Dismissed

Guduru Venkata Naga Sekhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2021CRLP/5864/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice D. Ramesh dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was accused in a conspiracy involving official misconduct, land mutation fraud, and taking money as an agent for the main accused. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail dismissed; liberty granted to surrender and file for bail on merits before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur.

Guduru Venkata Naga Sekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.5864 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A15 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.177/2021 of Chillakuru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District wherein the petitioner was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 417 r/w 415, 465 r/w 464, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34, 409 r/w 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

¶4

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Chittoor District filed a complaint on 21.9.2021 stating that A1 working on deputation basis as DAO, Revenue Divisional Office, Gudur, A2 is working as Senior Assistant, O/o Tahsildar, Venkatagiri were kept under suspension for mutation of the lands belonging to the Director of Ports in Sy.No.94-3 measuring Ac.271.80cents of Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal in favour of 11 private individuals by creating illusory survey numbers 327-3A2-H1 to 327-3A2-H11. As per the directions of the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District vide letter dated 16.9.2021 a criminal complaint is lodged on officers involved in this case and also who did favour knowingly that the said land belongs to the Director of Ports and mutated out rightly, caused detrimental loss to the Government. Basing on the said report treating as a crime in F.I.R.No.177/2021 was registered against the petitioner and 12 others on the file of Chillakur police station, SPSR Nellore District.

¶5

¶6

The contention of the petitioner is that he never committed any offence as alleged in the report and he is an innocent and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and the case is foisted against the petitioner at the instance of local political leaders. Even prior to the registration of the crime on 03.7.2021 itself, A1 has ordered to restore the name of the Director of Ports with respect to land of an extent of Ac.271.80cents of Tamminipatnam village, Chillakuru Mandal. A1 averred that A14 who is working as computer operator, without any mutation proceedings fabricated the mutation proceedings dated 15.02.2021 incorporated names of 11 persons in the revenue records. Infact, A1 also made a complaint to the Inspector of Gudur Circle on 09.9.2021 that letter alleged to have been addressed by A1 dated 12.3.2021 is forged one and requested to take necessary action. 4. Denying all the allegations made in the petition, Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer, Guduru Rural circle has filed his counter in Crl.P.No.5894 of 2021 stating that there was some illegal transactions with respect to the subject lands as the officials have colluded and facilitated in creating third party interest of the Government land in favour of the land grabbers. As such upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, the present crime has been registered against the petitioner and others. Initially the land of an extent of Ac.271.80cents in Sy.No.94-3 of Thamminapatnam village, Chillakur Mandal was classified as endowment land and stood in the name of Tatkal Manager, Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple. As per G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 01.7.2009, the total extent was leased out to Krishnapatnam Port company Ltd (KPIL), its head office at Visakhapatnam. As per

¶7

¶8

online adangal and 1-B namoona the pattadar and enjoyer of the above said lands is Director of Ports. The land in Sy.No.327-3A of Thamminapatnam village admeasuring a total extent of Ac.669.55cents is classified as inam dry land stands registered on the name of Dhurjati Venkataramanaiah as Inamdar. Out of the said land an extent of Ac.245.00cents was surrendered under the provisions of A.P.L.R (COACH) Act, 1973. Certain lands were also alienated in favour of APIIC which was subsequently allotted to Kenata Power projects Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

During the course of investigation, it was noticed that A1 and A2 colluded with private persons, entered into the web-land through the biometric authentication of A1 on 19.3.2021 by uploading proceedings Rc.B169/2021 dated 15.02.2021 of Tahsildar, Chillakur, reduced the total extent of land from Ac.271.86cents to Ac.62.55cents comprised in Sy.No.94-3 of Thamminapatnam, created illusory 11 survey numbers i.e. 3273A2-H1 to 327-3A2-H11 for the land of an extent of Ac.209.25cents and shown katha numbers from 278 to 288 and mutated in favour of A3 to A13 without following due procedure and without any recommendations of the Village Revenue Officer as well as Mandal Revenue Officer, Chillakur. 6. Further, A1 issued registration 13(B) and 13(c) and furnished A10 and A11 through her letter dated 12.3.2021 and facilitated them to get registered the lands on their names. But the said documents were not available in the office records. During the course of investigation, the persons on whose names the registrations of the land was done initially i.e. A3 to A13 are none other than the relatives of A16 and A17 and when A16 to A20 were

¶10

¶11

arrested on different occasions, the arrested accused confessed with regard to the role of A1 who is the king pin for the entire episode and in fact A1 and A16 used to do business and as such when they got to know the disputed subject land, they approached A18 and in turn they all approached A20 who was worked as data entry operator in the office of Tahsildar and in turn they approached the petitioner who is at present working in the Tahsildar office as data entry operator and they all conspired together to get their names to be entered in online web-land and offered rupees 1.5crores. A15 to A17 offered Rs.62lakhs to A1 through A14 and A18 as first instalment. Again A15 to A17 offered Rs.50lakhs to A1 through A14. Accepting the said offer made, A1 entered into the web-land through her biometric authentication on 19.3.2021 by uploading proceedings dated 15.02.2021 approved by A2 reduced the total extent of land from Ac.271.86cents to Ac.62.55cents. Basing on the said investigation A14, A15 to A20 were added subsequently. There is documentary evidence of video recording showing that A15, A18 to A20 were counting the bundles of currency notes, as such there is ample proof to establish the role of the accused. In view of the series of allegations leveled against the petitioner, requested to dismiss the pre-arrest bail application filed by him.

