N.M. KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/A.1 in C.C.No. 198 of 2008 pending on the file of the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally filed this Criminal Petition seeking to set aside the dismissal order,dt. 03.02.2010 in discharge petition in Crl.M.P. No. 5740 of 2009 in the Calander Case supra passed by the learned Magistrate supra.

(2.) Herd the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and also the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State for D.S.P.CID Regional in Charge Officer, Visakhapatnam.

(3.) There are three crimes vide Cr.Nos. 206 of 1996 and 105 of 1998 of Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad, and Cr.No. 308 of 1996 of CCCS, Hyderabad, that were registered for the offences under section 120(b), 409 and 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 to 6 of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The police after investigation filed common charge-sheet that was taken cognizance for the offences by the learned Magistrate in allotting C.C.No. 198 of 2008. A perusal of the impugned order of discharge, particularly from paras-8 and13 that there are civil and criminal cases registered against the petitioner and other accused that they induced investors and failed to return the amounts invested by them and cheated them as per the prosecution and it is also the prosecution case that from the three separate complaints, the accused approached High Court by filing Crl.M.P.No. 7222 of 2000 and there was a direction of all crimes pertaining to Vijayawada and Tirupati are withdrawn from respective Courts and made over on transfer to IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the charge-sheet was filed by clubbing the above crimes before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Addl.Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and numbered as C.C.98 of 2003 and said case was transferred to the present Court and renumbered as C.C.No. 198 of 2008 after 5 years of its pendency. A perusal in all the crimes shows, the allegations are similar and the accused are one and the same and there is no bar to file one charge-sheet by clubbing crimes even to accept the contrary contention on its sustainability apart from power of Court under section 219Cr.P.C. for clubbing while framing charges. No doubt the charge-sheet filed is 7 years after the alleged incident. It is not a case of it is barred by limitation. It is no doubt one of the contentions that some of the accused were already acquitted in similar case in C.C.No. 783 of 2000 before V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, where they were though convicted against which Crl.A.No. 161 of 2002 was preferred and the same was allowed and the accused was acquitted. The prosecution is estopped further pursuing the present case even after acquittal of the accused in Criminal Appeal supra. The charge sheet is also filed at a belated stage after lapse of 7 years from the date of occurrence and the delay is not explained. The further contention is that a similar case was filed in C.C.No. 152 of 2003 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pandicheri, against the present accused and others, and in that case their discharge application was allowed on 006.2005 referring several proceedings initiated before the High Court, Chennai and appointment of Liquidator and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case in view of pending of proceedings before the official liquidator, High Court of Madras.