Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri N. Shankar Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 June, 2024
APHC010049312020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 735/2020
Between:
SRI N. SHANKAR PRASAD, , S/O. N.S.N. MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, OCC. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RIO KAKINADA, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATHI.
2. SRI U PAVAN KISHORE, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAKINADA
RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. K B RAMANNA DORA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking
quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.975 of 2019 on the file
in short 'Cr.P.C.'
of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, for
the offences under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 201, 203, 213, 217, 218 and 221
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18602.
2. The contents of the complaint, in epitome, are as follows:
a. On 28.11.2016, Accused No.1 informed Accused No.3 that a known
person offered an amount of Rs.1 Crore old currency notes, if they could
provide Rs.90,00,000/- new currency notes and asked him to secure such
amount of new currency notes. Accordingly, Accused No.3 secured an
amount of Rs.26,66,000/- and prepared 29 bundles with white papers which
were in the size of Rs.2,000/- new currency notes by keeping Rs.2,000/- notes
on both sides of each bundle by utilizing an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. Later,
Accused No.3 kept an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in a bag and kept the 20
bundles prepared by him in another bag and informed Accused No.1 as if he
secured Rs.84,50,000/- of new currency notes.
b. That being so, on the evening of 04.12.2016, Accused Nos.1 to 3 left
Machavaram in a car bearing No.AP 05 CM 7688, secured Accused No.4 at
Narasapurapupegta and at about 6.30 p.m., when they reached to a vacant
site near the Railway gate at Kovvada, Accused Nos.5 to 8, who were present
there in plain clothes, stopped them, checked the bags and videographed the
bags with a mobile.
c. Accused No.1 discussed with the Police by disclosing that the cash in
both the bags is an amount of Rs.84,50,000/- and entered into an agreement
In short 'I.P.C.'
with Accused Nos.5 to 8, handed over Accused No.4 along with the car
bearing No. AP 05 CM 7688 and the cash bag containing an amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- to Accused Nos.5 to 8 near Indrapalem Police Station.
d. On the intervening night of 4/5.12.2016 at 12.30 a.m., Accused No.5,
who is the Reserve Inspector, Traffic-I Police Station, Kakinada handed over
Accused No.4, car bearing No.AP 05 CM 7688, along with cash of
Rs.18,00,000/-, small and big size Samsung mobiles with a written report at
Indrapalem Police Station. Police registered the said report as a case in Crime
No.244 of 2018 against Accused Nos.1 to 4 initially.
e. After completion of due investigation, having found the complicity of
Accused Nos.5 to 8 in the above crime, Police filed charge sheet against
Accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 201, 203,
213, 217, 218 and 221 read with 34 IPC and the same was numbered as
C.C.No.975 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Kakinada.
Grounds Sought for Quashment:
3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/Accused No.5
filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him
on the following grounds:
a. Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case, though none of the
provisions of the said offences attract against him.
b. There was no question of any amount of Rs.84,50,000/- as alleged
Respondent No.2/Complainant to account for by the Petitioner.
c. No amount has been seized from the Petitioner and if really any
allegation of corruption arises against the Petitioner, the proceedings under
Prevention of Corruption Act can only be registered against him.
d. Petitioner is a Government servant and the alleged transaction was on
the instructions of his higher authorities and while discharging his duties.
Therefore, without prior permission, any prosecution against the Petitioner is
illegal and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the
Petitioner.
Arguments advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri
P.M.Mithileswara Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that initially the Police
registered the FIR against Accused Nos.1 to 4 and subsequently
Petitioner/Accused No.5 was implicated in the case. It is further submitted
that the alleged offence had taken place on 05.12.2016, but the Petitioner/
Accused No.5 was added in the said crime on 17.12.2016. It is submitted that
the Petitioner herein is the Investigating officer in that case. Learned counsel
further submits that there is no law forbidding exchange of money. It is
submitted that, except the confession of the co-accused, no evidence is there
against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the charge sheet itself shows that
Accused No.3 fabricated the notes as Rs.2,000/- notes and nothing has been
attributed against the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel further contended that confession of the co-accused
cannot be a sole ground to implicate the Petitioner. It is also submitted that
since the Petitioner is a Government employee, therefore sanction has to be
obtained from the concerned authorities to initiate prosecution against him.
Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. In support of
his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar3.
7. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would
submit that in view of the complicity of the Petitioner in the present case, his
name is added along with the other Accused. Since there is prima facie case
against the Petitioner, the case against him cannot be quashed and the truth
or otherwise of the allegations raised against the Petitioner have to be
revealed during trial. In support of his contention, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Telangana v. Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy4,
Saranya v. Bharathi and another5 and Central Bureau of Investigation
(ACB) v. Dereddy Muralidhara Reddy & another6.
Point for Determination
AIR 1964 SC 1184
(2019) 19 SCC 87
(2021) 8 SCC 583
Criminal Appeal No.1518 of 2024, dt.12.03.2024
8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record,
the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:
Whether the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 in
C.C.No.975 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, is liable to be
quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.?
Determination by the Court
9. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages
that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to
make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the
Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to
secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not
functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must
exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts
and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling
reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against
sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
10. A bare perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that initially the crime
was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 4 and subsequently, during
investigation, as the Police found prima facie allegations against the
Petitioner/ Accused No.5, he was also added in the crime along with Accused
Nos.6 to 8 in the present case and charge sheet was filed against Accused
Nos.1 to 8 for the alleged offences. In the present case, Accused No.7
confessed to the effect that there was conspiracy between Accused Nos.5 to 8
on one hand and Accused Nos.1 to 3 on the other and because of that
conspiracy, Accused Nos.5 to 8, who are the Police Personnel, left Accused
Nos.1 to 3 without any arrest. In the present case, quantum of amount is
immaterial to attract the alleged offences against the Petitioner. There are
prima facie allegations against the Petitioner in the charge sheet to attract the
alleged offences against him. The reason being, the amount of Rs.5 lakhs
has been seized from Accused No.7, who along with Accused Nos.5, 6 and 8
were present at the scene of offence at the relevant time. It is also confessed
by Accused No.4 that Accused Nos.5 to 8 having conspired with Accused
Nos.1 to 3, handed over Accused No.4 in the Police Station and left Accused
Nos.1 to 3.
11. In Haricharan Kurmi (referred supra), a five-Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal principle in criminal law
that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive
evidence and that it can only be used when the Court is inclined to accept
other evidence. It is also stated that in cases where the other evidence against
a person is unsatisfactory, sole reliance of the prosecution on the confession
of the co-accused is not correct.
12. This Court is bound by the dictum referred supra. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, while exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct a mini trial by evaluating the
evidences placed. The fact remains that the uncontroverted allegations made
would prima facie attract the offences alleged. In such a case, the veracity of
these allegations are aspects to be decided during the course of trial, but not
in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that,
since the Petitioner is a Government Employee, to launch prosecution against
him, necessary sanction has to be obtained from the concerned authorities
and as there is no sanction in the present case, the prosecution launched
against the Petitioner is not sustainable under law.
14. On this point, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied on the decision
rendered in State of Telangana v. Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar
Reddy (referred supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
lack of sanction is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, by
stating that the issue as to whether a sanction is necessary to prosecute the
accused, who was a retired public servant was a question to be examined
during the course of trial in view of the decision in K. Kalimuthu v. State7.
15. Section 197 of the Cr PC stipulates that when any person who is or was
a public servant, not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of
the Central Government or State 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 duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence,
except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. It is
(2005) 4 SCC 512
necessary to note that the word 'sanction' has nowhere been defined in the
Cr.P.C., and in common legal parlance it means to assent or approve.
16. On a close perusal of the Section 197 Cr.P.C, it becomes clear that to
invite its applicability, it has to be determined whether the alleged act was
committed in the discharge of official duty or not. More so, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K. Kalimuthu observed that the question relating to the
need of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C need not necessarily be
considered as soon as the complaint is lodged based on the allegations
therein and that the question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. This
Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. As there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused
No.5, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to quash the proceedings
against the Petitioner, at this stage and accordingly the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
17. It is open for the Petitioner to raise the question of applicability of
Section 197 Cr.P.C. at appropriate stage during the course of trial. The
expressions made in this order by this Court are only limited to the extent of
deciding the quash petition.
18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:21.06.2024
Dinesh
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt.21.06.2024
Dinesh
