SRILAKSHMI YERRA, IAS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C. ') is filed by the petitioner/A.6 in FIR No.RC 17(A)/2009-CBI/Hyd of CBI, Hyderabad, to call for records and direct the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, to conduct hearing on charges and discharge applications, only after the CBI files its Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1 of 2012 with respect to the 'interstate boundary dispute ', which is kept on hold and not specifically dealt with in the four charge-sheets filed by CBI, and which is contrary to the judgment, dated 16.12.2010, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.532 and 681 of 2010 and the common order, dated 21.03.2013, passed in Criminal Petition Nos.394, 395, 346, 396 of 2013 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

(2.) Heard the submissions of Sri K.Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.6, Sri K.Surender, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the sole respondent and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.6 vehemently contended that proceeding with hearing on charges and discharge applications by the Court below against the petitioner/A.6 in the subject Calendar Case is contrary to the judgment, dated 16.12.2010, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.532 and 681 of 2010, wherein, it was directed that "inquiry/investigation into boundary dispute shall have to await order of the Supreme Court of India ", and also contrary to common order, dated 21.03.2013, passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.394, 395, 346, 396 of 2013 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, wherein, it was directed that "hearing on charges is postponed till completion of further investigation in this case with an observation that prosecution shall complete its further investigation at the earliest ". The interstate boundary dispute between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is still pending and not yet resolved. In fact, the Hon 'ble Apex Court directed the Surveyor General of India to conduct survey in the matter of interstate boundary of two states, i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, in order to demarcate the boundaries of disputed area, where illegal mining has taken place. However, the report of Surveyor General of India has not become final and has not been grounded. The matter was entrusted to Union of India to demarcate the boundary between Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Unless and until the interstate boundary is fixed, the quantum of alleged illegal mining cannot be determined. Further, in the counter affidavit, the CBI had categorically stated that investigation on the issue of illegal mining near the disputed interstate boundary has not been done, since the same is pending settlement, as directed by the Hon 'ble Apex Court. In view of the said categorical admission by CBI, the four charge sheets/supplementary charge-sheets filed by the CBI on 03.12.2011, 30.03.2012, 02.01.2013 and 09.04.2014 cannot be treated as Final Reports filed on completion of investigation and the Court below cannot proceed further basing on the said reports. Further, investigating agency has no right to choose, either to produce or not to produce certain documents. Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. contemplates only further investigation, but not fresh investigation. According to Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C., 'Investigation ' includes all the proceedings under Cr.P.C., for collection of evidence by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. It is an inclusive definition. As per Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C., 'police report ' means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-Section (2) of section 173. Once investigation is ordered, investigating officer has statutory duty to investigate entirely into the dispute and communicate his opinion by filing charge sheet. When investigation is not completed and in the absence of compliance of provisions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, the question of framing charge under Section 239 Cr.P.C does not arise. If charges are framed, grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner/A.6. Deferment of hearing on charges is necessary to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. It is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court and ultimately, prayed to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following citations.