¶12

Sri Y.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Revenue Divisional officer has made a complaint on 21.9.2021 with an allegation that A1 along with certain other officials who did favour to third parties by mutating the lands belonging to the Director of Ports in favour of 11 individuals of an extent of Ac.209.25cents by creating

¶13

¶14

illusory survey numbers. The basis for the said incident is the proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent vide his orders dated 15.02.2021 is baseless. Infact, A1 has joined as Tahsildar on 10.5.2021. Earlier A1 worked as Tahsildar, Chillakur. While so, A1 was transferred to Butchireddypalem from Chillakur and A1 has taken charge at Butchireddypalem Mandal on 24.3.2021 and subsequently, A1 was reposted to Chillakur Mandal on 10.5.2021. 8. Learned Counsel further submitted that in fact the Revenue Divisional Officer has made a complaint on 21.9.2021, much prior to the said complaint, A1 by noticing certain discrepancies, proceedings were initiated on 03.7.2021 based on the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector of Chillakur and the subject lands are recorded in the discrepancy register. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court about the statement made by A1 on 22.7.2021 wherein A1 has specifically stated that she has worked as adhoc Tahsildar at Chillakur Mandal from September 2020 to 05.7.2021. The land in Sy.No.94-3 of an extent of Ac.271.80cents of Tamminapatnam village recorded in the name of the Director of Ports. It is further submitted that generally the computer operator carry out corrections in web-land with the approved mutation files of Tahsildar within two days or one week and obtain Tahsildar digital key in the presence of Tahsildar and then only mutation is carried out. But in this case after 34 days the mutation was done. So in the above circumstances, the Tahsildar has never involved in the present case and the mistake committed is identified by A1 on 03.7.2021 and accordingly proceedings were issued by placing the mutation in the discrepancy register. Subsequently, A1 has also

¶15

¶16

made a complaint through registered post to the Station House Officer, Chillakuru police station.

¶17

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is no way connected to any offence as per the complaint. His name has been subsequently added as A15 on the allegation that the petitioner along with A16 and a17 has paid gratification to A18 and subsequently paid further gratification to A19 for mutating revenue records. The petitioner is neither a land owner nor a purchaser. The petitioner is basically a film producer and due to the threat made by the respondent/complainant, the petitioner could not release the films and sustained huge loss. The petitioner is not all aware of the fraudulent acts committed by A1 and A2. In view of the above, he requested that the petitioner is not involved and he will co-operate with the investigation and he would abide by any conditions passed by this court at the time of granting prearrest bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed and submitted that huge amounts are involved in this matter and investigation is not yet completed. A1 is the kingpin while working as adhoc Tahsildar of Chillakur Mandal has created a document on 15.02.2021 and accordingly the subject lands were deleted from the Director of Ports name and mutated in the name of A3 to A13. A1 with the help of A2 and A14 has entered the names of A3 to A13 in the web-land through her biometric authentication. She has reduced an extent of Ac.209.25cents from the Director of Ports and mutated the names of A3 to A13. According to the investigation it clearly disclosed that A15 to A17 has paid Rs.62lakhs to A1 through the petitioner

¶19

¶20

and A18 as first instalment and again Rs.50lakhs were paid to A1 by A15 to A17.

¶21

He further submitted that there are documentary evidence and video recordings showing that this petitioner and A18 to A20 are counting the bundles of currency notes as such there is ample proof to establish the role of this petitioner.

¶22

Reply to the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the proceedings dated 07.7.2021 relied on by A1 is that the document prepared by A1 herself subsequent to filing of the complaint by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He further submitted that A1 was transferred as Tahsildar to Kaluvoy on 01.7.2021 but she has not relieved till 05.7.2021 on the pretext of „grounding mela‟ housing programme. On 04.7.2021 on the day of Sunday, A1 visited the office revoked into web-land and removed all the entries with regard to Sy.Nos.327-3A2-H1 to 327-3A2-H11, katha numbers from 278 to 288 and the same was kept in discrepancy register and later A1 was relieved on 05.7.2021. He further stated that huge amounts were collected and handed over to A1 by A14 and A18 and there are certain proofs with regard to payment done by this petitioner and A17 to A1.

¶23

On perusal of the entire record, it clearly establishes that the A1 is the main king pin and A1 along with this petitioner by taking huge amount from third parties and created the revenue records in favour of A3 to A13 and it is very much necessary for custodial interrogation of the petitioner and requested to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶24

¶25

Along with this petition, A1 and A14 were also filed separate anticipatory bail applications. The counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he does not know anything.

¶26

Considering the submissions made both sides and on perusal of the record, it clearly discloses that an extent of Ac.209.25cents of land which is in the name of the Director of Ports was deleted and made in favour of third parties by creating illusory survey numbers. As contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, huge amounts as well as huge Government lands are involved in this matter and as far as the allegations made against the petitioner it clearly discloses that the involvement of A1 and A14 in creating third party interest in the Government lands.

¶27

In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A15 and accordingly the same is dismissed. But liberty is given to the petitioner/A15 to surrender before the Court below i.e. Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and file an application seeking bail and the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur is directed to consider the same on merits.

¶28

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Date: 01.12.2021 RD

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5864 of 2021

¶34

Date: 01.12.2021

¶35

Guduru Venkata Naga Sekhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guduru Venkata Naga Sekhar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji Ahmad Vs the State of Ap

Mohammad Arif Quresh, Vs The State of andhra Pradesh

Amarjith Singh, Vs State represented by the Public Prosecutor

G.Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VaddadiLovarajuAT Raju, Vs The State of A.P

Vadavalli Anand Kumar Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp and Another