P GOWTHAM REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inasmuch as both the petitions emanate from the same crime and as Petitioners 1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No.322/2004 are A.1 and A.2 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.752/ 2004 is A.3 in the said crime they can be disposed of together. They seek to quash the proceedings in Crime No.798 of 2003 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, to which the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 ('the COCA' for brevity) are sought to be added.

(2.) On the report given by one T. Babu Rao, the above crime was registered against the petitioners on 27.12.2003, by the Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 388, 194, 195, 211 read with 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for brevity) said to have been committed some time prior to 10.3.2003 and First Information Report was issued.

(3.) It is alleged inter alia in the said report that A.3 sent an amount of Rs.5,000/- through one Prasad to the complainant for undergoing cataract surgery and after undergoing surgery he joined as a driver in Venakata Narasimha Rao Lorry Transport at Tenali. In the month of February, 2003 when he was at Guahati, the Clerk of Lorry Transport Office contacted and informed him that A.3 wanted the complainant to contact him over phone. Four days thereafter when he went to the office of A.3, his Clerk told him that A3 wanted the complainant to meet A.1. When the complainant went to the office of A.1, whereat A1 and A2 were present, and they asked him that he should give evidence against the Commissioner of Police; and that on his enquiry he was informed by them that a case was filed against the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, and Sub-Inspector of Police; and he should depose to the effect that when he went to Governorpet Police Station, having come to know about the arrest of one Santan Kumar, the sentry at the Police Station asked him to come later as officers were there in the Police Station and that in the meanwhile Surendra Babu, and Rami Reddy, the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police respectively came in a car and brought Santan Kumar and that Surendra Babu directed Srinivasa Rao, the Sub- Inspector of Police to shoot him as he was making galatas and accordingly the Sub- Inspector of Police and sentry Constable- Nanchariah shot that man dead with guns and took the dead body in a Jeep. As the complainant did not incline to depose, he returned to A.3 and told him as to what had happened. A.3 informed him that there was no need to be scared as he had already spoken to the Public Prosecutor and the Judge and even if he refuses to depose, A.1 would get somebody to give evidence. A.3 further informed him that later they could enter into a compromise. As A.3 helped him previously, the de facto complainant accepted to give evidence in Court and accordingly on 10.3.2003 he gave false evidence in the Court. Before going to the Court, A.2 the Junior Advocate introduced him to one Rama Devi who is the paternal aunt of the deceased Santan Kumar and he did not know anything about the said Santan Kumar and Rama Devi. The complainant after coming to know about the warrant issued against the Commissioner of Police, informed the entire incident to his owner Narasimha Rao at Tenali and as per his advice he wanted to tell the truth to the Commissioner of Police but on the same day night the driver of A.3 by name Prasad came to him and took him to Vijayawada stating that Police were searching for him and gave him Rs.3,000/- at the Steel Plant belonging to A.3 at Yanam. He stayed there for about 50 days and when returned home his wife informed him that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Avanigada, required him at his office. Having realized that he gave false evidence, on 22.12.2003 the complainant informed the Additional Superintendent of Police at Machilipatnam as to what had happened. His statement was recorded by the A.S.P, upon which a case has been registered as Crime No.798 of 2003 against the petitioners for various offences punishable under Sections 388, 194, 195, 211 read with 109 and 120-B of the IPC.