Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kothuri Laxmi Narayana vs The State Of A.P. on 29 April, 2022

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.14063 OF 2018

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C. No.155 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Piduguralla. The petitioner is arrayed as A.6 in the said case.

2. 2nd respondent-defacto complainant presented a

private complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same

was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

Pursuant to the same, a case in crime No.177 of 2013 of

Piduguralla police station, Guntur district was registered by

police. After completion of investigation, police laid charge

sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423,

425, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.5 and under

Section 409 IPC against the petitioner, who is A.6.

3. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may

be stated as follows.

A.4 and A.5 were in enjoyment of vacant site in an

extent of Ac.0.57 cents in D.No.122/1B/5B vide document

no.1208 of 1993, dated 05.04.1993 of S.R.O., Piduguralla.

Adjacent to it, another vacant poromboke site in an extent of

Ac.0.40 cents in D.No.122/1B/1C1 assigned to A.3 by former

Tahsildar, Piduguralla on 19.03.1994 vide D.K.No.08/1403

/Fasali, D-form-7 with certain conditions. After lapse of 15

years, A.3 conspired together with petitioner/A.6 on the plea

that as per patta condition, she paid an amount of Rs.200/-

vide challan No.447 at Sub Treasury Office, Piduguralla.

Without proper verification, petitioner/A.6 voluntarily issued

a certificate vide R.C.No.103/2009-A, and basing on that, A.3

sold away Ac.0.40 cents of site to A.4 and A.5 on 07.03.2009

vide document No.1071/2009 after verifying genuineness by

the S.R.O. Later, A.4 and A.5 merged the said site of Ac.0.57

cents in survey Nos. 122/1B/5B and got possessed total

extent of Ac.0.97 cents and appointed A.1 and A.2 as G.P.As.

on behalf of them vide document NO.2679/2009, dated

02.06.2009 of S.R.O., Piduguralla. Thereafter, A.1 and A.2

made entire site in an extent of Ac.0.97 cents into residential

house plots and sold away to some of the witnesses by

executing registered sale deed in different dates in the year

2009. On 16.11.2009, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant

purchased a plot from L.W.9-K.Sambasiva Rao for

Rs.11,20,000/- and in the year 2013, he tried to get

registered sale deed of the above house plot and learnt that it

was not liable for registration as it was assigned one. On

18.05.2013, when 2nd respondent-defacto complainant asked

said L.W.9-K.Sambasiva Rao about its non-registration, the

latter stated that he purchased the same from A.1 and A.2.

When he questioned A.1 and A.2 about the same, they

abused him in filthy language, threatened with dire

consequences. Hence, the complaint.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1 st

respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

even accepting the entire accusations made as against the

petitioner/A.6 as true, no prima facie case for the offence

punishable under Section 409 IPC is made out, for the reason

that the accusation as against the petitioner/A.6 is that he

issued a Certificate in R.C.No.103/2009-A, and apart from

the same, there is absolutely no other accusation against the

petitioner/A.6.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor opposed the quash petition stating that the

accusation has been made as against the petitioner/A.6 and

the defences that are raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same have

to be decided in the course of trial.

7. This Court perused the record. The only

accusation that has been made as against the petitioner/A.6

is that without proper verification, the petitioner has

voluntarily issued a Certificate R.C.No.103/2009-A, and

basing on the said certificate, A.3 sold away Ac.0.40 cents of

land to A.4 and A.5 on 07.03.2009, after verifying the

authenticity of the document by the Sub Registrar's Office.

The petitioner/A.6, knowing pretty well, has issued the

certificate and by virtue of the same, A.3 sold away the said

property basing on the certificate issued by the petitioner

herein.

8. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. go to

show that the petitioner issued a written certificate and from

the said certificate, it is found that the land which has been

given as a patta vide D.K.No.08/1403/Fasali is not an

assigned land and A.3 was having absolute rights over the

property. In respect of the said land, the petitioner issued

NOC and the same land was sold the 2nd respondent/

complainant.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a

judgment in Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P.1.

Basing on the said judgment, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that a public servant or a banker or an

agent should have been entrusted with the property and the

entrustment of the property should have been converted for

personal use, then only the accused must have committed

criminal breach of trust, but in respect of the act committed

by the petitioner/A.6, there is absolutely no accusation in the

charge sheet except a vague and bald allegation that the

petitioner issued the certificate.

He further contended that the petitioner was only

discharging his official duties and if any violation takes place

in discharge of his official duties, it is essential that sanction

has to be obtained, but no sanction has been obtained at the

time of filing the charge sheet as against the petitioner.

AIR 2012 SC 3242

10. Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:

Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted."

No doubt, the petitioner was working as Tahsildar,

Piduguralla at the relevant point of time. Sanction under

Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required when the alleged acts have

been committed by the public servant while acting or

purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. The acts of

the petitioner/A.6 in issuing the fake certificate in respect of

the land given as patta vide D.K.No.08/1403 /Fasali, D-form-

7 is not a part of the official duty of the petitioner. When 2 nd

respondent/complainant appealed to the District Collector,

Guntur vide Public Redressal Complaint, the Tahsildar,

Piduguralla replied to the complaint of the District Collector,

vide Rc.No.384/1B-A, dated 04.05.2013 stating that a fake