TOKALA SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. KARLA DAVID RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt.K.Shesharajyam, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Crl.P.No.2263/2000 is filed by A-2 in C.C.No.3/98 on the file of Special Court constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, now pending as P.R.C.No.20/99 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Crl.P.No.2385/2000 is filed by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in the aforesaid proceedings. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada had communicated to this Court that in pursuance of the telephonic message received on 05-02-2005 he had instructed the Circle Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station to verify and report whether the complaint in P.R.C.No.20/99 on the file of said Court is alive for which the said, Circle Inspector submitted a report that the said person Karla David Raju S/o. Abraham died on 24-12-2001 while undergoing treatment in Guntur General Hospital but he could not secure the death certificate and his wife also confirmed the death of the said person.

(3.) Smt.Shesharajyam, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in both these Criminal Petitions would maintain that by virtue of Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948, r/w. Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioners are public servants and no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code") had been obtained and on this ground itself the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise on facts it is clear that the defacto complainant just in order to wreak vengeance due to termination of contract had filed the private complaint misusing the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act") and even on this ground the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Act is not made out at all even if the allegations made in the complaint on their face value to be taken and on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had referred to the death of the complainant.