Dismissed

A.Ravinder Reddy v. Government of a.P., rep by its Prinicpal Secretary

Telangana HC26 Jun 2013WA/674/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Single Judge order allowing withdrawal of criminal case under Section 409 IPC. High Court found gross negligence by state officers for inaction post-judgment, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Registry to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against District Collector, Divisional Panchayat Officer, and Mandal Parishad Development Officer for gross negligence. No order as to c

A.Ravinder Reddy Vs Government of a.P., rep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.A.No.674 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)

¶4

Writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.04.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.10170 of 2008, wherein the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition by setting aside G.O.Rt.No.396 dated 12.03.2008 and the consequential proceedings dated 13.03.2008 passed by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar. Learned single Judge also directed the State to resume the prosecution of the third respondent therein, who is the appellant herein, under Section 409 IPC.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶6

Criminal case was launched against the appellant in Crime No.50 of 2007 under Section 409 IPC on the file of Koilkonda police station, for misappropriation of funds. Thereafter, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.396, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS.IIA) Department, dated 12.03.2008 directing the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, to withdraw and set aside the criminal case against the appellant. The reason, which was given for withdrawing the case against the appellant, is that when the departmental proceedings are initiated, he offered to repay the misappropriated amount.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid case launched against the appellant has not reached the stage of

¶8

filing the charge sheet, as such it is not necessary to consult the public prosecutor or obtain permission of the Court, hence the learned single Judge is not correct in observing that the Government has not consulted the public prosecutor and did not obtain the permission of the Court before withdrawing the case.

¶9

Even assuming that the case is at the stage of investigation, in a serious offence of misappropriation of funds it is not proper for the State to withdraw such case, on the ground that the individual offers to pay the entire misappropriated amount, without completing the enquiry and filing the chare sheet. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge has rightly set aside the G.O. Rt.No.396 dated 12.03.2008 issued by the State.

¶10

When the matter came up before us for hearing, we have directed Government Pleader to file a status report about the prosecution launched against the appellant herein. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader filed a report stating that no steps have been taken against the appellant by the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar after the disposal of the W.P.No.10170 of 2008 except issuing repeated reminders to the MPDO, Koilkonda mandal to submit the records. Hence, we take it as a gross negligence on the part of the officers concerned for not taking effective steps, as such we direct the Registry to take up suo motu contempt against the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, Divisional Panchayat officer, Mahaboobnagar and Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Koilkonda mandal.

¶11

The appeal, therefore, is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in the writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶13

_________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR 26^th June, 2013 Ksp

¶14

Copy to:

¶15

(1) The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶16

(2) The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

A.Ravinder Reddy v. Government of a.P., rep by its Prinicpal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ravinder Reddy v. Government of a.P., rep by its Prinicpal Secretary

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

Dr. B. Vidya Sagar Vs Dr. P. Venkateshwarlu

Kurra Chinna Sambhasiva Rao Vs The Director General of Police

K.Lakshmana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Lakhani Steel Industries Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Vs K. Shyam Sunder

Ravi Rama rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City