Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yenugupalli Vijay Kumar vs The State Of A.P. Another on 11 February, 2020
Author: G.Shyam Prasad
Bench: G.Shyam Prasad
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6451 of 2013
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ Accused under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.473 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu, East Godavari District. The alleged offence against the petitioner is under section 8 (b) and 9 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Act,1995.
2. Heard Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is the accused in Cr.No.26/2005-2006 on the file of the Station House Officer, Prathipadu Excise Police Station. A charge for the offence under section 8 (b) and 9 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Act,1995 has been framed against him. During the pendency of the crime, the matter has been settled before the Lok Adalat on 18.08.2012 and accordingly Award has been passed.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has not appeared before the Lok Adalat, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat by impersonating him with another person and the said person, pleaded guilty for the aforesaid charges and accordingly, Award has been passed.
2
5. Aggrieved by the said Award, he preferred a Writ Petition No.2749 of 2013 before this Court and on considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, this Court has passed the following order "Accordingly, the impugned award dated 18.08.2012 is hereby set aside. There shall also be a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu, to enquire into the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 got the offence compounded by impersonating him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents. In case, if it is found that the petitioner's allegation of impersonation is established, there shall be a direction to initiate separate proceedings for prosecution as provided under law".
6. In view of the said order, the case in Cr.No.26/2005-2006 on the file of the Station House Officer, Prathipadu Excise Police Station for the offence under section 8 (b) and 9 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Act,1995, has been restored to file before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu, and the learned Magistrate is directed to enquire into the allegation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the investigating agency has started further investigation in this matter.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, police should follow the procedure under section 41-A of Cr.P.C., as the maximum imprisonment stipulated for these offences is less than 7 years. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this submission. 3
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that police should continue their investigation. However, they are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, along with guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another1.
9. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal petition shall stand closed.
______________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J Note : Furnish C.C. on 11.02.2020 Dated : 15.02.2020 B/o rpd 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273) 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6451 of 2013 Dated : 11.02.2020 Note : Furnish C.C. on 11.02.2020 Dated : 15.02.2020 B/o rpd 5