B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) "we all, Judges and lawyers, must restore our old faith and rekindle new hopes. The future is yours, men and women of law, take it and redeem yourselves". Justice Sabyaschi Mukharji

( 2 ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the proceedings in cc No. 9 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam. The petitioners are A2 and a3 in the said case.

( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief, it may be necessary to notice the background facts and circumstances leading to filing of this petition by the petitioners. Having regard to the question that falls for consideration, the facts in somewhat detail are to be noticed. The facts are tell-tale.

( 4 ) ONE Mulakalapalli Appa Rao, S/o. Somulu, R/o. Peda Gantyada, working as kalasi in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant gave a report on 30-4-1999 in Steel Plant (Law and Order) Police Station, Visakhapatnam against one Chavvakula Venkata satyanarayana, Technician in the same organisation. In the said report, it is alleged that during the course of employment, the accused therein abused the informant in the name of his caste and caught hold of his shirt collar and then beat him on 29-4-1999 at 10-00 a. m. The accused therein is alleged to have further stated that SC/st people cannot do anything to him and he may report to whomsoever concerned and in the past, he gave the same treatment to one ST Officer by name M. R. Mandal and then the SC/st Officials could not do anything. Some people are alleged to have witnessed the incident.

( 5 ) THE first petitioner herein is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Steel plant Law and Order Police Station, visakhapatnam and the second petitioner is the Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Visakhapatnam City. On receipt of the said report, the first petitioner promptly registered a case in Crime No. 25 of 1999 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act ). He issued the first information report and sent the original to the learned VIII metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka and set the law in motion. Some witnesses were examined by him during the course of investigation. The second petitioner being the Assistant Commissioner of police took up the investigation as is required under the provisions of the said Act. Some witnesses were re-examined by the second petitioner and after completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet in the Court of VIII metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. The learned Magistrate took the case on file and duly committed the same to the Court of special Judge for trial of cases under the said Act. The case was taken on file as SC no. 5 of 1999.

( 6 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as six witnesses and marked five documents. However, PWs. 1 and 3 were declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. The second petitioner herein being the Investigating officer was examined as PW6 in the said sessions Case. The de facto complainant mulakalapalli Appa Rao was examined as PW2. He appears to have given contradictory versions, but he was not treated hostile by the prosecution. However, the corroborating witnesses who were examined as PWs. l and 3 did not support the prosecution case and departed from their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 7 ) THE learned Special Judge by his judgment dated 6th April, 2000, upon appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, acquitted the accused in the said Sessions Case and held that there is no material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. The learned Special Judge, however, observed that the second petitioner herein without proper investigation filed a false case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document