Allowed

B.S.Farooq Ahmed, v. State by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC5 Feb 2010CRLRC/863/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed criminal revision to set aside an order dismissing a petition for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. held that no prima facie case of misappropriation was made out against the petitioner. Continued proceedings were termed an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.01.2002 setting aside discharge petition dismissed and Crl.M.P.No.901 of 2001 allowed.

B.S.Farooq Ahmed, Vs State by Public Prosecutor — Corruption | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.863 of 2002

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {“Cr.P.C.” for brevity} is directed against the order, dated 04.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.901 of 2001 in C.C.No.18 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court for Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner-accused No.11 was dismissed on the ground that there was no reason to discharge him. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this present revision may be stated as follows.

¶5

Accused No.11 worked as Paid Secretary of Brahmanpalli Weaver's Co-operative Society {“the Society” for brevity}. As per Bye Laws of the Society, accused No.11 has to discharge the duties and functions as delegated by the management of the Society. As per Bye Law No.32 (1) (2), accused No.11 has to supervise the day-to-day affairs of the Society and has to operate the bank account on behalf of the Society. As per Bye Law No.32 (7), he has authority to sue or to be sued. Accused no.11 did not discharge his duties as per the Bye Laws of the Society. On the other hand, he connived with the President of the Society-accused No.1 and the other accused and misappropriated the amounts of the Society. Hence, he committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 408, 409, 418, 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶6

3. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that A1 to A6 falsely showed in the accounts as if yarn was received, and claimed transport charges by raising bogus vouchers. A1, with the help of A2 to A6, without supplying yarn to the members, showed the same in the accounts, and wages were claimed and paid to them without manufacturing Janatha Sarees and

¶7

Dhotis. Nowhere it is stated that the present petitioner was in-charge of accounts of the Society. Except the fact that he was a Paid Secretary of the Society, no specific allegation is levelled against the present petitioner with regard to receiving of yarn or manipulating account books or paying wages to the members without manufacturing Janatha Sarees and Dhotis. There is no allegation that he was responsible for creating a document with regard to transporting of Janatha Sarees and Dhotis from the Society to Kurnool.

¶8

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that the Paid Secretary post has been created for the first time, no duties have been assigned till the Government issued guidelines dated 06.02.1995 in Rc.No.12553/94-01 fixing the duties and responsibilities of Development Officers (H & T) and Assistant Development Officers working as Paid Secretaries in the Society and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶9

5. Serious allegations are levelled against A2 to A10. The only allegation against petitioner-accused No.11 is that he connived with the President and accepted for misappropriation. Even the entire allegation in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police do not make out a prima facie case of misappropriation or cheating or forgery or falsification of accounts and ledgers etc against petitioneraccused No.11. When the allegations in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded do not disclose the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.11, continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but abuse of process of law. As a matter of fact, the petitioner-accused No.11, along with some others, was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of some increments for six {6} months. Thereafter, he was examined in the departmental proceedings. No doubt, as per bye-law, he has to supervise the day-to-day affairs of the Society, but at the same time as no allegations of misappropriation or cheating etc., are made out, continuation of proceedings against petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶10

6. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the

¶11

impugned order, dated 04.01.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.901 of 2001 in C.C.No.18 of 1995 on the file of the Special Court for Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad, is set aside and the above mentioned Crl.M.P.No.901 of 2001 filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed.

¶12

_____________ (K.C.BHANU, J)

¶13

6^th August 2009 RRB

B.S.Farooq Ahmed, v. State by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.Farooq Ahmed, v. State by Public Prosecutor

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

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Mandava Prasad

N. Sree Ram Chowdary Vs B. Hari Reddy

The State of a.P., Vs Kumbhampati Guru Prasada Rao

Ailineni Narender Rao Vs Gattu Maruthi , Gattu Maruthi Rao

Kumba Siddaiah (C.P.No.9-83) Vs State of a.P.Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Pentyala Suneel Kumar