T CHALAPATI RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar in G. R. Case No. 2719 of 1998 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 342, 353, 379, 201 and 114/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and issuing process against him and has prayed for quashing such order of cognizance as against him.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being no allegation whatsoever in the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the police as against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of his name in the Charge -sheet could not have taken cognizance and issued process. The learned counsel has placed the F.I.R. and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in support of his contention that there is no allegation even, on which the cognizance could be taken.

(3.) THE learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however submitted that the Charge -sheet has been filed against the petitioner along with others and he has been shown as absconder, since, he could not be apprehended and therefore, the order of cognizance has rightly been taken. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, is not able to point his linger on any of the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. during investigation of the case to show that there is any allegation against the petitioner to have taken part in the incident and the alleged crime except one statement of Sri Brajrangilal Choudhury, the owner of the offending car, who stated that the petitioner T. Chalapati Rao had requested him to give his car to go to Bhanjanagar, Belguntha and Jagannath Prasad to obtain orders for supply of medicines and accordingly, he had given his car WMA 118. But on 20th July. 1998 night, his driver came back and kept the vehicle in the garage but did not inform about the accident or the incident. Except this statement, no other statement has been pointed out to connect the petitioner in the alleged -crime. If this statement is taken as a whole to be true, what it means is that the petitioner had taken the vehicle in question with the driver for obtaining medicine orders and nothing else.