Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 960
2008 (1) ALD (Cri.) 23 (AP)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
Madicharla Nageswara Sastry — Appellant
Vs.
State of A.P. — Respondent
Criminal P. No.4197 of 2007
Decided on : 26-09-2007
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri I.V.N. Raju.
Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R.1.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Indian Stamps Act, 1899 – Section 21, 70, and 197 – Sections 420, 468, 471, 477, 109 and 120 IPC – Section 482 – Offence of cheating – Quash of Criminal proceedings - Petition is filed under Section 482 by petitioner-A.10 seeking to quash proceedings against him in CC No.103 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class West Godavari district –Petitioner-A.10 along with others is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 109 and 120-B IPC and Section 69 of Indian Stamps Act – Petitioner-A.10 worked as Sub Registrar are licensed stamp vendors for sale of non- judicial stamps and A.19 and A.20 are un-licensed stamp vendors – Other accused worked as Sub Registrars at different places during relevant period in 1995 – According to prosecution – Government of Andhra Pradesh re-fixed the market value of lands with effect from and benefit of old market value for purpose of registration was allowed to transactions that took place – It is alleged that Stamp Vendors and Sub Registrars conspired together to gain monetary benefit and indulged in sale of stamps with anti-dates specific allegation against Sub Registrars including petitioner-A.10 is that they failed to verify/scrutinize genuineness of same date of entry of the sales register date of purchase of stamps from Sub Treasury office and date of sale to parties and thereby failed to perform their legitimate duties and on other hand actively connived with stamp vendors and with document writers with an intention to make wrongful gain to themselves and abused their official position as public servants for gaining pecuniary advantage which resulted in huge loss of revenue to government – Held, Section has thus to be construed strictly while determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of service – Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in the course of duty – But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned – For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities – To that extent section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner allegation against petitioner-A.10 is that while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties as Sub Registrar, he failed to properly scrutinize stamp papers and entries in concerned registers to detect anti-dated nature of stamps – It cannot be disputed that scrutiny of stamps and verification of concerned registers formed part of official duties of petitioner alleged failure on his part to properly scrutinize stamps and verify registers is certainly an act or omission which has reasonable connection with discharge of his official duty – Admittedly prosecution agency has not applied to Government for sanction to prosecute petitioner who is a public servant within meaning of Section 21 IPC – Criminal Petition is allowed.
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-A.10 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.103 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari district.
2. The petitioner-A.10 along with others is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 109 and 120-B IPC and Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act. The petitioner-A.10 worked as Sub Registrar at Akiveedu, A.1, A.9, A.12 and A.14 to A.18 are the licensed stamp vendors for the sale of non- judicial stamps and A.19 and A.20 are the un-licensed stamp vendors. The other accused worked as Sub Registrars at different places during the relevant period in 1995. According to the prosecution, the Government of Andhra Pradesh re-fixed the market value of the lands with effect from 1.4.1995 and the benefit of old market value for the purpose of registration was allowed to the transactions that took place up to 31.3.1995. It is alleged that the Stamp Vendors and Sub Registrars conspired together to gain monetary benefit and indulged in sale of stamps with anti-dates. The specific allegation against the Sub Registrars including the petitioner-A.10 is that they failed to verify/scrutinize the genuineness of the same, the date of entry of the sales register, date of purchase of the stamps from the Sub Treasury office and the date of sale to the parties and thereby failed to perform their legitimate duties and on the other hand actively connived with the stamp vendors and with the document writers with an intention to make wrongful gain to themselves and abused their official position as public servants for gaining pecuniary advantage which resulted in huge loss of revenue to the government. On the basis of the report of the enquiry by the then D.I.G. of Stamps, the District Registrar, Bheemavaram gave a complaint to C.I.D. police who registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 2000. On completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, CID, Vijayawada, filed charge sheet before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in CC No.103 of 2005 and issued process against the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A.10 who worked as Sub Registrar, Akiveedu, filed present petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him mainly on the ground that there was no sanction for prosecution as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. against him, who was a public servant.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents are heard. Records are perused.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner-A.10 who was working as Sub Registrar, Akiveedu, at the relevant time, was a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 Cr.P.C. That apart, Section 70 of the Indian Stamps Act also bars the prosecution without sanction of the Collector or such other Officer of the State Government specifically authorized in that behalf. Section 70 of the Indian Stamps Act reads thus:
"70. Institution and conduct of prosecutions: (1) No prosecution in respect of any offence punishable under this Act or any act hereby repealed, shall be instituted without the sanction of the Collector or such other officer as the state Government generally, or the Collector specially, authorizes in that behalf;
(2) The Chief Controlling Revenue-Authority, or any officer generally or specially authorized by it in this behalf, may stay any such prosecution or compound any such offence;
(3) The amount of any such composition shall be recoverable in the manner provided by section 48."
5. In 'Rakeshkumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & others', the Apex Court held as follows:
'Section 197 Cr.P.C. has to be construed strictly while determining its applicability to any act or omission in the course of service and where the act or omission performed by a public servant had reasonable connection with discharge of his d
