APHC010228532022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3396]
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3763/2022
Between:
BALU @ BANDIMEKALA BALARAMUDU, , S/O. OBULESU, AGED 38
YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.12-137-1, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
YADIKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,
AMARAVATI.
2. RAJESH M, S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS SUB-INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, GOOTY POLICE STATION, GOOTY MANDAL, ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VIJAYA KUMAR NAIDANA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1
1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of
the proceedings against him in Crime No.267 of 2019 on the file of Gooty
1
for short ‘Cr.P.C’
2
Police Station, Anantapur District for the offence punishable under Section
2
7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act .
2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was
falsely implicated in the present case and except the confessional statements
of Accused Nos.3 and 4, there is no incriminating material to connect the
Petitioner/Accused No.1 with the alleged crime. Hence, prayed for quashment
of the proceedings against the Petitioner.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are
specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the offence and
the same has to be proved during investigation. At this stage, the proceedings
against the Petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
Point for Determination
5. 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1
in Crime No.267 of 2019 on the file of Gooty Police Station,
Anantapur District, are liable to be quashed by exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?
2 EC Act
for short ‘ .’
3
Determination by the Court
6. 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. 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.
7. The present case has been registered alleging that, on 26.08.2019 at
about 2.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation
of PDS rice, Respondent No.2 along with the Police and Panchayat Authorities
went to Kothapeta Bridge, Gooty Mandal and found one Mahindra Alfa Delux
Auto bearing No.AP 02 TH 3076 coming from Tadipatri and on seeing the
Police, the driver and the other person in the Auto, who are Accused Nos.3
and 4, tried to skulk away. On apprehension and questioning by the Police,
they revealed their identity and confessed that they got acquainted with
Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his clerk i.e., Accused No.2 and that, Accused
Nos.1 and 2 informed that they would purchase the PDS rice and that, on the
instructions of Accused Nos.1 and 2, they collect the PDS rice from the nearby
villages and sell the same to Accused Nos.1 and 2. It was further stated that,
4
in this regard, as directed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, they came to Yadiki
and Accused Nos.1 and 2 got loaded the PDS rice into their Auto to transport
the same to Kurnool, they were going to Kurnool with the PDS rice and were
caught by the Police. Then the Police seized 16 bags of PDS rice and the Auto
under the cover of mediatornama, arrested Accused Nos.3 and 4 for sent for
remand. As such, the present case in Crime No.267/2019 for the offence
under Section 7(1) of EC Act on the file of Gooty Police Station has been
registered against A.1 to A.4. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Accused No.1
filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him.
8. It is the main contention of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 that the present
case has been registered against him based on the confessional statement of
Accused Nos.3 and 4 and the same is not tenable under law. However, may
be the Petitioner/Accused No.1 was not actively involved in the offence
alleged against him, but, he cannot seek to quash the proceedings against
him merely on the basis of the contention that he was being implicated only on
the confession statement of the co-accused to the police. It is always open to
the petitioner herein to come out unscathed in the trial, by proving his
innocence. When such is the case, during investigation it is also possible that
any corroborative material can be brought forth in support of the case of the
prosecution. When such contingency is possible during the course of
investigation, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 cannot be
quashed at the threshold and no prejudice is going to be caused to the
Petitioner herein except subjecting himself to the investigation.
5
9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to
exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings
against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and accordingly, the petition deserves
dismissal.
10. In result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:31.12.2024
Dinesh
6
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.3763 of 2022
Dated:31.12.2024
Dinesh