Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 631 (AP)

Kallam Gangadhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-06-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in registering FIR No. 158 of 2016 and showing the petitioner as Accused No. 3 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of Vigneshwara Traders and running rice mill and he is having requisite licenses to run this rice mill. One company by name Raja & Co. from Palagath, Kerala approached the petitioner through some commission agent and requested to supply 210 quintals of rice. Accordingly they raised a way bill from the commercial tax department and on 15.11.2016 at 5.10 p.m. Further they also obtained the requisite permit from the Agricultural Market Committee, Sattenapalli on the same day. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied 280 bags of rice each containing 75 kgs totaling to 210 quintals worth of Rs. 4,39,110/- inclusive of VAT. Thereafter, the lorry bearing No. TN 34 V 4312 moved from rice mill at 5.30 p.m. on 15.11.2016 to Palagath, Kerala and when the lorry travelled 9 KMs from rice mill to Palagath, Kerala, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Rural police station has stopped the vehicle and seized the same with load and registered a case in Crime No. 158 of 2016 under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of E.C. Act, 1955. Question the said action, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. This Court vide order dated 2.12.2016 has granted interim direction to the police concerned not to arrest the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have falsely implicated the petitioner and arrested him illegally as there is no illegal transportation of rice. The petitioner has all sorts of bills and documents, Online Way bill, permit, tax, Invoice which shows that the 210 quintals of rice is a pure non-Government rice. Therefore it cannot be said that the same is PDS rice. But however with a view to harass the petitioner in all the ways the respondent No. 4 registered the FIR and high handedly seized the rice. Therefore it cannot be said that the same is PDS rice. But however with a view to harass the petitioner in all the ways the respondent No. 4 registered the FIR and high handedly seized the rice. He further submits that earlier also the respondent No. 4 registered false cases against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner transporting PDS rice. In all the cases Joint Collector and Curt have exonerated the petitioner stating the subject rice are not PDS rice. To this effect, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1 of 2016 (WPMP No. 53149 of 2016) seeking to receive the order copies passed by the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur passed in EC No. 444/2014-S7 dated 24.07.2015 and order in EC No. 970/2014-S7 dated 24.07.2015 and orders passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli in CC No. 130 of 2014 dated 15.09.2015 and orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla in CC No. 50 of 2014 dated 05.01.2016 as material papers. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader denying all the allegations made in the petition. On instructions received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Rural P.S. he would submit that, the above case was registered against the petitioner (A.3) in accordance with law, since he has cheated the Government and the PDS Rice consumers by transporting the PDS rice illegally and contrary to the provisions of EC Act through his agents i.e., the drivers of the lorry have clearly stated the involvement of the petitioner in the above said offence. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in registering the Crime No. 158 of 2016 against the petitioner herein as Accused No. 3. Further, during the course of investigation the samples of PDS Rice seized rice are sent for chemical analysis and report and the said report is awaited. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that he has been illegally implicated in the crime is not true and tenable. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further contend that., during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has examined eight (8) witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused A1, A2 on 15.11.2016, served 41-A notice on 22.12.2016 to the accused A4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further contend that., during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has examined eight (8) witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused A1, A2 on 15.11.2016, served 41-A notice on 22.12.2016 to the accused A4. Later, the petitioner A3 approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing this present writ petition and this Court has directed the police concerned not to arrest the petitioner/A3. Thereafter, as per the investigation, there is prima facie against the accused under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of E.C. Act. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed Charge sheet before the I Additional Civil Judge-cum-Junior Division, Sattenapalli and the same was numbered as CC No. 19 of 2018 and pending trial. 7. On a perusal of the material available on record, as seen from the orders in EC No. 444/2014-S7, dated 24.07.2015, wherein it was held that, The 2nd respondent has also stated that the charge leveled against the petitioner is based upon confessional statement of driver and cleaner who are not owner of the property and they did not stated anything like the confessional statement as recorded by the Vigilance Officials, but such confessional statement which is not leading to recovery is not valid under law. He also stated that the allegation of the complainant as well as the Vigilance & Enforcement Officials that the rice found in the lorry is pertaining to PDS is not correct and there is no proof to establish the allegation and there is no specific analysis to prove that any rice found in the transit is pertaining to PDS, so that the allegation is made only upon false presumption without any corroborating material. Hence, the allegation under 1 charge is not maintainable. He also stated that being an agriculturist and produced the seized stock of resultant rice of paddy yielded, will get exemption from the alleged control orders as producer defined under APSCD (LSR) Order, 2007 and does not come under the purview of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008. 8. Hence, the allegation under 1 charge is not maintainable. He also stated that being an agriculturist and produced the seized stock of resultant rice of paddy yielded, will get exemption from the alleged control orders as producer defined under APSCD (LSR) Order, 2007 and does not come under the purview of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008. 8. On verifying the order dated 15.09.2015 passed in CC No. 130 of 2014, which was filed along with the material papers, wherein the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, held that the A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, and of their sureties, if any shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. 9. In a case of Sri Gulam Mustafa versus The State of Karnataka and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: “It was submitted that as the specific allegations pertain to cheating, criminal conspiracy and trespass, being cognizable offences under the IPC, and the same relating to the property belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community would attract provisions of the SC/ST Act. It was reiterated that the property in question belongs to the respondent no. 2 and her family members, and any construction raised on the subject-land is by creating forged documents. 29. In Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 , at Para 7 thereof, it was held that when 20 the complaint fails to disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code: “In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 Code which it has erroneously refused.” (Emphasis supplied) In State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1990 INSC 363 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court held: “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 16 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 prima 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. (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. (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 17 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. 31. In Vinod Natesan v State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401 , this Court took the position outlined hereunder: “11........Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, we are more than satisfied that there was no criminality on part of the accused and a civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the High Court has rightly exercised the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. In view of the aforesaid and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. On perusing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Gulam Mustafa's case (referred to above), it is pertinent to mention here that, the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. 11. On perusing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Gulam Mustafa's case (referred to above), it is pertinent to mention here that, the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, the registration in favour of the petitioners was one year prior to the registration of the present impugned FIR which shows that the instance referred to is altogether a different transaction or an afterthought made to give a colour of criminality. Either way the complaint fails and therefore is liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 158 of 2016 on the file of Sattenapalli (R) Police Station, Guntur District, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.