Cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act cannot be taken without a complaint from a competent authority or a mandatory 30-day notice as prescribed under Section 60 of the Act.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.1710 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, NTR District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent police, without conducting any proper investigation, mechanically registered a suo-moto case and falsely arrayed the petitioner as A-2, though he had no involvement in the alleged offence. She further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Vijayawada, studied Diploma in Civil Engineering, and is presently unemployed. It is further submitted that the case was registered suo-moto by the police and no complaint was lodged by any person against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the registration of the case under Section 53 of the Disaster Management Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is illegal in view of the bar under Sections 59 and 60 of ‘the Act’, as no complaint or sanction was obtained from the competent authority. She further submits that the entire case is based only on the alleged confessional statements of the accused, which are inadmissible in law under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is also argued that the police did not collect any independent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The learned counsel further submits that the ingredients of Section 420 of ‘the IPC’ are not attracted, as there is no allegation of cheating or dishonest inducement against the petitioner. She further submits that the alleged Remdesivir Injection was not sent for expert examination to confirm its nature. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the respondent police registered the case based on credible information received regarding illegal sale of Remdesivir Injections during the Covid-19 pandemic. She further submits that during the raid conducted by the police, the accused persons were found in possession of Remdesivir Injection and confessed about their involvement in selling the same at higher prices. It is further submitted that the investigation revealed the participation of the petitioner along with the other accused in the commission of the offence.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the charge sheet was filed only after completion of investigation and collection of material available on record. She further submits that the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. She argues that the contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can be decided only during trial. It is also submitted that the confessional statements and mediators’ report form part of the investigation material and their evidentiary value has to be examined during trial. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are prima facie allegat