M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

1. These petitions are filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. questioning the legality, propriety and regularity of the order in Crl.MP. No. 768 of 2013 and Crl.M.P. No. 770 of 2013, respectively, in C.C. No. 23 of 2010 pending on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. The petitioners in Crl.R.C. No. 650 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 652 of 2016 is accused No. 5 in C.C. No. 23 of 2010. They will, herein after, be referred as petitioners for convenience.

2. The petitioners filed petitions under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Court below to discharge the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C. r/w Sections 13(1)(d) clause II & III of P.C. Act, 1988.

3. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in the charge sheet laid by the respondents alleging that accused Nos. 1 and 2 registered the park land measuring 600 yards showing it as house bearing Nos. 1-8-450/1/A/160 and 1-8-450/1/A/159 (issued by MCH to their houses admeasuring 300 sq.yards each) in favour of R. Satya Kumar (A-6) and M.F. Peter (A-7) vide sale deeds No. 1352/96 and 1351/96 dated 12.06.1996. On 16.10.1998, the petitioners have also executed a Rectification Sale Deed in Vallabhanagar Registration Office, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the property which was earlier registered by them as houses and in rectification deeds, it is described as open plots bearing Nos. S1 & S2 by mis-using the G.O.Ms. No. 522 dated 20.07.1988.

4. The petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 652 of 2016 is accused No. 5 who worked as Deputy Collector, later joined in APHB as Secretary on deputation from 1995 to 1998 and later retired from service. He conspired with A1 & A2 and prepared a false note in LAQ. No. 6205 describing that the land is not a vacant site reserved for park, though he was having knowledge that it was left for park place, as disclosed by the original plan available in APHB Office. Thus, accused No. 5 committed the offences punishable under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w Sections 13(1)(d) clause II & III of P.C. Act, 1988.

5. All the three petitioners raised identical grounds. Following are the few grounds identical in both the petitions.

1. The trial Court while deciding the discharge petition filed by the accused No. 1 and 2 is under obligation to appreciate the prosecution in the charge sheet and to find out whether the allegations are sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 471 & 120 (B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 13 clause II & III of the Act against A1 and A2 and A5.

2. The Court below also did not consider the material on record to find out whether those allegations would constitute any of these offences i.e., criminal breach of trust, forgery, tampering of record etc.,

3. The Court below also failed to consider the evidence set up by the petitioners as to the nature of land and contrary to principle laid down in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 198 (SC) : (2005) 1 SCC 568 dismissed the petition on wrong appreciation of facts. So also in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406 wherein it was held that it is permissible to consider the defense evidence, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted. Ignoring the basic principles for deciding a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners.

6. Petitioners contend that they produced lot of material before the Court below, more particularly, averments in the writ petitions, which was dismissed, later restored and remanded by the Supreme Court in the appeal and if these documents have been considered, the court would have allowed these applications discharging the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 468