Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kunapareddy Padmavathi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 February, 2022

Bench: D Ramesh

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.256 of 2021

ORDER: -

The petitioner is alleged to be accused no.8 filed the presenve

revision aggrieved by the orders dated 04.02.2020 in

Crl.M.P.No.1568/2019 in C.C.No.368/2017 on the file of the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpeta, SPSR

Nellore District.

2. The petitioner who is accused no.8 filed petition before the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpeta, SPSR

Nellore District under section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging from the

charges levelled against her in C.C.No.368/2017.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner who is A8 is

nothing to do with the commission of the offence as the persons

whose photos are affixed and appeared before the petitioner is taken

for power of attestation on the bonafide relief. Being a Sub-Registrar,

the petitioner has followed the procedure as per the standing orders

and guidelines and documents in question were attested and

uploaded immediately to Sub-Registrar office, Srikalahasti.

4. As per the complaint, the defacto complainant got married to

Gali Ravi Naidu-A4 on 8-9-2005. During the marriage 100 sovereigns

of Gold and Rs.5,00,000/- was given as Sthridhana. Husband's

brother Murali Naidu-A1 and his wife Manjulamma-A2 were envy of

marriage and along with husband they have taken away the

Sthridhana and ornaments and cash forcefully from the complainant

and used for their well being. After that mother of the complainant

had gifted a property for the security by way of registered gift deed

bearing No.2356/2008 on 13-08-2008 open plot measuring

1800Sq.fts in Sy.No.185/3, SriKalahasti Town. Accordingly, the

complainant has constructed 3 floors in the said plot with own

sources and with the help of the parents. The family members of the

husband of the complainant i.e. Murali Naidu, Manujalmma and aunt

kalvathamma-A3 and her brother in law Ashok Naidu-A5 with an

intention to grab my property hatched a plan to kill the complainant

also. When the said plan was failed, the above persons intentionally

to harass the complainant with a view to grab the properties harassed

the petitioner, hence she left the matrimonial home and living with

mother in Sullurpet. While things stood thus, the husband of the

petitioner had stolen the documents from the complainant and

harassing them for their necessaries. On the advice of the Sub-

Registrar, Sullupet, brother in law Murali Naidu-A1 and his wife

Manjula-A2, aunt kalvathamma-A3 and Ashok Naidu-A5 forged the

documents of special power of attorney with the impersonation of

Manjula as complainant (Mamata) by giving Special Power of Attorney

to Ashok Naidu. The said forged/fabricated documents were created

by Murali Naidu, Manjula, Ashok Naidu, Mastan Naidu, Somasekhar

Raju with the aid and advice of K.Padmavathi, Sub-Registrar i.e. the

petitioner herein. The Sub-Registrar registered the gift settlement

deed no.955/2015 was registered on 05.3.2015. Basing on the above

said complaint a crime is registered and the petitioner was added as

A8 under section 120-B, 468, 471, 490, 420 r/w 109 IPC.

5. The petitioner/A8 has filed the present petition stating that she

has nothing to do with the commission of the offence as the person

whose photos are affixed and appeared before the petitioner has taken

for consideration for issuance of power of attorney attestation on the

bonafides relief. The petitioner has followed the procedure and the

standing orders which were in vogue. The documents in question was

power attested and uploaded immediately to Sub-Registrar Office,

Srikalahasti on the same day when the defacto complainant reported

the matter to the Station House Officer, Sullurpet, the petitioner has

also sent an e-mail a copy of report and registered post to the

concerned authorities and the petitioner has submitted that she acted

with due diligence as per section 49 of the Registration Act but not

with malafide intention. Hence prayed for discharge her on the

ground that there are no prima-facie material that she has conspired

and connived with other accused in attesting the documents in

question. The stamps of the gift deed were issued by Sub-registrar

Srikalahasti town, purchased from stamp vendor of Srikalahasti on 4-

3-2015. The power of attorney document was prepared at

Srikalahasti town and gift deed document also prepared and attested

the signature by Advocate/Notary of Srikalahasti town on 4-3-2015.

By taking the said documents into consideration, prima0facie clear

that the petitioner is innocent and has no knowledge in bringing the

documents into existence before they intended to attestation on 04-

03-2015. Further the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is

holding a public post which office has to be served and that no

sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is accorded to prosecute her till

the date and therefore it is a mandatory condition for prosecuting the

public servant under section 197 Cr.P.C. Further in identical charges

were framed against accused no.9 and subsequently deleted from the

case. Hence prayed for the same benefit.

6. Learned senior counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy, appearing on behalf

of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/A8 while working

as Sub-Registrar, Sullurpeta, basing on the photograph affixed on the

documents has only issued the document of general power of attorney

and she has not executed any documents much less the transfer

deed. Hence the allegations made against the petitioner is baseless.

She has only discharged her duties and there is no complaint that the

petitioner who is A8 has violated the rules and regulations or

guidelines which were in vogue at the time of executing the general

power of attorney. With bonafides intention, the petitioner has

executed the document presented before her on 05.3.2015 and she

has nothing to do with the instant offence.

7. Further the learned senior counsel has submitted that basing

on the above said complaint, the petitioner who is A8 and Sub-

Registrar Office Babu PVA was included as A9 and subsequently A9

was deleted, though the petitioner is identically situated but her case

was not considered and deleted. Hence she is constrained to file the

present application.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that without going

into the merits of the case, section 197 of Cr.P.C which is relevant to

the present case which 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: 1 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.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression" Central Government" occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted.

(3A) 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 , receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magis- trate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.

9. The said provision was interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

India devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr1 wherein it is held as:

We have given our thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from

AIR 2021 SC 3549

unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. [See Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh4]. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties. [See State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao]5. The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.

We are, thus, not able to appreciate why a similar protection ought not to be granted to Respondent No.2 as was done in the case of the other two officials by the Trial Court and High Court respectively. The sanction from competent authority would be required to take cognizance and no sanction had been obtained in respect of any of the officers. It is in view thereof that in respect of the other two officers, the proceedings were quashed and that is what the High Court has directed in the present case as well.

10. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the said

judgment it squarely applies to the present case and by following the

same, petitioner has to be discharged from the crime as A8.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that while the

pendency of the trial, basing on the complaint made by the defacto

complainant, the registration which were done in favour of third

parties were cancelled and the properties were restored to the defacto

complainant.

12. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without going

into the merits of the case, in view of the observations made by the

Apex Court in the instant case, no sanction has been awarded as

required under section 197 Cr.P.C. Hence only on the ground she is

entitled for discharge in the above said crime as A8.

13. After notice, Sri S.Rambabu, counsel has filed vakalat for R2.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of R2/defacto complainant