CRLP/15992/2014 of Mada Mohan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2014

Arguments

ORDER:

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15992 of 2014

The petitioner, who is A1, filed the present application under Section 438 ofthe Code of the Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking release in the event of hisarrest in connection with Crime No.171 of 2014 of Biccavole Police Station, EastGodavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and406 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the informant is owning M/s. VijayaDurga godown in Kanedu Village, hamlet of Balabhadrapuram Village. The saidgodown was leased out to Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.). It is stated that oneSri Mada Mohan (petitioner), S/o.Mada Satyanarayana who was working asHandling and Transport Contractor to the F.C.I. and Railways, entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the informant and was taking care ofthe said godown. It is alleged that as per the said MoU, the petitioner ismaintaining the said godown and doing rice handling transport. On 27.11.2014,the officers from Hyderabad, telephoned the informant stating that 1900 bags ofrice, which were sent to Hyderabad, were replaced with broken rice and alsoinformed that the labels pasted on the said bags were also changed. Immediately, the informant sent his son to Hyderabad to verify the said stock,which was imported by F.C.I. Officers. Subsequently, the son of the informantnoticed that broken rice was mixed in the 1900 bags and the labels were alsochanged. On 29.11.2014 at 11.00 a.m., the informant went to his godown atKanedu and noticed that labels were changed on some bags and in some bagsrice was mixed with broken rice. His enquiries revealed that the petitioner hereinhas stolen some bags with some malafide intention. Basing on theseallegations, the above case came to be registered.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-State and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting theallegations in the report to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

According to him, the allegations made against the petitioner are invented for thepurpose of this case and he further submits that the Handling & Transport contractof the petitioner ended by 15.11.2014.

Sri Sai Kumar, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the informant,opposed the application contending that the petitioner is responsible for thealleged misdeed.

As seen from the record, the petitioner entered into a MOU agreement on01.07.2012 with the informant. As per the understanding, the accused agreed topay Rs.2.50 ps. to the informant for storing paddy in his godown. Secondly, thelabour charges and other things have to be borne by the accused alone, apartfrom godown maintenance, license fees and other clarifications. The orderrejecting bail would disclose that if there was any deficit or damage to the stock,the accused is responsible for the same. Having regard to the saidcircumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent of the offencesalleged. Hence, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.

However, the petitioner, if so advised, shall appear before the concernedCourt and move an application for bail after giving notice to the Public Prosecutor,which shall be dealt with on merits, in accordance with law, on the same day or atleast by next day.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall standclosed.

31.12.2014vhb

_________________________

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR