V.SRINIVASULU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Accused has preferred this Petition, under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P.C.') seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.42 of 2023 of Kavali II Town Police Station, registered regis for the offences punishable under Sec. 417, 410, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C') and Sec. 82 of Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'R.A').

(2.) The Prosecution's case, in a grave turn of events, is that the Joint Sub Registrar, Kavali, lodged a complaint stating that a document styled as a sale deed was registered on 13/1/2010 at Sub Registrar Office, Kavali, which was executed by M/s Suvarna Aqua Farm and Exports Limited, Hyderabad, in favour of one Kasula Badulla (A.1) for consideration of Rs.11,88,000.00 for an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy. No. 214 of Maddurpadu village. No.214 of Maddurpadu village. Subsequently, 13 years after that, A.1 executed three documents for an extent of 30 Ankanams, 35 Ankanams and 35 Ankanams in favour of Konduru Nagamani, P.Subbaiah and P.Kaveri Yedukondalu respectively, for consideration of Rs.5,28,000.00, Rs.6,16,000.00 and Rs.6,16,000.00 in Sy.No.214 of Maddurpadu village. A.2 to A.4 are the identifying witnesses for the above-said transactions. Subsequently, on 18/4/2023, the aforesaid three sale deeds were cancelled by A.1 along with the purchasers. In the meanwhile, Defacto Complainant received the representation from A.1 under the RTI Act, wherein he mentioned that he purchased an extent of Ac.3.96 cents in Sy.No.214 of Maddurpadu village vide document No.3269/10 and that without his knowledge, the above said three sale deeds were executed by some other person forging his signatures and on such information, he examined the sale deeds and cancellation deeds and noticed some other person with the same name presented and registered all the above-said documents by enclosing Aadhar and Voter card, and he found Kasula Badulla was impersonated and fraudulently presented the documents. As per Sec. 82 of Registration Act, it provides Prosecution for any offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of registering authority in his official capacity. Thus, the Defacto Complainant sought an investigation into the matter. Based on the complaint, the case in the above crime was registered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner strongly asserts that the Petitioner is innocent and not involved in any of the offences mentioned; there is no material connecting the Petitioner to the alleged offences; the Petitioner's role was limited to being an identifying witness for the cancellation of sale deeds. Learned counsel emphasize that the Petitioner was not the person who executed the sale deeds or cancelled them. It is highlighted that there are no allegations of collusion between the vendor, attestors, and the petitioner to fabricate documents. The learned counsel argues that being an attestor or identifying witness does not equate to being an executant of the document. The counsel points out that the real person, Badulla, who allegedly suffered from the fraudulent transactions, has not lodged any complaint. This suggests that there might be discrepancies in the case. The counsel alleges that the complaint was lodged by the Joint Sub Registrar at the instance of a local ruling MLA who is politically hostile to the Petitioner. This raises questions about the motivation behind the complaint. It is argued that there was a delay in lodging the complaint, which may cast doubt on its validity and the urgency of the matter.