Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1440 (AP)

Uppalapati Murali v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-14

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in CC No.5258 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act'). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : (a) On 18.07.2019, having received information. Respondent No.2 alongwith his staff and mediators proceeded to a godown at Chepalagudem, Nynavaram Village and found two persons, who were present near a lorry and on seeking the Police, they tried to skulk away. Police apprehended them and on questioning, they disclosed their identity as petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 herein. (b) On enquiry, petitioner/accused No.1 confessed that he has been dealing with PDS rice and polishing the same in mills, selling the same as original, in a deceitful manner and earning more profits. While so, he purchased 31,675 Kgs. of PDS rice at Jaggaiahpet and stored in a godown and with a view to take the same to the rice mill, and were loading the rice bags petitioner/accused No.2 confessed that he has been assisting petitioner/accused No.1 in dealing with PDS rice. (c) Police seized the rice bags and the Lorry Bearing No.AP 07 TJ 1525 under the cover of mediators report, arrested the petitioners and sent them for judicial remand. The Police registered the mediators report as a case in Crime No.362 of 2019 on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City. Subsequently, respondent No.2 sent a report to the Joint Collector informing about the seizure of PDS rice and lorry and arrest of the petitioners. The District Supplies Officer, after due inspection, handed over the PDS rice. After completion of investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offence, which was numbered as CC No.5258 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. (d) Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Ms. (d) Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 would submit that petitioner/accused No.1 purchased the PDS rice in the public auction paid the requisite amount and stored the same in the godown. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Counsel would submit that the contents of the FIR or the charge-sheet do not reveal any prima facie offence made out against the petitioners. Therefore, continuation proceedings against the petitioners, is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against them. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the commission of the offence and the same have to be proved during trial. At this stage, proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.5258 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Trial Court, Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Trial Court, Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter-XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to Its whim or caprice." (Emphasis supplied) 9. The present case has been registered against the petitioners alleging that they were illegally diverting the PDS rice. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner/accused No.1 has been doing business in rice and he purchased the said rice in the public auction conducted by the Civil Supplies Authorities. In support of the said contention, he filed the copies of the sale confirmation orders. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner/accused No.1 has been doing business in rice and he purchased the said rice in the public auction conducted by the Civil Supplies Authorities. In support of the said contention, he filed the copies of the sale confirmation orders. A bare perusal of the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Jaggaiahpet, dated 27.03.2019 would clearly show that the petitioner/accused No.1 participated in the auctions of the PDS rice, which was seized from different persons for contravention of certain control orders under A.P. State PDS (Control) Order, 2018, conducted on 31.01.2019, became the highest bidder and purchased total 320 quintals of rice for a total amount of Rs.2,64,866/- and the said stock was handed over to him under proper acknowledgment. In such circumstances, registration of the crime against the petitioners on the allegation of diversion of PDS rice and continuation of prosecution against them, is not tenable under law. 10. Further, based on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein, the Collector (CS), Krishna District, Machilipatnam assigned a number to the report vide ECP No.98 of 2019 and passed an interim order on 13.08.2018 directing Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-Ill, Vijayawada to dispose of the seized stock by conducting public auction and to submit the sale lists for confirmation within a week. Subsequently, having not convinced with the explanation submitted by the accused in ECP No.98 of 2019, the learned Collector (CS) passed an order for confiscation of 100% value of seized stock in favour of the Government and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the owner of the seized Lorry Bearing No.AP 07 TJ 1525 for illegal transportation of 316.50 quintals of PDS rice in the said vehicle and directed to remit the confiscated value of the seized stock and penalty amount to the head of account "1456-Civil Supplies, 800-Other Receipts, 81-Other Items" after appeal time is over and the Assistant Supply Officer was directed to take necessary follow up action. 11. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner/accused No.1 herein and the owner of the lorry, preferred E.C. Appeal No.24 of 2020 on the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the same allowed vide judgment dated 30.05.2022 setting aside the order of the learned Collector (CS), Krishna at Machilipatnam in ECP No.98 of 2019 and consequently directing to return the sale proceeds of the seized stock i.e., Rs.3,16,500/- and the penalty amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner/accused No.1 herein and the owner of the lorry respectively, observing that petitioner/accused No.1 has been running Rice Trade business under the name and style of "M/s. Murali Krishna Rice Traders at Indiranayak Nagar, Ajithsingh Nagar, Vijayawada" and he purchased the said rice in the public auction conducted by the Civil Supplies Department. In view of the said judgment also, the petitioner/accused No.1 has not committed the offence alleged against him and in such a case, it can be said that petitioner/accused No.2, who is assisting the petitioner/accused No.1 in conducting the business, has also not committed the alleged offence. 12. In view of the Guideline No.3 in Bhajanlal's case (supra), the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. This Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the very ingredients of the offending sections are not attracted against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No.5258 of 2019 are liable to be quashed against them. 13. In result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.5258 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7 of EC Act, are hereby quashed. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.