Allowed

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC3 Feb 2011CRLP/3696/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition seeks quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against two Special Deputy Collectors. The Court allowed the petition, holding that lack of evidence regarding prior meeting of minds and consistency with a previous order quashing proceedings against a similarly situated co-accused warranted dismissal of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.59 of 2007 were quashed insofar as the petitioners/A-12 and A-14 were concerned.

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, Vs The State of A.P. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

Criminal Petition No.3696 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners 1 and 2/A-12 and A-14 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 466, 468, 471, 420/109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with others in C.C. No.59 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Hyderabad. At the relevant point of time, the petitioners worked as Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.R.S.P. of Karimnagar. A-13 was another such Special Deputy Collector in the same office. A-12 to A-14 did not work simultaneously but worked during different periods in the same office.

¶5

It is alleged that the petitioners colluded with A-1 and other accused and processed the land acquisition cases of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar pertaining to Hasnapur Village and facilitated misappropriation of Government money by the beneficiaries who are shown as other accused in the same case. According to the prosecution, the petitioners processed the land acquisition case files for second payment even after the awards for payment of compensation were fully satisfied previously.

¶6

The modus operandi alleged was induction of fake appeal judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in several land acquisition O.Ps. as if the High Court enhanced the compensation amounts in those appeals. According to the prosecution, A-12 has processed ten such cases causing loss of Rs.1,08,06,720/- to the Government exchequer. According to the prosecution, A-14 had processed six such cases causing loss to the extent of Rs.86,66,835/- to the Government

¶7

exchequer.

¶8

As pointed out earlier, it is the prosecution case that A-13 processed ten such files causing loss to the Government exchequer to the extent of Rs.1,14,60,061/-. This Court had an earlier occasion to consider complicity of A-13, when A-13 filed Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2008 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings, in this criminal case, insofar as he is concerned.

¶9

This Court considered the said Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2008 along with other batch of Criminal Petitions in this Criminal case and passed common order dated 24.03.2009, quashing the proceedings of the criminal case, insofar as A-13 and some other accused are concerned. In that common order, this Court pointed out that except allegation of A-12 to A-14 colluding or conspiring with A-1, who is the author of fake appellate judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in land acquisition cases, no evidence was collected by the prosecution to show that there was prior meeting of minds between A- 1 and A-13 or prior meeting with each other before the files were processed for payment. It may be noted that the initial payments to the beneficiaries were made long before the petitioners/A-12 and A-14 functioned as Special Deputy Collectors, Land Acquisition, in the office of S.R.S.P. at Karimnagar. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioners have processed the files for the second payment of compensation knowing fully well about payment of compensation as per awards in the first instance.

¶10

In the previous common order, this Court further pointed out that in the departmental enquiry report of the Special Collector of May, 2007, it was pointed out that the involvement of lower level staff was suspected and with regard to the double payments, one

¶11

G.Laxminarayana (A-5), Senior Assistant, was responsible for the double payments and he mislead the higher officials intentionally and deliberately by removing sanction orders from the file by tampering with the relevant records. Thus, even as per the preliminary investigation enquiry conducted within the department, the Senior Assistant tampered with the records and intentionally misled the higher officials. This Court further found previously that there is no material to infer that A-13 had connivance and conspiracy with A-1. When the file processed by the Senior Assistant/A-5 did not contain papers relating to issuance of earlier cheque and when the said previous file was tampered with by removing earlier records, the petitioners/A-12 and A- 14 had to naturally forward the said file, which was initiated by A-5 to the higher authorities for payment of compensation. There is no allegation that A-12 and A-14 are responsible for fabrication of forged or fake appellate judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in land acquisition matters or that they have tampered with the earlier records by removing certain papers from the backup files. The only allegation of conspiracy has no legs to stand.

¶12

Placing reliance on STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHRI PIRTHI CHAND AND ANOTHER^[1] , it is contended by the Public Prosecutor that inherent power of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to be sparingly used to meet the ends of justice and not to make pre trial assessment of evidence collected by the investigating agency.

¶13

In this criminal petition, this Court is not undertaking any appreciation of evidence collected by the investigating agency by way of a pre trial. This Court had already an occasion to consider complicity of a similarly placed person like A-13, who worked in the

¶14

same capacity as that of A-12 and A-14 in the same office for a different period and came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not make out the allegations against the A-13. Consistency is bedrock of the judiciary. The law of precedents is also developed on the need of consistency. When this Court allowed the Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2008 by order dated 24.03.2009, quashing proceedings against A-13, consistency demands that the petitioners/A-12 and A-14 shall be entitled to similar relief in this petition. Otherwise, it would lead to anomalies situation opening the gates for comment against the judicial consistency.

¶15

It is stated by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that even though the previous common order was passed on 24.03.2009 in Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2008 and batch by this Court, the prosecution did not choose to question the same before the Apex Court and that the said order had become final. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out complicity of the petitioners/A-12 and A-14 for the offences with which they were charged in C.C. No.59 of 2007.

¶16

In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.59 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Hyderabad, insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-12 and A-14 are concerned.

¶17

_______________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶18

Date: 03.02.2011

¶19

LSK

¶20

[1] AIR 1996 Supreme Court 977

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganta Baburao, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.Renu Vs K.Sagar Rao

Mannan Razvi and 22 Others Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Korrapati Krishna Prasad, Vs Pushpalatha Agarwal

P.Jogayyamma Vs v.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and Others

Aluri Venkata Ratnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh