( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. Padmanabha reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar and also the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. K. Sesharajyam.

( 2 ) THE Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "code" in short for the purpose of convenience. The facts in brief are as follows:

( 3 ) THE petitioners are accused in C. C. No. 101/2001 on the file of Judicial First class Magistrate, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar district. It is stated that the Circle Inspector of Police, Achampet filed charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 379 and 406 I. P. C. It is stated that M/s. Patel engineering Company Limited entered into contract with Andhra Pradesh State Electricity board for its civil works at Srisailam Left bank Hydro Electric Scheme Project at srisailam Dam West and the Company undertook the work of excavation of tunnels. For the purpose of excavation, the Electricity department will supply structural and reinforcement steel for civil works to Patel engineering Company. The Electricity department will purchase the required steel and will store in Central Stores. As per the theoretical requirement, the field level assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant engineer will give a requisition to authorised representatives of contractors to draw material from the Central Stores. The cost of total steel issued to the contractor will be recovered from the contractor s bills and after this the steel will be under the contractor s responsibility. It was also stated that the steel so received will be transported to the fabrication yard of the contractors at Egalapenta. There the fabrication work will be undertaken as per the Schedule issued by the field officers. During fabrication, the full length rods are to be cut which results in scrap of different lengths which remain in the fabrication yard. As per the terms of the contract agreement, cut rods of length of less than 2 M will not be taken back by the department. In respect of those items, the contractor will take permission of the concerned authorities, obtain gate pass and will take away such scrap. The cut rods of length of more than 2 M will not be taken by the contractor but should devolute to the Central Stores. So it is alleged that the contractor is not supposed to take the cut rods of 2 M length or more. It was further alleged that on 17-5-2001 at about

( 4 ) 30 a. m. , A-1 to A-6 were caught while they were taking 550 numbers of 32 M. M. steel bars loaded in two lorries and four tippers on the instigation of A-7 on Srisailam - Hyderabad road in between Central Stores and Domalapenta Forest Check Post. It is alleged that all these 550 rods are more than 2 M length and instead of devoluting the rods, the accused were shifting the rods. It was further stated that according to the terms of the agreement, the required steel material for the works will be supplied by APGENCO at the rates specified in schedule C of the agreement and the cost of the steel material is recovered from the running bills of the contractors. The contractor is the real owner of the property as the property was sold to him and as such the question of misappropriation or theft will not i rise. In such circumstances, inasmuch as the failure of the terms of the agreement only will amount to civil liability, the petitioners had filed the present criminal Petition under Section 482 of the code. 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had pointed out that petitioners 1 to 6 are only drivers and petitioner No. 7 is a contractor. The learned Counsel also contended that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are carefully scrutinised, as far as the drivers are concerned, it cannot be said that they are liable to be prosecuted under any of the provisions specified in the charge sheet either under Section 379 or under Section 406 I. P. C. The learned counsel also had drawn my