2017 - APHIGH COURT - JUNE 6



 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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)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

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS