Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rajapalem Srinivasulu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.444 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to set aside the order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2020 in C.C.No.29 of 2020 whereby the petition filed under Section 311-A seeking a direction to the petitioner/A1 to furnish his specimen handwritings and specimen thumb impression was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that basing on a report given by Superintendent of Post Offices, Anathapur Division, a case in R.C.22(A)/2013 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 477-A, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that he cheated the postal department and misappropriated an amount of Rs.55,34,000/- during his tenure as Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Office, Garladinne for the period from September, 2009 to August, 2013 by creating fake withdrawal vouchers in respect of wages under National Rural Employees Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Subsequently charge sheet was filed and it was numbered as C.C.29 of 2020. The prosecution has filed the above mentioned petition seeking direction to the petitioner to give his specimen signatures and thumb impression, which are necessary to prove the allegation that the petitioner had directly involved in forging the signatures of the account holders of NREGS. The said petition was allowed and aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court. 2
3. Heard Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Channakeshavulu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has allowed the petition without assigning any valid and cogent reasons and failed to consider that the prosecution has not pressed the petition which was filed earlier with the very same grounds and hence the above petition is hit by doctrine of Res-Judicata as it is filed without assigning any reasons for filing it afresh. He submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed when investigation was still pending i.e. as on 07.04.2015 and the order impugned was passed on 09.04.2021 after taking cognizance and after examination of PW1. He further submits that the Court below failed to appreciate that by the time of filing the petition, the prosecution is not in the custody of the documents on which they are relying to compare with the admitted signatures and no such documents were placed before the Court to decide the petition. He submits that the Court below has passed the order impugned without taking all these facts into consideration and hence, the same needs to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that the order under revision is a well-considered one which is passed after taking into consideration the case of the prosecution that petitioner forged the signatures of beneficiaries of NREGS, as such the burden is on the prosecution to prove the same, for which the specimen signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner are necessary. Hence, order impugned does not warrant interference of this Court.
3
6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the record. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present petition is hit by Res-Judicata as the prosecution has not pressed the petition which was filed earlier with same prayer, without seeking liberty to file a fresh petition and the prosecution failed to explain the reasons for filing the petition afresh.
7. This Court is unable to appreciate the contention that the principle of Res-Judicata will apply as no order was passed on merits. The Court below, after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the necessity of furnishing the specimen signatures and thumb impression by the petitioner has passed a well-considered order. The petitioner can prove his case at the time of trial. This Court finds no error in the order under revision, which warrants interference of this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly the criminal revision case is dismissed.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date : 06.08.2021 IKN 4 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI dismissed CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.444 of 2021 06.08.2021 IKN 5