KOLLU RAVEENDRA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petition No.1616 of 2025 has been filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[the BNSS] challenging the chargesheet filed in C.C.No.828 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First- Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam for the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[the I.P.C.] and Sec. 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897[the Act] in Crime No.146/2020 of Inaguduru Police Station.

(2.) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station filed a purported complaint under Sec. 190(1) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[the Cr.P.C]. Whereas based on the occurrence report prepared by L.W.2 in the laptop of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station, L.W.2 had registered the occurrence report as a case in FIR No.146 of 2020 under Sec. 188 of 'the I.P.C' and Sec. 3 of 'the Act.,' on 13/6/2020 and investigated into. L.W.2 is the Head Constable of Inaguduru Police Station. L.W.3, the Sub-Inspector of Police, had taken up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared a sketch and examined L.Ws.1 & 2 by recording their statements. L.W.3 later had issued notices to the Petitioners/Accused on 26/6/2020 and received explanations from them. After completion of the investigation, it was mentioned in the complaint that L.W.3 filed chargesheet. Whereas the Sub-Inspector of Police filed the case as a complaint under Ss. 190(1) and 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.' Thus there is no actual complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police strictly in accordance with Sec. 190 read with 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.'

(3.) It is pertinent to examine the applicability of Sec. 3 of 'the Act', which provides that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under 'the Act' shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 188 of 'the I.P.C.' However, in the present case, there is no material placed on record to establish that any valid regulation or order issued under 'the Act' was in force on the date of the alleged offence, i.e., 13/6/2020. The Government Order G.O.R.T.No.211, which may have formed the basis for invoking the provisions of 'the Act', had expired on 23/3/2020. Therefore, the invocation of Sec. 3 of 'the Act' appears to be legally unsustainable.