Back
2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 802 (AP)
In the High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyd.
Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.
A. V. Dhanna Reddy
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Crl. P Nos.5470 and 5770 of 2010
August 2, 2010
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 319, 173(2), 173(8), 482 – Further Investigation – These two criminal petitions are filed by newly added accused questioning order passed by the 11 Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati in Criminal by which the lower Court allowed the said petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor impleading the petitioners as A2 to A4 in that criminal case in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C – Held, Trial of on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati is stayed pending further orders on these two petitions – Further, the Additional Director General of Police, Hyderabad is directed to take up further investigation of this case and entrust the same to a team of competent investigating officers constituting Special Investigation Team – Further investigation in this case need not necessarily be confined to the grey areas pointed out in this order and the C.I.D. may also enlarge scope of investigation depending upon the material to be unearthed during further investigation – During the course of further investigation of this case, the C.I.D. is at liberty to examine or if necessary to interrogate or to take into custody any person, in TTD connected with this offence irrespective of his/her status, in order to come to a logical conclusion touching core aspects of this case – The investigating officer shall file periodical monthly reports of the further investigation being conducted in this case, in this Court and ultimately file additional final report before the Magistrate after conclusion of further investigation – Order Accordingly.
2. Originally, charge-sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tirumala against three persons who are A 1, A3 and A4 herein showing them as A 1 to A3 respectively alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 408, 120-B/ 34 IPC. The Magistrate returned the chargesheet with the following objections:
"(1) When A 1 only taken amount for getting Poorabhishikam to the concerned party through recommendation letter and the said amount also deposited into the account of the wife of A 1 how the case registered against A2 and A3 and also sanctioned Poorabhishikam by J.E.O., only and also at least there is no confession statement of with regard to collusion of A2 and A3 in granting the said Seva ticket.
(2) When A2 and A3 are responsible for issuing Seva ticket in collusion with A 1, why sanctioning authority has not included as co-accused."
The Sub-Inspector of Police represented the charge-sheet on 12.5.2009 answering the above two objections in the following manner:
"(1) As per the written report of the pilgrim party K. Rajendra Prasad (LW1) the names of A2 and A3 are included, the said report clearly shows the role played by A2, A3. The investigation clearly reveals the involvement of A2, A3 in the offence as such they are charge-sheeted.
(2) The investigation did not reveal the involvement of issuing authority which issued the Seva tickets. As such the sanctioning authority is not added as accused."
On the original charge-sheet, there is again another resubmission endorsement by the Sub-Inspector on 27.5.2009 to the following effect :
"Resubmitted after compliance and file another charge-sheet against A 1 under Section 420 IPC."
3. The said another charge-sheet was filed by another police officer, viz., Circle Inspector of Police, Tirumala (L&O). After filing another charge-sheet, the original first charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirumala II Town Police Station was endorsed as cancelled.
4. When the final report/charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrate has no power or jurisdiction either under Cr.P.C or under Criminal Rules of Practice to return the charge-sheet/final report questioning propriety of the investigating officer of filing the same against one or more accused. If for any reason, the Magistrate is not satisfied with complicity of any of the persons shown as the accused persons, then it is open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case for the offences against only one or some of the accused and not against all th persons shown as the accused in the chargesheet, by giving reasons therefor. In case the Magistrate is not satisfied with the complicity of all the accused persons or the only accused person mentioning in the charge-sheet, then it is open for the Magistrate not to take cognizance for any offences against any of them and to reject the final report/charge-sheet by giving reasons therefor. Returning a chargesheet or final report by the Magistrate arises only when there are any clerical or typographical or arithmetical errors apparent in the charge-sheet/final report.
5. There can be no return of a charge-sheet on judicial objection. Judicial objection is matter for decision by the Magistrate and it cannot be a matter for return of the charge-sheet. Section 190(1) Cr.PC reads as follows :
"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates :-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the First Class, and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cogn
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
