Telangana High Court
Manne Durgaiah And 8 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 20 April, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3675 OF 2019
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings No.1787, dated 01.04.2003 passed by the District Judge, Medak, and the consequential docket order dated 21.08.2018 passed in C.C. No.153 of 2016 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel.
2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 18. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 420, 468, 471, 473, 409, 419, 506, 197, 162, 218, 119, 120, 120B and 190 of IPC.
3. The allegations leveled against the petitioners herein are that they have obtained benami loans in connivance with accused No.25, Field Officer of State Bank of India, Toopran and all the loans were sanctioned on benami names i.e., in the names of the persons who are not ordinarily residents of the Villages whose whereabouts are not known. In most of the cases, the photographs KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 2 appearing on the loan applications, Control Cards are not belonging to the borrowers whose names are appearing in the application and the same facilitated the borrowers to escape from the repayment of loans. Thus, the petitioners herein in conspiracy with accused No.25 on the basis of fake and forged pattadar passbooks and title deeds by accused No.1 and pahanies by accused Nos.24 and 18 obtained the said crop loans. Accused No.20 himself used to write pahanies as he desired and forced the VAO to sign them keeping him under a threat of dire consequences etc. Thus, the petitioners have obtained crop loans basing on the fake and forged documents.
4. On receipt of the complaint from the de fact complainant, the police, Toopran P.S., have registered a case in Crime No.163 of 1997 on 09.09.1997, and on completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and other accused for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide C.C. No.153 of 2016. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of as many as 73 witnesses, and on considering their statements, the Investigating Officer has KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 3 laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and other accused.
5. During the pendency of the said crime No.163 of 1997, the Investigating Officer in the said Crime has filed a requisition before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, with a request to obtain specimen signatures and thumb impressions and hand-writings of the accused arrested in the said crime for comparison. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak vide proceedings No.1787, dated 01.04.2003, requested the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel to take necessary steps to obtain the specimen signatures of the accused as per rules, and furnish the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Toopran in Crime No.163 of 1997.
6. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners herein have filed a Criminal Petition vide Crl.P. No.1714 of 2003, and the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide order dated 18.04.2003 granted interim stay of all further proceedings vide Crl.M.P. No.2825 of 2003 in Crl.P. No.1714 of 2003. The KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 4 said Criminal Petition was dismissed for default on 29.03.2006. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 21.08.2018, the learned Magistrate directed the Station House Officer, Toopran, to take sealed cover from the said Court for FSL purpose and also directed to collect from FSL in view of long pendency of the case. The learned Magistrate has also directed the office to hand over the sealed cover to the said Police as per the request made by the then police.
7. The petitioners herein have filed the present criminal petition challenging both the proceedings No.1787, dated 01.04.2003 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak and the consequential docket order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.153 of 2016.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier counsel for the petitioners appeared in Crl.P. No.1714 of 2003 died and, therefore, the said petition was dismissed for default. The learned District Judge has no power to aid the Investigating Agency by issuing the proceedings dated 01.04.2003 KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 5 and Section - 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not contemplate the Court to aid prosecution by collecting the evidence through process of Court by becoming a witness to the investigation. He would further submit that the Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. With the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to quash both the proceedings dated 01.04.2003 and the consequential docket order dated 21.08.2018.
9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners herein that they have created fake pattadar passbooks and other revenue records by forging the signatures and also by creating seals. The offences alleged against the accused including the petitioners herein are under Sections - 471, 473, 409 and 109 IPC apart from other offences. Therefore, the Investigating Officer requested the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak to send the specimen signatures and thumb impressions and hand-
KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 6 writings of the accused arrested in the said crime for comparison. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge vide proceedings dated 01.04.2003, requested the learned Magistrate to take steps for obtaining the specimen signatures of the accused as per the rules and furnish the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Toopran. There is no error in it. The earlier petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed for default, and the present petition, which is second petition, filed seeking the very same relief is not maintainable. There is no error in the docket order dated 21.08.2018.
10. As stated above, prima facie, there are serious allegations against all the petitioners herein. They have conspired with each other, created fake revenue documents including Pattadar Passbooks by forging the signatures of the officials concerned and also created seals of revenue officials. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein include Sections - 468, 471, 473, 409 and 109 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has requested the learned District and Sessions Judge, Medak to obtain specimen signatures, thumb impressions and hand-writings of the accused for the comparison.
KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 7 The said request was considered by the learned District and Sessions Judge, and vide his proceedings dated 01.04.2003 requested the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel to take necessary steps to obtain specimen signatures of the accused as per the Rules and further directed to furnish the same to the Investigating Officer. The petitioners herein have filed a petition under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P. No.1714 of 2003 and the same was dismissed for default. According to the petitioners, the counsel, who appeared in the said petition, died and, therefore, the said Crl.P. was dismissed for default.
11. It is settled law that the second petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable in case the facts so justifies. The said principle was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh1 and Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)2 and a Three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Vinod Kumar, IAS v. Union of India3. In the 1 . (1975) 3 SCC 706 2 . 2019) 17 SCC 294 3 . (2021) SCC OnLine SC 559 KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 8 present case, according to the petitioners, their earlier counsel died and, therefore, the said petition was dismissed for default. But, this Court is of the opinion that the said reasons are justified and, therefore, the present petition, which is filed second time, is maintainable.
12. Section - 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with 'comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved', and to decide the lis in the present case, it is relevant to extract the said provision, which is as under:
"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.-- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions."
KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 9
13. Chapter - XII of the Cr.P.C. deals with powers of Police Officers to investigate. As stated above, the Investigating Officer considering the allegations leveled against the petitioners and other accused and also the offences alleged against them, during the course of investigation, requested the learned District and Sessions Judge, Medak to permit them to obtain specimen signatures, thumb impressions and hand-writings of the accused arrested in the subject crime and accordingly, vide proceedings dated 01.04.2003, the learned District and Sessions Judge has requested the learned Magistrate, Gajwel, to obtain the same. Pursuant to the same, the learned Magistrate, has obtained the same on 04.04.2003 and 05.04.2003.
14. As stated above, the learned Magistrate could not hand over the same to the Investigating Officer in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.1714 of 2003. However, on dismissal of the said petition, the learned Magistrate has permitted the Station House Officer to send the same to the FSL. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and other accused.
KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 10 Therefore, as part of investigation, the Investigating Officer has obtained the said proceedings dated 01.04.2003, and the docket order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.153 of 2016 is only a consequential proceeding. Thus, there is no error in the proceedings dated 01.04.2003 and the consequential docket order dated 21.08.2018 as the same were obtained only for the purpose of investigation. The Court has not given any aid to the prosecution by collecting evidence as alleged. It was on the request of the Investigating Officer, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Medak had requested the learned Magistrate, Gajwel to obtain the same. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error either in the proceedings of the learned District and Sessions Judge, dated 01.04.2003 or the consequential docket orders dated 21.08.2018 in C.C. No.153 of 2016 passed by the learned Magistrate, Gajwel. In view of the same, the present petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.
KL,J Crl.P. No.3675 of 2019 11 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 20th April, 2022 Mgr