Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
N. Srinivasan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. P. No. 7584 of 2015
Decided On : 18-03-2016
For the Appellant : Niranjan Reddy.
For the Respondents: Kesava Rao, Spl. SC.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(C & D ) and 12 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B read with 420, 409, 477 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 372-A(2) – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482,190,204 and 319 – Negotiable Instruments Sections 141, 138 - Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner no other than the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Cements Limited, under Section praying to quash the proceedings on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases Hyderabad at Nampally, which is the outcome of FIR in registered for the offences punishable under Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against more than accused pursuant to the directions in and after investigation and final report submitted by the state through learned Special Judge has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections read with IPC and Section of the Prevention of Corruption Act in so far as against the petitioner/A3 concerned leave about other accused charged including A7-M/s. India Cements Limited rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director - Brief allegations in the charge-sheet insofar against the petitioner/A3 concerned - Cements Limited acquired Coromandel Cement plant District they acquired Cement plant of Visakha Cement Industry Limited they acquired cement plant of Cement Corporation of India Cement Limited of District – Held, Magistrate to take cognizance either on receiving a complaint or on police report or upon own knowledge and a Magistrate or Judge takes cognizance when he applies his mind or taken judicial notice of the offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of offence which is said to have been committed. No doubt, in this expression it is not visualized of assigning of reasons mandatory but for judicial application of mind and whether there is judicial application of mind or not to be decided from the facts and circumstances of a case on hand it can be culled out there from to say mere omission to assign reasons for cognizance in the order of cognizance no way fatal though reasons are required to be given generally - Counsel for CBI that from the latest Four Judges Bench expression in Sarath Mathew supra of what is laid down in Sunil Mittals case is to understand of reasons are required to be given generally and not that for mere omission to give reasons fatal to quash the order of cognizance taken if otherwise it is sustainable - Even from that when there is nothing to show judicial application of mind to the material on record in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections concerned the cognizance taken by the special judge for CBI cases requires to be quashed for no basis to sustain the cognizance order from the material on record from what is elaborately discussed supra on facts proceedings so far as petitioner/A3 concerned are liable to be quashed for above material on its face when can be held not sufficient to accuse in the police final report or to take cognizance by the learned Special Judge there from against the petitioner/A3 personally to say no prima facie material to make him liable to face the ordeal of trial or even to frame charge against him from the prosecution material placed reliance with the police final report that is the criterion for the charge to be framed as per the settled expression of the Court more particularly from the three Judge bench expression in SCC though so far as the quash petition concerned the accused is also entitled to bring any additional material in asking the Court to receive to consider and the Court can receive to consider as held by referring to Padhis case also in the subsequent expressions and in particular in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, 2009 Crl. LJ 822. Accordingly the points - Petition is allowed.
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A3-N. Srinivasan, no other than the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A7-M/s. India Cements Limited, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in CC No. 24 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad at Nampally, which is the outcome of FIR in RC No. 19(A)/2011, registered on 17.8.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420, 409, 477-A IPC and Section 13(1)(C & D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against more than 73 accused (where the petitioner-A3 was not named), pursuant to the directions in WP Nos. 794 and 6604 of 2011, and after investigation and final report submitted by the state through C.B.I., Hyderabad, the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Hyderabad has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in so far as against the petitioner/A3 concerned, leave about other 8 accused charged including A7-M/s. India Cements Limited, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director (petitioner/A3-iV. Srinivasan). Brief allegations in the charge-sheet insofar against the petitioner/A3 concerned are the following:
2(i) The petitioner/A3 herein being the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. India Cements Limited (A7) is in charge of the day-to-day management and functions of the A7-Company.
2(ii) Allegations against M/s. India Cements Limited (A7):
(a) During the year 1990 M/s. India Cements Limited acquired Coromandel Cement plant at Kadapa, Kadapa District; in the year 1997 they acquired Cement plant of Visakha Cement Industry Limited at Tandur, Ranga Reddy District; in the year 1998 they acquired cement plant of Cement Corporation of India at Yerraguntla, Kadapa District and in the year 1998 they acquired M/s. Raasi Cement Limited of Nalgonda District (of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh).
(b) It is averred that District Collector, Kadapa had submitted proposals for allotment of land on lease to an extent of Acs. 2.60 cents at Chowdur Mandal, Kadapa District in favour of India Cements Limited (A7) for a period of 20 years from the date on which the Company was in possession from 1983 and the Chief Commissioner Land Acquisition (CCLA) Government of Andhra Pradesh after examining said proposals of the District Collector, issued orders vide G.O.Ms. No. 53, dated 18.1.2001 awarding lease of said land in favour of India Cements Limited (A7) for 20 years with retrospective effect from 1983 to 2003 for construction of infiltration well with pump house for supply of water to the cement plant at Chilamkur Village with a condition of 10% annual lease on market value of Rs. 50,000/- per annum and with provision for 20% increase for every 5 years as per the provisions of the Revenue Board Sanding Order-24. Further, India Cements Limited (A7) submitted a requisition to the District Collector, Kadapa on 30.6.2003 after expiry of the lease period for renewal of the lease of said land as long as the operations of the cement plant continues in Chilamkur, stating that the infiltration well built in that land is the only source of water for their plant operations. On 6.2.2006 the District Collector, Kadapa through his Letter No. E1/909/2000 submitted proposals to the Government through CCLA for extension of the lease of the land of Acs. 2.60 cents in favour of India Cements Limited (A7) with a recommendation that the period as prescribed under G.O.Ms. No. 1484, dated 15.11.1977 on payment of rent at 10% of the market value of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre per annum and the CCLA forwarded said proposals by accepting the recommendation of the District Collector, Kadapa.
(c) The Assignment-IV Section of the Revenue Department put up the latest amendment to the lease rules to Finance Department, which in turn returned the file to Revenue Department with remarks to
