FONNAPALLI VENKATARAMA SASTRY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5669 of 2001 is Accused No. 1 while the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 5704 of 2001 are Accused Nos. 2 to 4 in private P.R.C.No. 32 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District. All the accused in the said P.R.C.No. 32 of 2001 seek for quashing of the proceedings by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) A brief resume of back ground of the facts is necessary. Pechetti Sree Ramulu was running a liquor shop under the name and style "Leena Wines" situated at Saripalli Village. On 31-03-2001 the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 5669 of 2001 raided the liquor shop of Pechetti Sree Ramulu, while working as Inspector, Prohibition & Excise, along with Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Police Constable, Sub Divisional Task Force of Prohibition & Excise Department. One Tadepalli Ashok Kumar, who is 2nd respondent herein, was said to be in the shop at that time. He presented a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Narsapur, stating that the Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise shouted at them and caught hold of the collar of Pechetti Sree Ramulu in a drunken state' finding fault for giving information against Abdul Hasan, which led to filing a complaint for illicit intimacy and also abused as "Bastards" and broke the IMFL bottles of brandy and whisky worth Rs. 15,000/-. Thereafter, the complaint is presented as the Excise Officials have threatened to launch false complaint against them. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Narsapur, and the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narsapur, enquired into the matter and stated that the allegations in the complaint are found to be false as it is filed as a counter blast for the crime registered as Cr.No. 1 of 2001-2002 under Sections 34(A) and 50 of the A.P. Excise Act. Thereupon, a private complaint has been presented before the Magistrate who recorded the sworn statement of Tadepalli Ashok Kumar on 30-04-2001 and has taken cognizance of the offence afterregisteringP.R.C.No. 32 of 2001. Aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred this Criminal Petition and sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the offences alleged are said to have been committed by the petitioners while discharging their official duties and hence sanction is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further contends that as the sanction is not obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Tadepalli Ashok Kumar is neither the owner nor a worker of the liquor shop in question, as his name is not mentioned in the Nowkarnama. He further contends that the said Tadepalli Ashok Kumar is set up by the said person namely Pechetti Sree Ramulu to take vengeance against the petitioners as he anticipated launching of prosecution by the Excise Officials.