MACHA SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court passed an order on 13th October, 1998 which is reproduced below :

(2.) Mr. P. Narsaiah has submitted in his affidavit that, he was working as Head Constable from 2-8-96 in Chityal Police Station and on 11-7-98 in the morning at 8.00 hours his Station Sub-Inspector Sri B.Ch. Mallalah gave him one passport and Bus warrant to bring and produce the accused in Cr. No.13/98 under Sections 478-A, 494 IPC. On 12-7-98 he stayed at Kothagudem for night and on 13-7-98 he went to the residence of the accused. The accused Macha Devender was there. His elder brother Sambasiva Rao had gone to work to Vijayawada. The Constable told him that S.I. had asked him to produce the accused in chityal therefore inform his brother to come back. The Constable states that he again stayed for night at Kothagudem Police Station and at evening 5.00 p.m. he went to the house of the accused. He was informed that A2 and A3 were not available in the village. A6 was sick and was in hospital and A7 was pregnant. The constable further states that, he asked them that atleast two of them should come to the Police Station to meet the S.I. On 14-7-98 the Constable went to the house of the accused A1 and A4, then all the three together reached Warangal by train. The Constable states that he permitted the accused to go to see their in laws in Warangal, the Constable himself went to his own house and on 15-7-98 he accompanied by Al and A4 readied Police Station, Chityal and produced them before the S.I. The S.I. told him that they should be produced before C.I. of Police, Chityal Sri Rajkumar. The Constable further states that, on the orders of S.I. he took the accused persons and produced them before C.I. Mr. Rajkumar and then he left for his Police Station. He states that, whatever he had done he had done on the orders of the superiors.

(3.) Although the C.I. of Police Mr. Rajkumar has denied in his affidavit that he ever ordered arrest of accused 1 and 4 or they were ever in his custody, but the report of the Magistrate, evidence collected by the Magistrate, most particularly the statement of Mr. P. Narsaiah in his reply to the show cause notice establish that these persons had been kept in wrongful confinement on the orders of Mr. Rajkumar, C.I. of Police. While reading the reply of the C.I. to the show cause notice one gets an impression that the said Police Officer is not even remorseful for his actions and instead of explaining his conduct he has even tried to play smart even with the Court. The Case Dairy also do not reveal that the petitioners were shown to have been arrested.