D SUBBA RAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the petitioner-A. 13 challenging the order of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam in Crl. M.P. No. 764 of 2005 in C.C. No. 15 of 2004 dated 31.12.2009, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him of all the charges levelled against him. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, the lands belonging to A. 6 to A. 12 and A. 14 were acquired for Visakhapatnam Port Trust in an extent of 15 acres in Sy. No. 1/2 of Kancharapalem and an extent of Ac. 18.39 cents in Sy. No. 3/1, 3/2 and 4 of Kancharapalem belongs to A. 6 and A. 14. Though the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1972, the process of acquisition was prolonged for over a period of 25 years and ultimately after the final verdict of the Supreme Court of India, the Land Acquisition Officer-A. 2 initiated negotiations with the concerned officials of Port Trust and the claimants and arrived at compensation at Rs. 800/- per sq.yd. in. Sy. No. 1/2 of Kancharapalem village and Rs. 900/- per sq.yd. in respect of other lands. It is alleged that before arriving at the said rate, the petitioner who is appearing as advocate on behalf of some of the claimants therein obtained a market value certificate from the Sub-Registrar's Office by giving a declaration that the market value of the land was Rs. 1,800/- per sq.yd. saying that the said certificate was required for valuation of the lands for Court fee purpose, but however, A. 6, A. 13 and the land owners-A. 7 to A. 12 used the certificate to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per sq.yd. during the negotiations on 4.10.1995. The further allegation against the petitioner is that on 2.12.1996 he had issued a legal notice to the Special Tahasildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam in December, 1996 to pay compensation amount to his clients within one week in compliance of the orders of this Court or else proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act would be initiated. Thus it is alleged that the petitioner by producing the market value certificate from Sub-Registrar's office showing the market value at higher rate allowed A. 6 and A. 14 to obtain undue pecuniary advantage and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 120-B IPC r/w Sections 416, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material available on record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no whisper against the petitioner to show that he had conspired with other accused at any point of time except issuing notice on behalf of his clients and submitting the valuation certificate. It is further contended that to constitute an office under criminal conspiracy, there must be guilty of overt act on the part of the petitioner but in the entire charge sheet, there is no whisper against the petitioner that he had conspired with the other accused in any way for the purpose of committing the substantial offences. It is contended that in the absence of any prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner had conspired with the other accused, the petitioner cannot be charged under Section 120-B IPC or under the other substantial offences as alleged. It is also contended that the Sub-Registrar, who issued the valuation certificate to the petitioner was not found fault in the proceedings initiated by A.C.B.