Allowed

Koppuri Looka, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Mar 2011CRLP/5943/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court examined the scope of duty under the relevant Circular. Finding the petitioner's role was limited to verification without entrustment of paddy, the court held the charge sheet misconceived for him and quashed the proceedings against him.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C.No.435 of 2007 quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioner/2nd accused.

Koppuri Looka, Vs The State of A.P. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5943 of 2008

¶3

th 17 March, 2011

Between:

Koppuri Looka

… Petitioner

And

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5943 of 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C with a request to quash charge sheet in C.C.No.435 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banswada, Nizamabad District insofar as 2^nd accused therein (the petitioner herein) is concerned.

¶13

2. The facts of the case are:-

¶14

A Paddy Purchasing Centre was opened at Birkpur, for the

¶15

season 2005-06, for the sake of minimum support price to various paddy growers and the Deputy Tahsildar of Varni namely, Mr. Noor Mohammed-the 1^st accused and K. Looka, Agriculture Extension Officer of Birkpur-the 2^nd accused in the case were deputed at the said Paddy Purchase Centre. Subject to orders in the Circular vide Proceedings No.A4/10(1)/2005-06 dated 09-11-2005, both of them purchased 1475.560 metric tons of paddy, but sent only 1322.554 metric tons of paddy to the concerned rice millers whereby there was a deficit of 153.06 metric tons of paddy to be supplied to the rice millers estimated at the rate of Rs.750/- per quintal, amounted to Rs.11,47,545/-. Both the accused were responsible for the deficit and consequent embezzlement of public money and thereby they committed offences under Section 409 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C.

¶16

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner/2^nd accused that by virtue of Circular vide Mktg.A4/10(1)/2005-06, dated 09.11.2005, the responsibility of the petitioner/2^nd accused was only to verify the quantity and quality of paddy brought by farmers to the Paddy Purchase Centre and nothing more, whereas by the said Circular the 1^st accused was responsible for the procurement and supply of the paddy to the rice millers for the purpose of distributing the paddy to various farmers and therefore, the charge sheet is misconceived insofar as the petitioner/2^nd accused is concerned and accordingly, the proceedings insofar as the petitioner/2^nd accused is concerned are to be quashed.

¶17

4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that by virtue of the said circular, the petitioner/2^nd accused was also responsible for the procurement of paddy and also for any loss of paddy, when occasioned consequently.

¶18

5. Therefore, the point to be considered is whether the charge

¶19

sheet is liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner/2^nd accused is concerned.

¶20

6. The circular cited amply provides that the duty of the petitioner/ 2^nd accused was only to check the quantity and quality of paddy to be purchased for the said purpose and nothing more, whereas by the Circular, the 1^st accused was responsible to see that it was properly procured and was also responsible for ascertaining the quality of paddy and safeguarding it till the paddy was handed over to those concerned.

¶21

7. Further, in order to attract charges under Section 409 and 420 I.P.C, there should be entrustment of the paddy to the petitioner/2^nd accused at the inspection, whereas there is no documentary evidence to that effect.

¶22

8. Therefore, for the reasons enumerated, the charge sheet is misconceived insofar as the petitioner/2^nd accused is concerned and, accordingly, it is liable to be quashed to the same extent.

¶23

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.435 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banswada, Nizamabad, insofar as the petitioner/2^nd accused are concerned, are quashed.

¶24

_____________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶25

17^th March, 2011

¶26

KSM

Koppuri Looka, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koppuri Looka, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Killamsetty Venkataramana Vs Indian Bank

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Vs M/s. The Co-operative Press Ltd.

Peddiboyina Nagaiah Vs The Union of India

S.N. Saroja, (A-2), Vs Smt. Naga Gouri Mani

Vembati Sampath, Vs The State of A.P.

Mr.D.Satyanarayana Reddy Vs M/s.Kalyani Sharp India Ltd.