Milk Products Factory vs V.Anjaneyulu 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1931 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                      CRL.R.C.289 OF 2007

ORDER:-

      Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, dated 26-12-2006 in

C.C.No.354 of 2002, the defacto complainant filed the present

Criminal Revision Case before this Court.


2.    Heard both sides.


3.    The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

      All the accused are working in different capacities in The

Kurnool District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited,

Nandyal (hereinafter referred to as "MPU")-revision petitioner

herein. The petitioner used to produce milk products like milk

powder, ghee etc., The said factory used to purchase "C-grade"

Coal from Singareni Collieries Company Limited ( hereinafter

referred to as SCC), Singareni Godavarikhani and Mangur at

lesser prices than the market rate. In order to get the "C-grade"

coal from SCC, the MPU has to send requisitions in the proper

form to SCC enclosing the DD and requisition letter with

statement of consumption of coal and production. On examining

the said requisition made by MPU, the SCC will issue sale note

i.e, permit to lift the allotted coal from pits. While so, during the

period August 1988 to July 1989 all the accused having

conspired together to lift the coal from SCC, have taken a DD

with their own money and sent the requisition letters to SCC for

supply of "C-grade" coal. Having received the coal, the accused
                                 2




sold the same to some third parties. On the basis of the said

allegation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on

file as C.C.No.354 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

4.    In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to

12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-337. Plea of the accused was one of

denial and no defence witnesses were examined, but portions of

161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.2 and 4 were marked as Exs.D-1

and D-2 on behalf of the accused.


5.    After an elaborate trial, the trial court observed in its

judgment as under:-

            "In this case, the prosecution did not produce any of
      the false requisitions made by the accused before SCC and
      SCC issuing sale notes believing the false requisitions of
      the accused as genuine. All these documents are available
      with SCC only, but neither the defacto complainant nor
      Investigation Officer has made any efforts to obtain the
      documents from SCC and produce the same before the
      Court."


6.    On that ground, the trial court acquitted the accused with

the charges leveled against them.


7.    This Court perused the entire material on record. The

crucial documents in support of the prosecution are false

requisition letters made by the accused and the SCC issuing the

sale notes. In the absence of both these documents, it cannot be

held that the accused are guilty of the charges leveled against

them. Having perused the entire evidence on record, this court is
                                 3




not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by

the trial court.

8.    Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the judgment, dated 26-12-2006 in C.C.No.354 of

2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Nandyal.

      Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

                                           __________________
                                              K.SURESH REDDY,J
21-04-2022

.

TSNR