Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

6. The sum and substance of the case of the accused, who are before this Court, is this: "The Supreme Court confirmed the first common order of the Division Bench, dated 27.09.2002, and directed this Court to consider the desirability of implementing the decision of the Division Bench wherein the Division Bench opined that it could have ordered an enquiry under Section 340 CrPC by the Senior Civil Judge himself. However, in the latter common order, dated 05.10.2007, the Division Bench, quite contrary to the orders of the Supreme Court, directed a Junior Civil Judge to file complaints before the competent Court. Nevertheless, the offences alleged against some of the accused were said to have been committed in relation to judicial proceedings. But, while lodging the complaints the procedure contemplated under Section 340 CrPC is completely ignored and the complaints were filed by the learned Junior Civil Judge by simply following the directions of this Court. Therefore, the subject Calendar Cases, which are not validly instituted and taken on file, are liable to be quashed insofar as the present accused."

The ratio in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case as in the case on hand no enquiry as contemplated under Section 340 CrPC was conducted and as no necessary finding as contemplated under facts and in law was recorded by the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition Court and further, as a complaint was made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge instead of the Judge competent to make a complaint that too without following the legal pre-requisites enunciated under Section 340 CrPC. Hence, we agree to accede to the requests of the accused - petitioners in the first batch of petitions and also to the request of the State in CrlP.3422 of 2012, subject to certain directions infra which we would like to issue to meet the ends of justice by invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India in view the poignant gravity of the alleged fraud and the alleged offences related to the matter, which is being popularly referred to as 'Yeleru Land Acquisition Scam'. In our considered view, giving apposite directions, while parting with the matter, is necessary in the larger public interest besides the institutional HCJ, SVB,J & MSRM,J CrlP_5658_2010 & batch interest and as otherwise there is a likelihood of alleged offender and perpetrators of fraud going scot-free even without facing trial. The said Articles indisputably clothe this Court with the necessary jurisdiction to give directions not only to see that the culprits, if any, are brought to book but also to see that justice is not overwhelmed by mere technical considerations.