ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. Crl.R.C. No. 911 of 2019 and Crl.R.C. No. 910 of 2019 are filed by petitioners/A 16 and A35 respectively aggrieved by the orders dated 20.05.2019 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 735 of 2019 and 733 of 2019 passed by learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, dismissing the discharge applications filed by them in C.C. No. 223 of 2006. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Naram Nageswara Rao and learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. 3. (a) The facts in C.C. No. 223 of 2006 briefly are that A1 to A50 are private persons and A1 & A2 in connivance with A3 to A50, who are the non-tribal riots prepared some fake judgments purportedly, delivered by the Special Deputy Collector, by using the fake stamps of Special Deputy Collector, K.R. Puram and with the help of those fake judgments, A3 to A50 applied for pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the tribal lands. Whereas A51 to A63 are the official accused as they are working under different designations as MROs, VROs, VAOs etc., and without verifying the genuineness of the fake judgments enclosed to the claim forms by A3 to A50, they recommended for issuance of pattadar passbooks and thereby, the tribals of Buttaigudem and Jeelugumilli Mandal lost their rights in the lands, which rights they got as per the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1950 as amended by Act 1 of 1970. Preparation of fake documents was done in between 1995 to 2002 and basing on those fake judgments, the non-tribal riots obtained pattadar passbooks in their favour. On the complaint lodged by the organizer of TARA (Tribal awareness and rights achievement), a voluntary organization, Crime No. 55 of 2002 was registered by the police of Jangareddigudem P.S. on 25.04.2002 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 120-B r/w 109 IPC and investigated into and filed charge sheet against A1 to A63. (b) Be that it may, some of the official accused challenged the criminal proceedings against them by filing quash petitions. For instance, A63 who is the MRO, Jeelugumilli, filed Crl.R.C. No. 1709 of 2010 before the High Court of A.P. aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P. No. 792 of 2009 passed by learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District. For instance, A63 who is the MRO, Jeelugumilli, filed Crl.R.C. No. 1709 of 2010 before the High Court of A.P. aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P. No. 792 of 2009 passed by learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District. The said petition was allowed by the order dated 17.10.2012. Similarly, Crl.R.C. Nos. 2414 and 2417 of 2014 were filed by A53, A55 and A57 to A60, aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P. Nos. 2196 and 2195 of 2013 and those criminal revision cases were also allowed by this Court in its order dated 14.11.2018, basing on the earlier order in Crl.R.C. No. 1709 of 2010 and criminal proceedings were quashed against those accused. So also A52 who was Superintendent of MRO Office, Buttaigudem filed Crl.R.C. No. 32 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act - cum - VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P. No. 377 of 2013. The said Crl.R.C. was allowed by order dated 21.01.2016 basing on the order of the High Court of A.P. in Crl.R.C. No. 1709 of 2010. (c) Now, the main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that since the criminal proceedings against the official accused were quashed by the above orders, the findings in the above orders will enure to the benefit of the petitioners/A16 and A35 also and therefore, by virtue of the above covered judgments, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A16 and A35 may also be quashed. (d) Learned additional public prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal revision cases on the submission that the allegations against the official accused and unofficial accused are quiet different and therefore, the quashment of the criminal proceedings against the official accused cannot be applied to the unofficial accused. In expatiation, he would argue that the prime accusation against unofficial accused is that they all conspired together and prepared fake judgments purportedly delivered by Special Deputy Collector, in their favour and pressing those judgments, they applied for issuance of pattadar passbooks in respect of tribal lands. Such preparation of fake judgments and pressing them into service is a serious offence, he would argue. Such preparation of fake judgments and pressing them into service is a serious offence, he would argue. Whereas the allegation against the official accused is not so serious inasmuch as the allegation against them is that they failed to properly scrutinize the genuinity or otherwise of those judgments. The criminal proceedings against them were quashed by the High Court basing on the report of the District Collector, dated 23.02.2005 stating that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds have been issued to the claimants in view of their long possession and enjoyment and in that process, no wrongful gain was caused to the non-tribals and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government. Learned additional public prosecutor would argue that the accusation against the official accused was only that of want of diligence and dereliction from the duty. In that view and basing on the report of the District Collector, the criminal proceedings against them were quashed by the High Court in different petitions. However, that is not the case with the unofficial accused, who with an intention to cheat the Government, have consciously prepared fake judgments and applied for pattadar passbooks and title deeds with the help of those fake documents. Therefore, the allegations against them have to be examined in a regular trial. He, thus, prayed to dismiss the criminal revision cases. 4. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. On perusal of the record, I find force in the submission of learned additional public prosecutor. As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the unofficial accused A1 to A50 are to some extent different from the allegations against the official accused A51 to A63. It is alleged that A1 is the creator of fake judgments, A2, who is the principal of the type institute, had typed the fake judgments created by A1 and A3 to A50 are the non tribal riots who used the fake judgments prepared by A1 to obtain pattadar passbooks. So, the role of A1 to A50, as per the charge sheet, is that they connived together and prepared fake judgments for obtaining wrongful gain i.e., pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the scheduled lands. A51 to A63 are official accused working in the Revenue Department in different designations. So, the role of A1 to A50, as per the charge sheet, is that they connived together and prepared fake judgments for obtaining wrongful gain i.e., pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the scheduled lands. A51 to A63 are official accused working in the Revenue Department in different designations. The allegation against them is that they have not properly scrutinized the genuinity of the fake judgments and in that way, they helped A1 to A50 in creating fake judgments in 48 cases and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Be that it may, in Crl.R.C. No. 1709 of 2010, this Court mainly considered the report of the District Collector dated 23.02.2005 to quash the proceedings against A63. The observation of this Court is thus: "5. From a perusal of the report dated 23.02.2005 of the District Collector, it is evident that the claimants to whom the petitioner issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds have proved their long possession and enjoyment and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner caused wrongful gain to the non-tribals and wrongful loss to the Government by issuing the pattadar passbooks. As seen from the record, there are no complaints from the Tribals claiming any right over the land by virtue of the orders passed by the petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbooks and there are no civil disputes pending in respect of those lands. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. Therefore, this Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/A63 in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 5. This Court, thus, opined that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued basing on the long possession and enjoyment of the concerned unofficial accused and by such Act, no wrongful gain was caused to the non-tribals and no corresponding loss was occasioned to the Government. It was further observed that no complaints were made by the tribals claiming any right over the land by virtue of the order passed by the petitioner/A63 and no civil disputes were pending in respect of those lands. On such observations, the criminal proceedings against A63 were quashed and basing on the aforesaid order, criminal proceedings against some other official accused were also quashed. 6. On such observations, the criminal proceedings against A63 were quashed and basing on the aforesaid order, criminal proceedings against some other official accused were also quashed. 6. It should be noted that in the above orders, no comment was made by this Court with regard to the genuinity or otherwise of the judgments pressed into service by the unofficial accused while applying for the pattadar passbooks. Therefore, in my considered view, the veracity of the judgments produced along with the applications by the unofficial accused is a question of fact to be determined in a regular trial. Therefore, it should be noted that irrespective of the fact whether the unofficial accused were in long possession of the lands, their conduct in pressing into service fake judgments is a deprecable act. Hence, they cannot take advantage of the orders quashing the criminal proceedings against some of the official accused. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed their petitions. 7. I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned. Accordingly, these criminal revision cases are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.