Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
Kilari Anand Paul – Petitioner
versus
State of A.P. Rep PP – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.1816 of 2017
Decided on 4.4.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Party-in-Person
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cognizance is taken of offence and not of offender.
(2) Taking cognizance for an offence and issuing process to accused without there being legally permissible prima facie material or evidence would violate fundamental rights of petitioner and other accused.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 116, 120(B) and 307 read with 109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Attempt to murder and conspiracy – Cognizance of offences – Cognizance is taken of offence and not of offender – Magistrate, instead of taking cognizance against offence, has taken cognizance against accused – Complainant being a responsible Police Officer ought not to have entertained an unwarranted kind of conversation with petitioner for doing an alleged illegal act – Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction and also not properly understood case and misguided himself in taking cognizance against petitioner and other accused – Taking cognizance for an offence and issuing process to accused without there being legally permissible prima facie material or evidence would violate fundamental rights of petitioner and other accused – As per Section 17(C) of P.C. Act, only an officer of or above rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) from Anti-Corruption Bureau is authorized to investigate such cases and not regular DSP from general police unit – Without there being a Special Government Order, a Deputy Superintendent of Police from regular Police Department is neither permitted nor authorized to conduct investigation under provisions of P.C. Act – There was no sufficient prima facie material available against petitioner to proceed against him for offences punishable under Sections 116, 120-B and 307 read with 109 of IPC – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60)
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 14.02.2017 in R.C.No.1816 of 2017 in Cr.No.229 of 2012, passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, in taking cognizance against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 to 4.
2. It should be pointed out at the threshold that the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, instead of taking cognizance against the offence, has taken cognizance against the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited (2008) 2 SCC 492) held at paragraph No.20 that cognizance is taken an offence and not of an offender. The learned Magistrate missed this fundamental principle in Criminal Cases while taking cognizance.
3. The revision case is maintainable as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551), wherein at Paragraph Nos.9 and 10, it is held as under:
“9. ...Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging the order taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing charge on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the trial, that the issuance of process was wholly illegal or void, or that no charge could be framed as no offence was made out on the allegations made or the evidence adduced in Court...”
“10. ...Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercises for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial.”
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, on 30.03.2016 filed a final report in Cr.No.229 of 2012 at Ongole Taluka Police Station, requesting the learned Magistrate to treat the case as “Action Dropped” and issue Referred Charge Sheet (RCS) proceedings.
5. Originally, the Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station, Ongole, registered a case in Cr.No.229 of 2012 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 116, 120(B) and 307 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C.Act’) against the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 to 4.
6. The facts and events that transpired in this case are required to be mentioned vividly to understand the entire gamut of the case.
7. The impugned order refers that the petitioner is a Renowned Evangelist Pan India and global and running Charitable Trust in the name of Global Peace Initiative Ministries and serving the poor and needy. The petitioner had some disputes with his brother, by name David Raju, in regard to distribution of properties. It was alleged that petitioner was responsible for killing his brother. In that connection, a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.10 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of ‘the IPC.,’ in Addakula Police Station of Mahabubnagar District.
8. LW-1- Indla Srinivasan, earlier worked as Inspector Police, Ongole Taluka Police Station. LW-2-Borigala Koteswara Rao is resident of Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, who earlier worked as in-charge of charitable school belongs to the petitioner at Sadasivapeta. LW-2 was also an accused in Cr.No.10 of 2010 under Section 302 of ‘the IPC.,’ at Addakula Police Station, Mahabubnagar District along with the petitioner.
9. The witnesses LW-3/Vemart
