prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and 197 of CrPC that are respectively lacking, the proceedings are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed, petitions are allowed by quashing the impugned cognizance orders for the following: (a). the trial judge has no power to review the previous dismissal or closed order in view of specific bar under Section 362 CrPC and thereby the order of the learned Special Judge on 28.12.2015 in suo-motto reopening the matter, for not a mere correction of any clerical or arithmetical or typographic mistake so to do even if at all only on an application, for it has no inherent powers saved under Section 482 CrPC as held by the Division Bench of this court in a maintenance case restored of dismissed in C. Subrahmanyam Vs. C. Sumathi and in a case of process issued under Section 204 CrPC was recalled in the expression of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jinfdal , for not having the powers of High Court either under Section 482 CrPC or under Section 483 CrPC, much less with any plenary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, even to overcome the bar under Section 362 CrPC for reopen by review of the matter; (b). the taking cognizance of all the offences against the A.1,2,4 & 7 and for IPC offences against A3 even, for the very protest petition allegations taken on its face value are that they were in discharge of their official duties committed the alleged acts, from the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and 197 of CrPC that are respectively lacking, the proceedings are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed, without necessity of going into other merits of how far the accusation against them, that too even sanction sought was dismissed by the Govt. by its memo dated 24.02.2014 and the remedy as laid down in Labh Singh & Nishant Sareen supra is at best to seek for fresh sanction with any additional and sufficient material and not to take cognizance despite it and said issue can be raised by the accused at any stage, from the above expressions and further none of the offences punishable under sections 34 r/w 420 and 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the PC Act are made out against A1- 4&7 and nothing to show they were privy or with common concert or with common intention and premeditation with A5 & 6 committed any of the alleged offences, leave about their contention of there is no any entrustment to hold commission of criminal breach of trust and there is no element of cheating the government and no criminal misconduct unbecoming of a public servant in any manner on their part in any of their acts as officers of the Govt.; (c). further from what is discussed supra- (i) there is nothing to attribute any criminal common intention, breach of trust and cheating against the A1-4 & 7 and there is no criminal misconduct as public servants and there is no willful acts on their part to cause any loss to Govt., or to benefit Raheja or its officials including A5&6 and nothing shown of they involved by any agreement with A5&6 to cheat the Govt. or to commit criminal breach of trust against Govt., and thereby none of the offences made out against them either under sections 420 & 409 R/W.34 or even under section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the PC Act; and (ii). even so far as against A5&6 for none of the offences made out against them either under sections 420 & 409 R/W.34 or even under section 12 of the PC Act for there is nothing to show any abetment by A.5 or A.6 inducing the defacto-complainant to commit any of the offences under the P.C.Act, and there is nothing on record even of they induced any of the A1-4&7 much less to accept any bribe etc., by instigation or aiding etc., and (d). thereby the impugned cognizance orders passed by the learned Special Judge in toto are since otherwise also unsustainable, to sub serve the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, same are quashed. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. No costs.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS