Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.1 The second batch of the petitions is filed by the State. CrlP.3422 of 2012 is filed requesting to direct the learned Senior Civil Judges, Anakapalle & Chodavaram, to file complaints, as envisaged under Section 340 CrPC, against the persons concerned before the respective Courts with regard to the offences committed in respect of each of the 255 (Land Acquisition Reference) OPs. CrlP.No.3423 of 2012 is filed to direct the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to constitute Special Cells with sufficient Ministerial Staff at Chodavaram & Anakapalle Sub-Courts to assist the Presiding Officers concerned in filing the complaints. CrlP.No.3424 of 2012 is filed to permit the CID/Investigating Agency to file charge sheets against all the 27 accused persons of Judicial & Revenue Departments and other Agencies besides HCJ, SVB,J & MSRM,J CrlP_5658_2010 & batch professionals & their servants, the officers of the Banks and others involved in the crime registered with regard to the offences committed in and in relation to Court proceedings in the OPs. CrlP.No.3426 of 2012 is filed to direct the Government to constitute a Special Court at Visakhapatnam to exclusively conduct trials in 'Yeleru scam cases' and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedure established by law. CrlP.No.3425 of 2012 is filed to issue directions to transfer all the cases so filed & numbered to the Special Court/CID Designated Court at Visakhapatnam for speedy disposal and securing ends of justice.

HCJ, SVB,J & MSRM,J CrlP_5658_2010 & batch Therefore, the following of the procedure envisaged under Section 340 CrPC became imperative. Hence, the Inspector General of Police holding Full Additional Charge of the post of Additional Director General of Police, CID, wrote a letter, dated 04.05.1998, to the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court. In the said letter, it was mentioned that eight persons had committed various offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 & 406 of IPC read with Sections 120-B & 109 IPC. This Court got the matter examined by a special Committee of two Hon'ble Judges, which opined in its report that it is desirable that the High Court itself takes action under Section 340 CrPC and recommended that the enquiry may be conducted by the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to whom the appeals ordinarily lie from the judgment of the Senior Civil Court, Anakapalle. The Committee also opined that the District Judge is competent to conduct an enquiry and that, if necessary, he may file a complaint in a competent Court. The said report of the Committee was approved by the Full Court. Accordingly, vide proceedings, dated 27.10.1998, this Court directed the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. The said proceedings of this Court permitted the District Judge to initiate proceedings against persons, whose complicity is noticed in the commission of the offences enumerated in Section 195 CrPC and other offences mentioned in the report of the CBCID. During the course of enquiry, the learned District Judge examined number of witnesses. While so, the District Judge sought clarification from this Court as to his competency to hold enquiry and initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. The said aspect was also considered by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court. They were of the opinion that the District Judge was competent to enquire into the matter. After enquiry, the learned District Judge filed a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.

Aggrieved thereof, Crl.A.No.587 of 1999 and batch were filed before this Court.

A Division Bench, by a common order, dated 27.09.2002, held that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 340 CrPC HCJ, SVB,J & MSRM,J CrlP_5658_2010 & batch and had accordingly set aside the order passed by the District Judge.

Nonetheless, the Division Bench, while observing that it could have ordered an enquiry under Section 340 CrPC by the Sub-Judge himself, refrained from doing so; and, directed that the matter be heard and decided by the High Court as the matter had earlier been considered by two Judges of this Court, though administratively, and the report of the Committee had been approved by the Full Court. The said common order of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by judgment, dated 10.11.2006, while confirming the order of the Division Bench and dismissing the State's Crl.A.No.1136 of 2006, requested this Court to consider the desirability of implementing the decision of the Division Bench. Afterwards, the matters were again listed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, in its common order, dated 05.10.2007, observed that the letter, dated 04.05.1998, of the Inspector General of Police and the report of investigation be part of its common order, and then referred in extenso to the contents of the letter, dated 13.06.1997, of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, to the Registrar (Vigilance) and opined that it is expedient to make a complaint relating to the offences before a competent Court and accordingly directed the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District, to file complaints before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, against the persons concerned who were alleged to have committed various offences in relation to judicial proceedings relating to land acquisition reference OPs before the Senior Civil Courts, Chodavaram and Anakapalle.

Thereafter, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, prepared and filed criminal complaints and the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle, having received the complaints, took cognizance and had taken on file various Calendar Cases (including the subject CCs) and issued summonses to the accused arraigned in the Calendar Cases."

HCJ, SVB,J & MSRM,J CrlP_5658_2010 & batch