CRLP/3579/2006 of Kommi Prameela Devi, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2009

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3579 OF 2006Date: 31.12.2009

Between:Kommi Prameela Devi and others.

And:

…..Petitioners

State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor and others.

…..Respondents.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULUCRIMINAL PETITION No.3579 of 2006ORDER:

This petition is filed by the accused Nos.4 to 7 under Section 482Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.197 of 2004 on the file ofJudicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur in Crime No.15 of 2002of Atmakur Police Station relating to offences punishable underSections 403, 409, 411, 468, 120-B/34 I.P.C and Section 79(1)(f)&(h)/79(3)(i)&(ii) and 83-B(d) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative SocietiesAct.

2) A-1 was chairman of the Atmakur Rural Electric Co-operativeSociety Limited (in short, RECO), of which A-9 is Managing Director. A-2 is stated to be former member of legislative assembly, Atmakurconstituency. A-3 is brother of A-2. A-4 is wife, A-5 is son and A-7 isdaughter of A-2. A-6 is wife of A-3. A-8 is stated to be an associate ofA-2 and A-3. It is alleged that lands in S.Nos.193, 215, 218, 204/2,217A, 219, 197/1, 218, 203, 219, 217, 162/3, 196/O, 162/1, 195, 203and 161/1 of Pelleru village and its hamlet Pullaneelapalli villagebelong to A-2 to A-8 as per pattas and that cultivation in those lands isbooked in their names and that they have undertaken aqua culture inthose lands. It is further alleged that A-2 to A-8 were in need oftransformer for their aqua ponds and entered into conspiracy with A-1

and A-9 to obtain transformer belonging to RECO for utilising the samefor their own use and obtained transformer bearing No.100-SE-13which is property of RECO and removed the transformer out of area ofoperation of RECO and have been in possession of the same which ismisappropriated property in respect of which criminal breach of trustwas committed by A-1 to A-9. Even though pilferage of electrical energy was also allegedagainst A-2 to A-8, there is no dispute that Crime Nos.33 to 35 of 2002for electrical power pilferage were compounded. It is further allegedthat A-9 gave report to the police concealing his part in the conspiracyand that during investigation, the investigating officer seized stolenproperty i.e., transformer bearing No.100-SE-13 on ridge of fields of A-2 to A-8 under cover of mediators’ report in presence of mediators. It isfurther alleged that in the meanwhile, in pursuance of conspiracy of A-1 to A-9, A-2 prepared two false documents with ante-dates as if one ofthem was given to A-1 on 14.08.2001 requesting him to deliver thetransformer and another letter dated 20.02.2002 requesting A-1 to takeback the transformer and that A-9 endorsed on both the said letters tocreate a make believe story.

3) During investigation, A-1 to A-6 and A-8 either surrendered inCourt or were arrested. A-7 and A-9 are shown to be absconding. It isstated by the petitioner’s counsel that A-7 is out of India since time ofher marriage and that she could not have any direct participation in theoffence. It is further contended that A-2 to A-7 are either women folk orchildren in family of A-2 and A-3 and that they could not have anyparticipation in the alleged offences or any management of aquaponds in their lands and that due to political rivalry, false case wasfoisted against A-2 and all his family members. Simply because familymembers including women are arrayed as accused in this case, onecannot jump to the conclusion, at this stage, that the prosecution ismotivated. According to the prosecution, it is A-2 to A-8 who are

Conclusion

pattadars of lands in which aqua ponds are being maintained and it isfor purpose of their aqua ponds, criminal misappropriation and criminalbreach of trust were committed by installing electric transformer whichis property of RECO. Ultimately it is A-2 to A-8 who are beneficiariesin the transaction. Further, as per prosecution case, the entire offenceswere committed by the other accused in collusion and in conspiracywith A-2 to A-8. At this stage, this Court cannot stall criminalprosecution as against the petitioners/A-4 to A-7. It is for the lowerCourt to decide complicity of the petitioners/A-4 to A-7 in the allegedoffences and come to a conclusion basing on evidence to be let in bythe prosecution as well as the defence, if any. I do not find any validand legal reasons to quash proceedings in the pending case in thelower Court, in this petition.

4) In the result, the petition is dismissed.

December 31, 2009KSH

_____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J