Allowed

Allada Butchayya and 2 Others v. State of Ap.,Reo by I of P.,Cid,Rep by Pp.,Hc.,Hyd

Telangana HC15 Nov 2018CRLP/13085/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings in C.C. No.16 of 2002 before a Special Court under Essential Commodities Act. Court quashed proceedings, holding IPC offences cannot be tried by Special Court and substantive offences barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.16 of 2002 against petitioners/A3 to A5 quashed; miscellaneous applications closed.

Allada Butchayya and 2 Others Vs State of Ap.,Reo by I of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13085 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Offences under E.C. Act, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 407, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 IPC and Section 7(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, r/w Sections 26 and 28 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 and under Section 411 IPC, against petitioners/A3 to A5.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order dated 25.09.2018 passed in Crl.P.No.9294 of 2011, wherein this Court followed the order dated 15.07.2004 passed in Crl.P.Nos.2535 of 2002 and batch, observing as under:

¶6

“2. The question involved in all these Criminal Petitions is whether the Special Court constituted under the provisions of Section 12-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can try the cases involving offences under IPC along with the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. This issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kasarabada Rajeswara Rao Vs. State of A.P¹ . It has been held in the cited decision as follows:

¶7

“For the reasons given hereinabove, we agree with the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and

¶8

1 2004 (1) ALT (CRL) 443 (DB) (AP)

¶9

TR,J Crl.P.No.13085 of 2011

¶10

¶11

hold that the Special Judge cannot try other offences along with offences under Essential Commodities Act which are not to be tried in a summary way. Since all the offences other than the offences under Essential Commodities Act are not to be tried in a summary way, therefore, the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences mentioned herein. The reference is answered accordingly. We do not think it will serve any purpose if we send the matter back to the learned Single Judge and therefore, we quash the proceedings as far as they relate to offences under Sections 120-B, 407, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.”

¶12

In all these cases the offences under IPC are sought to be tried along with Essential Commodities Act under Section 120-B, 407, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners herein cannot be tried for the offences under Sections 120-B, 407, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code by the Special Court constituted under the provisions of Section 12-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.”

¶13

In similar circumstances, this Court, by virtue of the order dated 07.09.2007 passed in Crl.P.No.4977 of 2007, observed as follows:

¶14

“Under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, if any person contravenes any order made under Section 3, he shall be punishable in case of an order made with reference to Clause (h) or Clause(i) of sub-section (2) of that Section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. Under Section 468 Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance after one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. As seen from the charge sheet, admittedly, the offence is

¶15

TR,J Crl.P.No.13085 of 2011

¶16

¶17

alleged to have taken place in the year 1995 whereas the charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken, in the year, 2002, for the offence under Section 7(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and hence, it is barred by limitation. So, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court”.

¶18

In the instant case, as seen from the charge sheet, the offence is alleged to have taken place on 10.10.1997 and a complaint was filed on the said date, whereas the charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken in the year 2001 for the offence under Section 7(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is beyond one year from the date of alleged offence, and hence, it is barred by limitation.

¶19

In the circumstances, following the said judgment and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2002 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Offences under E.C. Act, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners/A3 to A5. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

¶20

this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶21

¶22

T. RAJANI, J

¶23

15^th November, 2018 sj

Allada Butchayya and 2 Others v. State of Ap.,Reo by I of P.,Cid,Rep by Pp.,Hc.,Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allada Butchayya and 2 Others v. State of Ap.,Reo by I of P.,Cid,Rep by Pp.,Hc.,Hyd

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

Pisini Ramanarao, Srikakulam District and 9 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Varayogula Vishwamohan, Vs Tatikonda Prasad, and Another

Chennu Chanti , Mechanic Chanti and Another Vs Goli Shashikanth and the State of A.P.

Addepalli Vijaya Kumar (A4) and B.Sanyasi Rao (A5) Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp CID Visakhapatnam

Jandyala Bhavani Sankara Subrahmanya Sarma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

M/S. Euromed Distributors and Another Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another