S SUBBA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 19/1985 on the file of the 1st Addl. Special Judge for ACB & SPE Cases, Hydeiabad. The main contention of the petitioner's Advocate is that for the offence which took place during 1976-77, prosecution is launched after his retirement. He claims that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence which took place long long prior to the launching of prosecution. The facts pertaining to this case are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner, S. Subba Reddy, was originally recruited as a Forest Guard and gradually, he was promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer. In 1976-77, he was working at Maretla Reserve Forest in Ananthapur distiict. There were some allegations about his misappropriating some money by drawing bills without executing the work. The allegation is that he dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated a total sum of Ps. 28,212-27 ps., thereby committed an offence of criminal mis-conduct which is punishable under Section 409 1PC. Originally, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur and he was kept under suspension. Subsequently, he was reinstated to duty and transferred to Bhadracbalam. Then, he was directed to go on leave and relieved from duly 12-9-1981. Then, he filed R.P. No. 2065/81 and ultimately, it was allowed on 29-1-1982. Subsequently, he was again kept under suspension from 12-3-1982. While he was under suspension, he was directed to retire w.e.f. 28-2-1983. Thus, he retired from service on 28-2-83. For the recovery of the alleged loss caused to the Government, proceedings weie taken and pensionary benefits were withheld in the proceedings, dated 19-12-1983. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 7852/1984 and the High Court was pleased to give interim diiections directing the Government to pay Rs. 155/- per month until further orders in the writ petition. With regard to the irregularities committed in the Bhudrachalam division, the Dbarmamahamatra decided that departmental action should be taken. With regard to the lapses pertaining to Anantapur division, a charge-sheet was filed and that is numbered as C.C No. 19/1985 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB and SPE cases. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 14998/1985 questioning this section. He also sought for the stay of trial in C.C No. 19/ 1985. The first writ petition filed by him, ie., W.P. No. 7852/1984 was disposed of with a direction to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad. Then, he filed R.P. No. 1740/1987 and it was allowed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by order, dated 19-10-1987. The writ petition No. 14998/1985 was disposed of by an order, dated 4-11-1988 with a direction to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Then, R.P. 2337/1989 was filed and it was rejected at the stage of admission by order, dated 10-3-1989. The Tribunal held that it cannot issue a direction to the 2nd respondent in the R.P., namely, the Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB cases who is only amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. In this background, the present petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 19/1985. C.C. No. 19/1985 was actually instituted on 16-5-1985 while the petitioner retired from service on 28-2-1983, and the prosecution relates to the events of 76-77. In view of Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 which corresponds to Articles 354-A of The A.P. Pension Code, no judicial proceedings can be instituted in respect of an evnt which took place more than 4 years before such institution. In view of this rule, the proceedings in C.C. No. 19/1985 cannot stand of the legal scrutiny and, they are liable to be quashed. The case now stands posted for trial lo 27-3-1989 and hence a petition was filed seeking stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 19/1985, pending decision of the Crl.M.P. The Crl.M. petition show may be allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 19/ 1985 may be quashed.

(3.) Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the prosecution launched on 16-5 1985 for the offences of relating to 1976-77, is not maintainable and is a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court. He placed strong reliance on Art. 351-A which is now replaced by Rule 9 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules. On behalf of the State Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Standing Counsel, contends that on tacts Rule 9 is not attracted and Rule 9 is at no embargo on the launching of ibe prosecution. The petitioner was born on 15-6-1926 and in the normal course of events, he would have retired from service on 14-6-1984 and hence, there is no question of four years limitation. That apart, he voluntarily retired on 28-2-1983 and hence a charge sheet filed on 16-5-1985 is within the period of limitation as cotemplated by the Rules as well as the Crl. Procedure Code. Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Kailash Nath and contends that this Rule 9 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules has no embargo on the launching of prosecution. Rule 9 relates only to the conditions of service.