Dismissed

V.V.S. Sitaram v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Aug 2023CRLP/1974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging his role as an agent renders him unconnected to the cheque dishonour and corruption charges. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a prima facie case existed and merits must be determined during trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.1974 of 2023 is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

V.V.S. Sitaram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1974 of 2023

¶3

Order:

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.02 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada.

¶5

A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioner/A.30 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 read with 120B IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that, there is a conspiracy among the accused to cheat the Divisional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, Eluru, in the matter of settlement of false poultry claim of total amount of Rs.2,23,680/-. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A29 dishonestly submitted a copy of false delivery challan No.9, dated 15.11.1997, purported to have been issued by M/s. Srinivasa Hatcheries Limited, Vijayawada, falsely showing purchase of chicks by A29. In connection with that, a false fitness certificate has been given by the co accused i.e. by A2 and others. A1 had dishonestly accepted the proposal without insisting for photographs and ensuring the genuineness of the delivery challan and letter dated 17.07.1998. In

¶7

¶8

connection with that a false claim has been made on the basis of false assessment report submitted by the petitioner herein and A11.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only an Agent and he has nothing to do with the said accusation made against him. According to him, all the allegations are directed as against other accused. The petitioner is no way concerned with the subject and no delivery challan was enclosed along with the survey report.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submits that there is a specific accusation that has been made as against the petitioner herein that he along with A11 is alleged to have submitted a false assessment report intentionally.

¶11

Heard. Perused the record.

¶12

Admittedly, going by the record, there is a specific allegation that there is a conspiracy to cheat the Divisional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, Eluru, and claim of total amount of Rs.2,23,680/- has been made on the basis of settlement of false poultry claim. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, A29 dishonestly submitted a copy of false delivery challan No.9 dated 15.11.1997 issued by M/s. Srinivasa Hatcheries Limited, Vijayawada,

¶13

¶14

falsely showing the purchase of chicks by A29, and a false fitness certificate has been given by the co accused i.e. by A2 and others. It is specifically alleged that A1 had dishonestly accepted the proposal without insisting for photographs and ensuring the genuineness of the delivery challan and letter dated 17.07.1998. Thus, a false claim has been made on the basis of false assessment report submitted by the petitioner herein and A11.

¶15

A perusal of material on record goes to show that a specific accusation has been made that because of the report submitted by the petitioner herein, a false claim has been made. It is alleged that there is a conspiracy among all the accused in causing wrongful loss to National Insurance Company Limited, Eluru.

¶16

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way concerned with the transaction that took place between other accused, but the said contention cannot be accepted. When a specific accusation has been made in the charge sheet, the defenses that are alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein cannot be taken into account. It is premature for this Court to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. It has to be established only during the course of

¶17

¶18

full-fledged trial. All the defenses taken by the counsel for the petitioner can be raised during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case when a prima face case

¶19

has been made out as against the petitioner herein.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the above proceedings.

¶21

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶22

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶23

in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶25

07.08.2023 ARB /DRK

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶28

Criminal Petition No.1974 of 2023

¶29

Date: 07.08.2023

¶30

ARB /DRK

V.V.S. Sitaram v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.V.S. Sitaram 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

M.Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Patan Khasim Khan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Singana Manga Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J Kamalamma Vs the State of Ap

Vanamadi Satyasri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sandhya Rani Korra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh