Quashed

Mogaparthi Sombabu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Dec 2022CRLP/9902/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order allows a criminal petition filed by tobacco growers accused in C.C.No.10 of 2018. Relying on a prior Single Judge judgment quashing a similar case involving officials, the court grants the same relief, quashing the criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

This Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing C.C.No.10 of 2018 against the petitioners herein.

Mogaparthi Sombabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9902 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners herein are farmers, who are cultivating tobacco. Certain facilities had been created for such farmers to

¶5

obtain bank loans. This requires the farmers to register themselves as growers before the Tobacco Board and thereafter upon registration, they become eligible for grant of loans by the banks.

¶6

A complaint was made in one instance that tobacco growers including the petitioners herein had, in collusion with certain officials of the Tobacco Board had altered the tobacco growers’ passbook, by removing the earlier existing loans taken by the farmers so as to get fresh loans from banks. The further allegation was that such loans were obtained and were not repaid to the banks due to which the banks had initiated criminal action against the petitioners and the officers of the board. This resulted in the competent Court taking cognizance of the complaint under C.C.No.2 of 2011 before the II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. This case ended in an acquittal on 13.06.2018 of all the accused, including the petitioners herein.

¶7

¶8

It appears that even though three banks namely Union Bank of India, State Bank of India, and Andhra Bank had filed the complaint, only the complaint given by the Union Bank of India had been taken up in C.C.No.2 of 2011.

¶9

After C.C.No.2 of 2011 resulted in an acquittal, fresh complaints were taken up for investigation by stating that the source of information is ‘reliable sources’ and on the ground that fresh action had been obtained for such prosecution. This has resulted in further investigation, culminating in cognizance being taken by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.10 of 2018 against both the growers of tobacco as well as various officials of the Tobacco Board.

¶10

The officials of the Tobacco Board, who had been arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 2, 10 and 11 in C.C.No.10 of 2018, had approached this Court, by way of Crl.P.No.9617 of 2018 for quashing the same on the ground that it had already gone through a trial and had been acquitted in C.C.No.2 of 2011 and a second prosecution is not permissible and is barred by Section 300 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

A Learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 30.09.2022, after reviewing all the facts and the law on the

¶12

¶13

subject, had quashed the case on the ground that there can be separate trial in respect of the same offences basing on the same set of facts.

¶14

The petitioners, who are Accused Nos.3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in C.C. No.10 of 2018, have approached this Court with the similar plea.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents.

¶16

In view of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.9617 of 2018 dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner herein would be entitled to the same relief as the accused had been granted in Crl.P.No.9617 of 2018

¶17

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing C.C.No.10 of 2018 against the petitioners herein.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

MJA

21.12.2022

145

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9902 of 2022

¶26

21.12.2022

¶27

MJA

Mogaparthi Sombabu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mogaparthi Sombabu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mummanna (Gandham ) Jhansi Rani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Seeram Pavan Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pikkili Valmiki Rama Subbammaa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V Aswartha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemula Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mogaparthi Sombabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh