by him. These certificates were issued by Sri B. Yanadaiah, Joint Sub-Registrar - I appears to have been arranged through Stamp Vendors and passed directly to Venkateswarlu in the preparation as well as issue of Verification Certificates is ruled out. 46.4 In respect of Verification Certificate Sl. Nos.9, 14, 15 and 16 of Appendix - B, the certificates were issued with the forged signature of the Assistant District Registrar and forged initials of Sri N. Vellkateswarlu and whose involvement or participation is ruled out. 8. From the above it is clear that the petitioner is not responsible for the loss of revenue on the documents registered basing on the Verification Certificates and no role can be attributable to the petitioner. Similarly, the enquiry officer in his report had stated that the falsification and preparation of the Verification Certificates by the petitioner herein is ruled out. However at Para No.46.2 he observed as follows: ".. . .. . . . . While preparing the certificates by the Junior Assistant (Petitioner herein) will definitely gives an opportunity to look into the entries in the books and without any objection he has prepared the certificates on the orders of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I is not convincing." 9. It is true that there is an allegation against the petitioner herein. .. . . . . While preparing the certificates by the Junior Assistant (Petitioner herein) will definitely gives an opportunity to look into the entries in the books and without any objection he has prepared the certificates on the orders of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I is not convincing." 9. It is true that there is an allegation against the petitioner herein. But if we read the entire paragraph 46.2, the said Verification Certificates were prepared by the petitioner on the orders of the Joint Sub Registrar-I i.e. B. Yanadaiah who is arrayed as accused No.18 and on his instructions only the said certificates were alleged to have been prepared. But it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the accused Nos.18 and 19 have filed an application i.e. Crl. MP No.2295 of 2006 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court pleading discharge and the Court below had accepted the said contentions put forth by the accused Nos. 18 and 19 and discharged them from the charges framed against them vide order dated 25.8.2006. The same was questioned by the State by filing a revision against the said order passed by the trial Court, but 'the said criminal revision case was dismissed. Thus the said order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the trial Court has become final. When once it is the report of the DIG to the effect that the said Verification Certificates were prepared by the petitioner on the orders of the Joint Sub-Registrar Yanadaiah and the said Yanadaiah and another were discharged by the Court below and when the said order has become final, this Court finds no point in continuing the said proceedings insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned. 10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.26 therein is concerned.