KAPU RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/A.2 seeks quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 195 of 2014 (Crime No. 85 of 2014 of Rayadurg P.S.) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadurg. On the complaint given by Tahsildar, Gummagatta alleging that when himself and other members of the flying squad were on duty in view of ensuing Municipal Elections, they received a credible information on the night of 20.03.2014 and accordingly when they proceeded to the house of A.2, they found her possessing in her house illegal dump of time pieces for distribution to the voters. On verification, they found that she possessed 47 card board boxes containing 68 time pieces in each box totaling 3196 pieces. When questioned, A.2 revealed that A.1 who was the Ex. MLA preserved those articles in her house for the purpose of distribution to the voters. Since their acts amounting to the violation of Election Code, the police after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sec. 171 -E, 188 IPC and Sec. 123 of The Representation of Peoples Act (for short "R.P. Act").

(2.) Heard Sri C.V. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecution for State.

(3.) Opposing the charge sheet, learned Senior Counsel argued that petitioner/A. 1 was admittedly neither the contestant in Municipal Elections nor he was the agent for any of the contestants. Further, the card board boxes allegedly containing time pieces were not found in his house or in his possession and admittedly it was not the case of the prosecution that he was found distributing the watches. Except the alleged confession of co -accused, there is absolutely no tangible material in the charge sheet to sustain the charge either under Sec. 171 -E IPC or 123 of R.P. Act. Therefore, the allegation of A.1 committing the acts of corrupt practices i.e. bribing the voters does not arise and continuation of the proceedings and driving him to face the ordeal of the trial will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. He thus prayed to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner/A.1.