Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Bairam Muralidhar – Appellant
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No. 1587 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) 1487 of 2012]
Decided On : 31-07-2014
AIR 1987 SC 877; AIR 1976 SC 370; (1978) 1 SCR 604; (1980) 2 SCR 44; AIR 1980 SC 1510; AIR 1957 SC 389; (1996) 2 SCC 610; AIR 2001 SC 116; (2005) 2 SCC 377; (1976) 4 SCC 250 – Relied upon
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 r/w section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Act 1988 serves specific purpose of eradicating corruption – Appellant charge-sheeted after trap – Withdrawal by Government – Anti-corruption department recommending against withdrawal – Government ordering withdrawal on consideration of Appellant’s work in anti-extremist operations – Public Prosecutor simply reproducing Government order and not applying his mind – Not permissible – Courts below rightly rejected application for withdrawal. (Para 19)
(2013) 4 SCC 642; W. P.(C) No. 38 of 1997 – Relied upon
Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 2014 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Son of one Ranga Dharma Goud fell in love with his neighbour's daughter and both of them eloped on 25.01.2006. The neighbour, Radhakrishna Murthy, lodged an FIR under Section- 366(A), IPC. Son of the Ranga Dharma Goud was arrested who suffered judicial custody.
When all these things happened Ranga Dharma Goud who was working as a Driver in Dubai came to India and he was asked to come to the Police Station on two dates when the investigating officer demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- to be paid for not implicating him in the said kidnapping case and also to file the charge- sheet against his son by reducing the gravity of the charge.
As Ranga Dharma Gaud expressed his inability to pay the amount the investigating officer reduced the demand to Rs.5000/-. Expressing his unwillingness to pay, he approached the DSP, ADB, Nizamabad Range, who after due verifications, registered a case in Cr. No. 4/ACB/NZB/2006 on 4.5.2006 under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act. On that basis the trap was laid and eventually charge- sheet was placed against the accused officer before the competent Court.
When the case came up for hearing on charge the public prosecutor filed a petition to withdraw the case against the accused officer on the ground that the Government of A.P. had issued G.P. Ms. No. 268 of Home (SC.A) Department, dated 23.05.2009, to withdraw the prosecution against the accused officer.
The learned trial Judge referred to various authorities, adverted to the role and duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the Court under Section 321 of the Code, and further taking note of the nature of the case and grant of sanction by the State Government to prosecute the case opined that the public prosecutor really had not applied his independent mind except filing the petition with copy of G.O. Ms. issued by State Government; that there were no sufficient ground or circumstances for the Court to accept the withdrawal of the prosecution case against the officer; and that there was no justification to allow such an application regard being had to the offences against the accused persons, and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
The High Court, after adverting to the facts and the reasons ascribed by the trial court held that the order impugned therein was absolutely impeccable inasmuch as the public prosecutor had actually not given any valid reason for withdrawal of the case and further, the case, in the obtaining factual matrix, did not warrant withdrawal under Section 321 of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1125 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has concurred with the view expressed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderbad in Crl. P No. 994 of 2009 in C.C. No. 24 of 2007, whereunder the learned trial Judge had declined to grant permission to withdraw the case pending against the accused-appellant in exercise of the power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").
3. The expose' of facts are the appellant was arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'). As per the prosecution case the son of one Ranga Dharma Goud fell in love with his neighbour's daughter and both of them eloped on 25.01.2006. The neighbour, Radhakrishna Murthy, lodged an FIR at Kamareddy Town Police Station which was registered as Criminal Case No. 21/2006 under Section- 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sub-Inspector of the Police Station took up the investigation and arrested the son of the Ranga Dharma Goud who suffered judicial custody.
When all these things happened Ranga Dharma Goud who was working as a Driver in Dubai came to India and he was asked to come to the Police Station on 22.04.2006 and again on 26.04.2006 on which dates the investigating officer demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- to be paid for not implicating him in the said kidnapping case and also to file the charge- sheet against his son by reducing the gravity of the charge.
As Ranga Dharma Gaud expressed his inability to pay the amount the investigating officer reduced the demand to Rs.5000/-. Expressing his unwillingness to pay, he approached the DSP, ADB, Nizamabad Range, who after due verifications, registered a case in Cr. No. 4/ACB/NZB/2006 on 4.5.2006 under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act. On the basis of the registration of the FIR the trap was laid and eventually charge- sheet was placed against the accused officer before the competent Court.
4. When the case came up for hearing on charge the public prosecutor filed a petition on 22.06.2009 to withdraw the case against the accused officer on the ground that the Government of A.P. had issued G.P. Ms. No. 268 of Home (SC.A) Department, dated 23.05.2009, to withdraw the prosecution against the accused officer. The learned trial Judge referred to the copy of the G.O. Ms. No. 268 that was annexed to the petition of the Special Public Prosecutor wherein it was mentioned that on the due examination the Government had found regard being had to the good work of the accused in the anti-extremist field and other meritorious service his case be placed before the Administrative Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings after withdrawal of the prosecution pending in the court of Special Judge.
The learned trial Judge referred to various authorities, adverted to the role and duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the Court under Section 321 of the Code, and further taking note of the nature of the case and grant of sanction by the State Government to prosecute the case opined that the public prosecutor really had not applied his independent mind except filing the petition with copy of G.O. Ms. issued by State Government; that there were no sufficient ground or circumstances for the Court to accept the withdrawal of the prosecution case against the officer; and that there was no justification to allow such an application regard being had to the offences against the accused persons, and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
5. As the permission was not granted by the learned trial Judge the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court and the learned Single
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
