Sri Nara Lokesh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4632 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.7557 of 2023

ORDER:-

     The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash direction

No.(g) of the directions in Notice dated 29.09.2023 issued

under     Section   41-A     Cr.P.C.   by   the   Investigating

Officer/Additional Superintendent of Police, EOW-II, CID,

A.P., Tadepalli to the petitioner in connection with Crime

No.16 of 2022 of CID, P.S., A.P., Mangalagiri, and also to

direct the respondent to investigate the petitioner in the

presence of his advocates.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the former

Member of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council and Former

Minister for IT, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development

Department. He is also the National General Secretary of

the principal opposition party in Andhra Pradesh i.e.

Telugu Desam party. Several false cases have been foisted

against him and his father the Ex-Chief Minister N.

Chandra Babu Naidu, only to harass him and to lower his

prestige and reputation in the eyes of the people. The

petitioner also is being roped into false cases even though

he has nothing to do with the alleged crimes.

It is his further case that in Crime No.16 of 2022 of

CID, P.S., A.P., Mangalagiri, a notice under Section 41-A

Cr.P.C. was issued by the respondent to the petitioner

directing him to appear on 04.10.2023 at 10.00 A.M., in

the office of the EOW-II, CID, AP, Tadepalli at H-Block,

Samruddi Nexa Apartments, Pathuru Road, Tadepalli

Guntur District for examination. Direction No.(g) in the

said notice stipulates that the petitioner has to produce (i)

Bank account details of M/s. Heritage Foods Limited;

(ii)Book with the minutes of Board Meetings relating to the

land transactions; and (iii) Payment details for the land

transactions. It is his further case that the investigating

agency is well aware that the petitioner is only a

shareholder of M/s Heritage Foods Limited and he will not

be able to produce such documents, as no shareholder will

have access to such documents of the company and if at all

the respondent wants that information, it ought have

collected it from the company directly. In fact, the

investigating agency has earlier issued notice under

Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the company to furnish certain

documents, and to the knowledge of the petitioner, they

were secured. The impugned notice dated 29.9.2023 was

served to the petitioner only on 30.9.2023 at 5.22 p.m.,

leaving just one working day in between and even if the

petitioner wishes to produce the documents and details as

required direction No.(g) of the notice, it is impossible for

the petitioner, being a shareholder, to have or obtain the

same.

It is further stated that this Court on several

occasions, where there was imminent threat of coercive

steps or usage of third degree measures against the

accused, had permitted to examine the accused in the

presence of Advocates. Even the petitioner, being

examined, after issuance of notice under Section 41-A

Cr.P.C., should be extended the same benefit, as there is

every chance of foul play by the investigating agency,

whose intention is clear from the clauses in the impugned

notice. Therefore, it is imminent that the advocate of the

petitioner be present with him, at the time of investigation.

Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

3. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior

counsel appearing for Sri G. Basaveswara Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Special Public Prosecutor for

respondent-C.I.D. Perused the record.

4. A perusal of the record goes to show that the

respondent/police issued notice dated 29.09.2023 under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C., which was served on the petitioner

on 30.9.2023, stating that the petitioner was shown as

Accused in Crime No.16 of 2022 of CID, P.S., A.P.,

Mangalagiri, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167 and

217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c)

and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by CID

P.S., Andhra Pradesh, Mangalgiri. The said notice has been

issued to the petitioner herein directing him to appear

before the respondent/police on 4.10.2023 at 10.00 A.M. at

Office of EOW-II, CID, A.P. Tadepalli at H.Block,

Samruddhi Nexa Apartments, Pathuru Road, Tadepalli,

Guntur District, A.P. It is observed in the said notice that

the petitioner was directed to comply with certain

directions.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that Clause (g) of the directions

contemplates that the petitioner has to produce account

details of M/s Heritage Foods Ltd., Book with the minutes

of Board meetings related to the land transaction and

payment details for the land transactions which are

required for the purpose of investigation at the time of

petitioner's appearance. Learned senior counsel further

submits that in connection with the aforesaid crime,

earlier, the respondent/police issued notice under Section

91 Cr.P.C. and they obtained all the documents pertaining

to the details mentioned in clause (g).

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner relied upon the interim order passed by

this Court in W.P.No.34842 of 2022, wherein it is held,

" The presence of the counsel accompanied the petitioner shall be subject to the condition that the said counsel shall be a distance of 10 feet away from the place of investigation. However, the entire examination shall be within the eye sight of the Advocate."

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent submits that they are

not going to insist for the details mentioned in clause (g) of

directions mentioned in the notice. The same is placed on

record.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that the respondent-C.I.D. has no objection to

direct that the interrogation of the petitioner may be held

within the visible sight of his advocate. He relied upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Senior

Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence Vs

Jugal Kishore Samra 1, wherein it is held,

"Taking a cue, therefore, from the direction made in DK Basu and having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the interrogation of the respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him. The advocate or the person authorized by the respondent may

(2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 362

watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be open to the respondent to have consultations with him in course of the interrogation."

9. This Court has perused the above judgments. The

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court goes to show that the

interrogation of the petitioner may be held within the sight

of the advocate or any other person duly authorized by him

and the entire examination shall be within the eye sight of

the advocate.

10. After considering submissions of both the sides,

this Court is of the opinion that an Advocate of the choice

of the petitioner can accompany with the petitioner and he

shall be placed at a distance of minimum 10 feet from the

place of investigation.

11. The other ground raised by the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the notice

dated 29.9.2023 was served to the petitioner on 30.9.2023

at 5.22 P.M., directing the petitioner appear at 10.00 AM

on 04.10.2023 for the purpose of investigation leaving just

one working day in between, and prays to fix an other date

for appearance of the petitioner. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the same on the

ground that other co-accused are to be investigated on

04.10.2023.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the view that when the notice dated

29.9.2023 was served on the petitioner on 30.9.2023 at

5.22 PM, it would be very difficult for the petitioner to

appear before the respondent/police on 04.10.2023 at

10.00 AM. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner

is directed to appear before the respondent/police on

10.10.2023 before the respondent police. The respondent-

police are directed to conduct investigation between 10.00

a.m. and 5.00 p.m. with one hour interval. The petitioner

is entitled to be accompanied by an Advocate of his choice,

subject to condition that the said Advocate shall be at a

distance of minimum 10 feet away from the place of

investigation. However, it is made clear that the entire

investigation shall go on within the eye sight of the

Advocate, but he shall not interfere with the investigation.

13. With the above observations, the Criminal

Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Date:03.10.2023 GR

THEHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7557 of 2023

Date:03.10.2023

GR