Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Modadugula Uma Maheswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 September, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY , THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :-PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4033 OF 2020 Between: 4. Modadugula Uma Maheswara Rao,, S/o Sriramulu Aged about 60 years Rio H.No.3-4-12/ A1, Ward No.5 Bhavanarayanapet Ponnur, Nidubrolu Old Town, Guntur District c 2. Kapu Venkata Lakshman, S/o. Kapu Nageswar Rao Aged about 37years Rio Plot No.2C, Pine Wood Apartment Rajendra Nagar, 4st Lane, Guntur Pattabhipuram, Guntur. Petitioner/Accused Nos.6 & 7 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station, Guntur District Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on Bail in the event of their arrest in FIR No.222/2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station, Guntur District by granting Anticipatory Bail. 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 P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondents, the Court made the following. ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4033 OF 2020 ORDER:
The petitioners who are Accused Nos. 6 and 7 in Crime No.222 of 2020 on the file of Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur Urban, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 1.P.C') and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act (for short 'E.C.Act), filed this criminal petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C), apprehending their arrest in connection with the above crime.
The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners are carrying on rice business and owners of rice mils. On 09.09.2020, during early hours i.e. at 5:00 A.M, while the respondent along with his staff and mediators were inspecting the vehicles near Appapuram canal situated on the main road of Chebrole Village, Guntur District, they found two lorries bearing Nos. AP 07 TH 1278 and AP 07 TJ 2339 loaded with Public Distribution System (PDS) Rice meant for public distribution by the Government. When the respondent/authorities stopped the said lorries and enquired, concerned lorry drivers and cleaners about the illegal transportation of PDS rice. On enquiry, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 replied that the owners of Sri Venkata Shiva Rice Traders Mill and MSR Rice Mill have loaded the said rice bags and offered higher pay for its transportation from Ponnuru to Kakinada. The said rice bags were seized under the cover of mediator's report, registered a crime against the petitioners and other lorry drivers and cleaners, issued First Information Report.
ASHE een somaxnarsteen' MSMJ CriP No.4033 of 2020 The main contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioners are innocent of any offence and that they possessed valid permits for transportation of rice, being rice mill owners. Further, Accused No.7 has got valid licence for his two lorries, but based on the false confession of co-accused Nos. 1 to 4, the police falsely implicated these petitioners without verifying the records.
_The petitioners are not having any criminal background and they are ready to produce the valid permits for transportation of rice etc and coming to conclusion even without examining the rice found in the lorries to determine whether it is a PDS rice or not, the police registered crime erroneously and requested to grant pre- arrest bail to these petitioners, as there is every possibility of arrest of these petitioners in connection with the above crime.
During hearing, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions, whereas, learned Public Prosecutor for the state opposed the petition on the ground that, investigation is not yet completed.
As seen from the material on record, crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 7 of E.C. Act, on the ground that the rice being transported in two lorries is PDS rice. Normally, it is difficult for any ordinary person to decide whether the rice is PDS rice or rice being sold in open market, at a glance. But, the police for one reason or the other, registered crime even before sending the samples of the stocks to the concerned authority i.e. Food Corporation of India for physical and chemical analysis, to determine whether the rice seized while MSM,J CriP No.4033 of 2020 transporting the same is PDS rice or rice being sold in general or not. Therefore, in utmost haste, the police appears to have registered Crime No.222 of 2020 on the file of Chebrolu Police Station, Guntur Urban, for the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 7 of E.C. Act.
Coming to the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C is concerned, Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and it is defined as whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In V.Y. Jose and another v. State of Gujarat and another!, the Apex Court highlighted the ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C in paragraph 14 and they are as follows:
"An offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied:
i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission;
(i) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (tii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made ' (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 78 ine _ MSM.J CriP No.4033 of 2020 in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out."
In paragraph 21 of the judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar?, the Supreme Court discussed the scope of Section 420 IPC and the essential ingredients of cheating are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;
(it) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iti) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
In view of the law declared by Apex Court, to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, there should not only be cheating, but asa consequence of cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).
As seen from the material on record, there is no reason to believe that these petitioners committed such offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C, at this stage.
On overall consideration, it is evident that the respondents/police registered crime in utmost haste without any * (2009) 8 SCC 751 MSM,J CriP No.4033 of 2020 material and contemplating to arrest these petitioners allegedly for the above offences. If the petitioners are arrested in connected with the above crime without any material, it not only infringes their reputation and right of privacy, but also violates fundamental right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is reasonable ground for the apprehension of these petitioners for their arrest in connection with the above crime.
The Apex Court laid down 10 guidelines for consideration while dealing with petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra? which are as follows:
i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
ti. 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;
ti. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
vil. 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;
vii. 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;
ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
3 AIR 2011 SC 312 equ EE MSM,J CriP No.4033 of 2020 x. 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.
In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre case (referred supra), the Apex Court analyzed the principles in various judgments and considering the law on anticipatory bails in other countries, laid down 10 guidelines which are referred supra.
Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the apprehension is based on the material, applying the above guidelines to the present case, I find that it is a fit case to direct the Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station,. Guntur District, to release these petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No,222 of 2020 on the file of Chebrole Police Station.
In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station, Guntur District, is directed to release the petitioners/Accused Nos. 6 and 7 on bail, in the event of their arrest, on their executing personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousands only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to his/her satisfaction.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, A shall stand dismissed.
IITRUE COPY!/ _ be | For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i i istri dhra re The Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station, Guntur District, Andi e ;
Prades o Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati (OUT) one CC to Sri P.S. P. Suresi'Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One spare copy
--_ Pon TVR / HIGH COURT MSMJ DATED:30/09/2020 ORDER CRLP.No.4033 of 2020 ALLOWED