DEVELLE VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 11/10/1999 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Crl. Revision Petition No. 51 of 1999 which was directed against the order passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 1159 of 1999 in C. C. No. 8 of 1999 under which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused to discharge him in respect of the charges under Sections 419, 420 and 477 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts constituting the offences alleged against the petitioner as scanned from the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows :(It is pertinent to mention here that a copy of the charge sheet has not been filed with the petition.) It is alleged that the petitioner approached the attendant of the Railway retiring room at Vijayawada for a room impersonating himself as Assistant Commercial Manager. On the representation of the petitioner Room No. 2 was allotted to him and the petitioner-accused occupied the said room. Subsequently, the Travelling Accounts Inspector, Vijayawada on verification of records found that the token number furnished by the accused was a fake one. After this verification and having been satisfied that the accused cheated the attendant of the Railway retiring room, he informed the C.T.I. All these Officers approached the accused and demanded him to show his identity and insisted the accused to show the Metal token mentioned in the register. The accused then tore away the page from the register. All these officials then caught hold of the accused and handed him over to the police with a report. On the basis of this report, a case was registered for the offences mentioned above. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, it is seen, has found that the ingredients of offence under Section 477, I.P.C. were not made out inasmuch as the document which is alleged to have been torn away by the accused was not a Will or a valuable security as mentioned in Section 477, I.P.C. The correctness of this part of the finding of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, however, is not challenged here on behalf of the prosecution.

(3.) It is now urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even in respect of the offences under Section 419 and 420, I.P.C. the facts alleged against the accused do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences under these provisions.