TUMMALA LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. SADHU NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks to file this revision petition questioning order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in S.R. No. 660 of 2010 refusing to take cognizance of the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 109, 120-B, 166, 167, 193, 196, 199, 200, 217, 218, 219, 415, 420, 500 and 506 IPC and dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure The Petitioner/complainant filed the complaint in the lower court against the Respondents 1 to 7 alleging the above offences against them.

(2.) The Petitioner/complainant retired' from service as Principal District Judge in the Andhra Pradesh Judiciary. The 1st Respondent is the Administrative Officer working in Special Court for Trial of Offences under the S.Cs., and S.Ts., (POA) Act, Anantapur. During the crucial time, he was working as Central Nazir in the District Court, Kadapa. During the same period, the Petitioner was working as Principal District Judge, Kadapa District. The 2nd Respondent was previously an Advocate practising in this Court and was also Standing Counsel for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He is presently Judge of the High Court of A.P. The 3rd Respondent has been a Judge in the High Court of A.P. The 4th Respondent was formerly the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He is presently a Judge in the Supreme Court of India. The 5th Respondent was Judge in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh during the relevant period. Now he is the Lokayukta of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 6th Respondent is presently working as 12th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Formerly during the relevant period mentioned in the complaint, he was the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa. The 7th Respondent is successor in office to the 4th Respondent as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He is now a Judge in the Supreme Court of India.

(3.) On 27.01.2003 one Judgment Debtor (JDr) in an Execution Petition (EP), by name S.M. Basha was produced in custody after his arrest before the IV Additional Junior civil Judge, Kadapa. While keeping the said JDr in custody of the court, the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa posted the matter to 30.01.2003 for further proceedings in E.P. On 30.01.2003, the JDr was not produced in court by the staff in Central Nazarat of the District Court, Kadapa. According to the Petitioner, on 30.01.2003 at about 6.00 p.m, the 1st Respondent presented a written report of court Attender by name Venkataswamy on guard duty to the effect that on that day at about 7.00 p.m when the JDr was being taken to answer calls of nature, the JDr escaped from his custody. The Petitioner forwarded the said report of the Court Attender to the Police Station and Crime No. 19 of 2003 was registered on that report. The Petitioner as Unit Head placed the said Attender Venkataswamy under suspension pending departmental enquiry for his negligence. When the Petitioner gave show-cause notice to Venkataswamy for launching proceedings for departmental enquiry, Venkataswamy submitted explanation/representation to the effect that the said JDr was not entrusted to his custody, that batta was also not given to him, that one Amin/Bailiff A.V. Ratnam kept warrant in his custody and released the JDr, that as the JDr could not be produced in the Executing Court on 30.01.2003 and as he could not be traced till 3.00 p.m, A.V. Ratnam along with all the Bailiffs came to him and obtained his signature by threat and force on the report which was forwarded to the police by the Petitioner, that he was made a scapegoat; and requested the Petitioner to revoke suspension order on him. By then, the 1st Respondent was transferred from the post of Central Nazir of the District Court, Kadapa and in his place one B.V. Sampath was posted and had taken charge. On direction of the Petitioner, B.V. Sampath, Central Nazir verified records and registers and submitted report dated 17.02.2003 to the Petitioner. While so, P. Hasnaiah to whom custody of the JDr was said to have been entrusted on 27.01.2003 and Chandra who is other court guard on duty during that period submitted common representation dated 19.02.2003 to the Petitioner stating that even though in their 'C? book maintained by the 1st Respondent it was entered as if custody of the JDr was given to them as court guards, neither the JDr nor diet and watching batta was given to them. After considering the above material, the Petitioner came to the conclusion that without entrusting custody of the JDr and also diet and watching batta to court guards, the 1st Respondent and the Bailiff released the JDr from custody without order of the Executing Court, and finding the JDr not attending the court till evening of 30.01.2003, they hatched a plan by creating a story as if the JDr had escaped from custody of the court guard Venkataswamy. Thereupon, the Petitioner forwarded the entire material to the investigating officer by official memo dated 26.02.2003.