Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 409 (AP)

Koti Lakshmi Narayana v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-05-29

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Venkata Ramana, J. - A5 to A7 are the petitioners. The offences alleged against them are under sections 188, 379 I.P.C. and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2020 at about 6.00 a.m at Thammavaram Cross road in between Didugu and Malladi villages of Amaravati Mandal, when Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravati Police Station and his staff were moving in the villages to prevent gathering of public on the roads in view of Covid-19 situation, the accused were found transporting sand weighing 9 tons illegally, in tractors. He initiated necessary action by the police party, arresting A1 to A3 and seizing the tractors, which were carrying sand. In that context, a case was registered on 10.05.2020 and investigation is stated to be going on. 3. It is now contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have nothing to do with the alleged incident and that they are owners of the vehicles involved in that alleged incident. Considering this situation, it is further requested by learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 41-A Cr.P.C can as well be invoked by the investigating officer and that the petitioners are prepared to cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition stating that an offence under Section 379 I.P.C is involved and having regard to the material, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion by the Court. 5. Essentially the case involves illegal excavation of sand and its transportation. Though the F.I.R did not refer to the role of the petitioners as such, the manner in which the vehicles were used for the purpose should necessarily be taken into consideration, which shall be looked into in the course of investigation. 6. Having regard to the nature of the instance, the investigating officer as well can call the petitioners in the course of investigation, seeking any clarifications. At the same time, the material did not permit to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. Finding no justification to consider the plea, this petition has to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.