The single judge quashed the criminal case against the petitioner alone in a charge under the A.P. Fire Services Act for fire safety violations, holding the complaint lacked basis to implicate him, while allowing the case to proceed against the other accused.
Case against petitioner K.Pratap quashed; case continues against company and second accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5766 of 2008 Dated 03-01-2012
Between:
K.Pratap.
…Petitioner.
And:
P.Mohan Reddy and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5766 of 2008
ORDER:
One Mr.K.Pratap who is shown as the Managing Director of M/s. Lotus Properties C.C.No.271 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (trial court), has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code), for quashing the criminal insofar as he is concerned. He is shown as representing M/s. Lotus Plaza, which is said to be the name of a multi storied building situated near Ashok Nagar bridge, Hyderabad, and it is shown as A-1 in the case.
2. The 2nd accused is shown as Sri B. Sudhakara Rao who is again shown as representing Ms. Lotus Golden Plaza. The Assistant District Fire Officer of Hyderabad is the complainant in this case. The offences alleged against both the accused relate to violations of Sections 13, 19 and 22 of A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 and it is stated that they are punishable under Section 31 of A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 (Act). The substance of the accusation is that both A.1 and A.2 have violated the provisions of the above Act inasmuch as they did not take
proper care to insulate the building from fire hazard as contemplated under the Act.
3. Sri G.Naga Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the building or complex namely M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza and the whole record would show that complainant has issued notices and taken steps against the accused Sudhakara Rao and even the complaint allegations do not show as to how he is connected with M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza and therefore, the case against him should be quashed.
4. Along with the complaint copy, the complainant also filed certain communications addressed to Sudhakara Rao and also a reply given by Sudhakara Rao pleading that they have filed a complaint in the trial Court. The first communication is dated 14-32006 and it purports to be one from Sri Alok Srivastava, the then Director General of Fire Services, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and the second is another communication dated 23-10-2007 again from Abdul Khayum Khan from the subsequent Director General of Fire and Emergency Services, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Both the said communications are addressed to Sudhakara Rao who is shown as second accused informing him that he has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act in taking fire safety measures in the multi storied building called M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza. There is a copy of reply dated 2311-2007 which purports to have been addressed by Sudhakara Rao to Abdul Khayum Khan informing hi9m (Abdul Khayum Khan) that he has complied with the provisions of the Act. In none of the above three letters or communications, no mention is made about the individual petitioner K.Pratap.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at his request, was given many adjournments to get the
record to show as to how this K.Pratap-petitioner is connected to the premises M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a Xerox copy of the lease deed dated 22-5-2004 said to have been executed in favour of one concern by name M/s.Venkateswara Motors on behalf of M/s. Golden Gate Properties Limited of Bangalore. This lease deed purports to have been executed by K.Pratap as Director of the said Golden Gate Properties Limited. The subject matter of the lease is shown as some accommodation existing in M/s.Lotus Golden Plaza property. The Additional Public Prosecutor says that this Golden Gate Properties Limited has subsequently changed its name as M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza and this K.Pratap is therefore connected to M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza. It appears that this is not correct and going by the tenor of the lease deed it may appear that M/s.Golden Gate Properties Limited possessed the leased out accommodation covered by the said lease deed in Lotus Golden Plaza property. Except this document, no other record is filed to show in what way K.Pratap is connected with the maintenance of M/s.Lotus Golden Plaza. Nothing is also mentioned in the complaint that this K.Pratap is connected with any duty to ensure that the property M./s. Lotus Goldden Plaza is under his control or he is charged with any duty cast upon him by reason of his connection to M/s.Lotus Golden Plaza property to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Act. Not only this, the notices issued by the communications/ notices by the Director General of Fire Services earlier were addressed to Sudhakara Rao who is shown as 2nd accused in the case. This is already mentioned. In these circumstances, it is clear that the complaint does not contain any basis for prosecuting Sri K.Pratap showing him as Managing Director of M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion
that the case against this K.Pratap alone should be quashed while allowing it to be continued against the company M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza and also Sudhakara Rao.
7. This petition is accordingly partly allowed and the criminal case against Mr.K.Pratap alone i.e. the petitioner herein is quashed while it can continue against the other accused in the case. It is however made clear that it shall always be open for the complainant to proceed against Mr. K.Pratap also if he is able to show that Mr K.Pratap is connected with M/s. Lotus Golden Plaza and is responsible for violation of the provisions of the Act. It is further made clear that this order shall not be understood to fetter in any manner the powers of the trial court to proceed against K.Pratap i.e. the petitioner herein if that is warranted under Section 319 of the Code or under any other provision of law depending upon the evidence forthcoming in the case.
____________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 03-01-2012. Dvs/Cvrk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal case against the petitioner as Managing Director of the property should be quashed due to lack of evidence connecting him to the premises.
Whether the trial court retains powers to include the petitioner under Section 319 CrPC if evidence of connection emerges later.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Pratap
P.Mohan Reddy
N.RAVI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
