Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Goli Padma Nageswara Rao vs State Of Ap on 17 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE -PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1526 OF 2021 Between: Goli Padma Nageswara Rao, S/o. Ramaiah.(A.2) Thiruveedhula Bhavan narayana, S/o. Basavaiah.(A.5) Sandupatla Bhupati @ Chowdupatla Bhupati, S/o. S Ramaiah.(A.6) Udatha Vasantha Lakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao.(A.7) Nandham Satyavathi, W/o. Babu Rao.(A.8) Ela Nagendram, W/o. Hema Sundara Rao.(A.9) Ganji Ravindra Nath, S/o. Venkatah(A.10) Dhamarla Radha Krishna, S/o. Kichanna.(A.11) Chinnam Veradeswara Rao, S/o. Bulliyya.(A,12) 10. Gunti Venkata Narayana, S/o. Lakshmaiah. bt 3) 11.Jonnadala Venkata Koteswararao, S/o.J Pattabhiramaiah.(A.16) 12.Somala Sarojini, W/o.Narasimha Rao.(A.17) OONOARWNH> ...Petitioners/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court At Amaravthi, Through Station House Officer Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District. ... Respondent Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused in the event of arrest in Crime No. 71/2021, dated 27.02.2021 on the file of Mangalagiri Town PS, Guntur District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chaila Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. -- ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1526 of 2021 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 438 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'} seeking pre- arrest bail to the petitioners/A-2, A-5 to A-13, A-16 & A-17, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.71 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur Urban, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC').
2. A report was lodged by the Assistant Director, Handlooms & Textiles, Guntur stating that the Director of Handlooms & Textiles has directed her to submit report by conducting a detailed enquiry into the affairs of the Primary Weavers Cooperative Societies about registration of lands that took place from January, 2014 to December, 2020. A letter was addressed to Sub Registrar, Mangalagiri to furnish encumbrance certificate, who furnished the same on 25.01.2021 and as per the said encumbrance certificate lands were transferred in favour of four people during the month of December, 2020 and also certain other irregularities were found. Thus, as per the instructions of Director, Handlooms and Textiles, she gave report against the Managing Committee of the said society from 2014 to till date.
3. In the report, details of four transactions were categorically mentioned, which took place on 30.12.2020, 28.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 10.12.2020. Further, the complainant furnished A the names of the Managing Committee members of the Society in whose tenure registrations were done without obtaining prior approval of the Registrar as laid down under Section 9-A of A.P. Cooperatives Societies Act, 1964 (for short "APCS Act"). The details of tenure of the committee were also furnished i.e. the committee members whose tenure is from 01.01.2014 to 11.10.2015; Committee members who worked from 21.05.2016 to 20.05.2017 and from 06.01.2018 to till date. The present petitioners are in the said Committees during the above said period. Hence, it is stated that action may be taken against these persons for the alleged illegal sale or registration of Society property/land and malpractice/ misappropriation of the society funds without proper permission from the Registrar/Functional Registrar as per Section 9A of APCS Act and as per the provisions of 79 of APCS Act. Basing on the said report, the present crime was registered.
4. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the even as per the allegations in the complaint, no offence is committed by the petitioners, because while discharging their duties only they acted upon as the Chairman and members of the managing committee. He submits that due to political motivations and change in the Government, the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case. He submits that as per the report, the proprieties were sold basing on the resolution passed by the Society without approval of the A Registrar, as mandated under Section 9A of APCS Act. He submits that even as per the complaint the accused transferred the property contrary to the provisions of APCS Act and he has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 79 (1) (f) of APCS Act, which reads thus:
79, Punishment for furnishing false return or information, disobeying summons or other lawful order, requisition, or direction, or for acting in contravention of Section 35 or Section 36 or for failure to produce books etc.:-- (1) It shall be an offence under this Act, if -
(f) an officer, or an employee of the society including the paid Secretary dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use or intentionally causes loss to the property of the society entrusted to him or under his control as such officer or employee or allows any other person so to do;"
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at best the offence alleged to have been committed is in violation of Section 79 (1) (f) of APCS Act. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 83 of APCS Act, which deals with cognizance of offences which reads thus:
83. Cognizance of offences:- (1) No court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate shall try any offence under this Act.
(2) Every offence under this Act shall, for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), be deemed to be
-cognizable.
(3) No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar.
7. Learned counsel submits that as per Section 83 of APCS Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar, no prosecution can be initiated. In the complaint, it is stated that basing on the letter addressed by the Mangalgiri M.L.A Alla Ramakrishna Reddy and on his continuous persuasion, the present report came to be lodged. It is stated that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is pure abuse of process of law and the complaint is registered without any jurisdiction, as such the petitioners are entitled for pre-arrest bail.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri S.Dushyant Reddy submits that basing on the transactions that took place from 2014, the present report came to be filed. He submits that the F.I.R is not an encyclopedia, where all the details need to be mentioned. These are not only the offences under APCS Act, but also attract the offences under the penal code, as such the crime was registered against the petitioner. He further submits that since several complaints were received from the weavers community, the sitting M.L.A of Mangalagiri addressed a letter to the District Collector, as such the same is referred in the report. Just because the sitting M.L.A has addressed a letter, it cannot be projected as a politically motivated complaint. He relied on the judgment of this Court in E.Ramarao Vs. District Cooperative Societies!. He also does not dispute the fact that in the above referred judgment no ratio is laid down that without any sanction prosecution can be initiated under the provisions of APCS Act. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Garimella Subbarao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh? and submits that there is no bar for initiating simultaneous proceedings both under APCS Act as well as under
the penal code. He submits that because of the acts committed by the accused, the valuable land which belongs to the Society is in 12003 LawSuit (AP) 1527 ;
2.9014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 53 = 2013 LawSuit (ary -~-
the hands of third parties and as the investigation is in progress, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if at all the alleged offence took place from the year 2014, every connected record and material is in the custody of the Society, as such there cannot be any apprehension to the prosecution agency that the petitioners may tamper with the evidence. Further, they are ready to cooperate with the investigation.
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The first contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the registrations have taken place from 2014, all the persons who were in the Managing Committee were arrayed as accused but in the complaint it is clearly stated that four transactions have taken place i.e. in 2020 and the details were also furnished, as such this Court is unable to appreciate the said contention.
11. Secondly, as per the complaint the Managing Committee sold the property without prior permission of the Registrar as contemplated under Section 9A of APCS Act. So it is clear that the offence that took place is in violation of provisions of the Act, which requires sanction for prosecution as per Section 83 of APCS Act. Admittedly, there is no sanction from the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for initiating prosecution.
12. The Courts while granting bail has to take into consideration i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before a arrest is made;
13. iti.
iv.
vi.
vii.
viii.
The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has_ previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." (Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors) As per the allegations in the complaint no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioners, except mentioning the period 3 AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010 . | To, DhRON> of tenure in the said committees. Further, no prior permission was sought for initiating the criminal proceedings as per Section 83 of APCS Act. Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners/ A-2, A-5 to A-13, A-16 & A-17 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.71 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur Urban on their executing each a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur Urban.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
Sd/-M. 1. Suryanadha Reddy ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PY TRUE CO | SECTIONOFFICER The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District. One CC to Sri. Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy.
| HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:17/03/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.1526 of 2021 DIRECTION