Important Point
There is a need to balance between protection to officers and protection to citizens.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’). The prayer was to quash the proceedings before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar in CC No.356/96.

3.Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows :

The appellant, at the relevant time in 1994, i.e. 24.10.1994, was working as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. He alongwith his subordinate staff went to the business premises belonging to the respondent no.2 for carrying out an inspection during business hours. The premises were registered business premises of M/s. Rajani Fireworks whose proprietor is the son of the respondent no.2. The officials went to the premises at 5 p.m. on 24.10.1994. In the same business premises, the documents and business stocks relating to Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were also noticed. During the inspection, the son of the respondent no.2 alongwith one Sri. Kasanagottu Satyanarayana said to be one of the partners of Sri Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were available. A statement of inspection was recorded. The statement was recorded by the appellant on a request of the son of the respondent no.2 on his business letter pad. The statement was written by the son of the respondent no.2 on his own, wherein he duly declared that the shop has been inspected that day at 5.30 p.m. and that till the date of such inspection i.e. 24.10.1994, he had not written any of the books of accounts relating to his business and that he did not even give the returns for the year 1993-94 and also that he did not issue any sale bills.

As far as the stocks and documents relating to M/s. Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros., Mr. Kasanagottu Satyanarayana stated that he was one of the partners and he gave a statement on his letter head in his own hand writing, only declaring that till the date of inspection i.e. 24.10.1994 he did not write any books of accounts relating to his business. He also declared in writing that he is giving 178 slips containing the transactions relating to his business for a detailed examination by the appellant. The slips were not seized by the appellant but they were submitted on their own by the owners of the business. Since the accounts books were not written by them, these slips were filed before the appellant for a subsequent examination, which was on their own volition. The stock book was signed and returned. No cash was recovered.

The son of the respondent no.2 visited the office of the appellant and declared that due to ill-health of his grand mother he was seeking extension upto 30.10.1994. This was given in writing by the son of the respondent no.2 who is the proprietor of the business premises in respect of M/s. Rajani Fireworks.

On three dates, i.e. 7.11.1994, 15.11.1994 and 25.11.1994, the son of the respondent no.2 and Kasanagottu Satyanarayan came to the office of the appellant but failed to give any proper explanation for the business transaction. Thereafter the matter had been taken up and best Judgment assessment was completed.

After a period of three months after the inspection, i.e. on 24.1.1995, the respondent no.2 herein filed a complaint for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 380, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karimnagar, stating that the appellant along with his subordinate, have taken away the bill books, cheque books, records and also Indira Vikas Patras (for short ‘IVPs’) worth Rs.2 lacs forcibly without giving any acknowledgement and without conducting panchanama duly intimidating his son and forcibly taking the signatures of his son on white papers with an intention to extract Rs.3 lacs.

In the complaint it was mentioned that the shop-cum-residence was inspe