CRLP/2604/2010 of Shri L.V. Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2011

Conclusion

ORDER:

The petitioner/A1 who is stated to be an advocate isaccused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467,468, 471, 406/34 IPC along with others. Even though the offencetook place in the year 2001 filing of charge sheet by the police inthe year 2009 is not barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.in this case since limitation has to be computed with reference tothe offence for which maximum sentence of imprisonment isprovided by law. Since the offence under Section 420 IPC ispunishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years,charge sheet is not barred by limitation.

It is alleged that the second respondent - de factocomplainant who was working in Kuwait, had to return to India dueto war and that therefore she got Rs.1,75,000/- as warcompensation from that country and that therefore in order toobtain the said amount the de facto complainant approached A1who demanded fees of Rs.25,000/- for the said purpose and thatthe de facto complainant paid Rs.3,000/- out of the demanded fees and that A1 took her passport and all the other documents. It isfurther alleged that in spite of obtaining her passport and all otherdocuments, A1 did not arrange for getting the amount to her andinstead joined hands with others who are A2 to A4 and that A4impersonating her as the de facto complainant withdrew theamount and that A1 introduced A4 as the de facto complainant. Itis contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A1 did not introduceA4 to the bank and that A1 only attested certain papers relating toA4 in his capacity as a notary and that he has no role inwithdrawing war compensation payable to the first respondent. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet before theMagistrate. Having regard to the allegations in the charge sheetfiled by the police after investigation, it is for the trial Court to gothrough the evidence on record in withdrawing war compensationpayable to the first respondent by A2 to A4 and others. Havingregard to the definite allegations made against A1, it cannot besaid that there is no triable case against A1. It is for A1 to provethat he merely attested certain papers as notary and he did notintroduce A4 to the bank. I do not find any valid grounds forquashing proceedings insofar as A1 is concerned.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

30[th ]December 2011Rns

_____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.