CHALASANI SATYA BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Chalasani Satya Bhaskar is A.1 among three accused. Leave about Crl.R.C.No.172 of 2017 insofar as that of A.2- Yeleti Gopalakrishna and A.3-V.L.Jayaprada Devi allowed by this Court on 09.02.2017, which is out come of the common order of the learned trial Judge (XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad), in the pending C.C.No.180 of 2016 taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with 34 IPC, from the discharge application filed by the accused persons in Crl.M.P.No.4789 of 2016 so far as A.2 and A.3 and Crl.M.P.No.931 of 2017 so far as A.1, by order, dated 03.11.2017. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant, by name, S.Srinivasa Rao, Chief Financial Officer of M/s.Kakinada SEZ Pvt. Limited, on whose report Crime No.232 of 2015 was registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, on 16.07.2015, for the said offences against the three accused and police after investigation by referring to several documents and 11 witnesses including LW.11-Investigating Officer, LW.10-Scientific Officer, LWs.8 and 9-panch witnesses to the seizure and LWs.2 to 7-circumstantial witnesses, besides LW.1-de facto complainant, filed the police final report. It is from the police final report in the form of charge sheet the cognizance was taken. Subsequently, impugning the same after appearance of the accused filed the discharge applications that were ended in dismissal.

(2.) Coming to the present revision grounds in impugning the dismissal of the said discharge application of the petitioner/A.1 in Crl.M.P.No.931 of 2017, dated 03.11.2017, the contentions are that the learned trial Judge's order of dismissal of the discharge application is illegal, improper, incorrect even none of the offences that attracts to the investigation material and not even the Court seen properly the averments made in the charge sheet that discloses a false implication of the petitioner with no basis and with oblique motive and ought to have seen that the total acquired land is 8,236.50 acres from the farmers during the year 2006-2007 out of 2500 each, totaling 5000 acres and rest of the land is domestic tariff area and there is nothing wrong in the petitioners seeking for the sale or lease, the trial Judge should have seen that after due diligence and after obtaining legal opinion, the petitioner came to know that the land supra was mortgaged to L.I.C. and I.C.I.C.I. Bank and obtained a loan of 2,000 crores and diverted the same to the complainant's other companies, the trial Judge should have seen that after coming to know about the said land given as collateral security to the complainant's to other companies, the petitioner/A.1 requested the APIIC for identification of suitable land and accordingly on 25.04.2015 the Zonal Manager, APIIC, has identified the land of 750 acres out of 810 acres of Rameshampeta Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. It is also the contention vis- -vis the grounds in the revision petition against the discharge dismissal application that LW.6-Surya Narayana filed P.I.L.No.274 of 2014 before the High Court in his capacity as Secretary, K.S.E.Z. Vytirekaporata Samithi, being well educated person with decree in law and enrolled as Advocate and LW.6 in the habit of filing P.I.Ls. and even prior to filing of P.I.L.No.274 of 2014, K.S.E.Z. Vytirekaporata Committee addressed letter to the D.G.P., A.P., stating he colluded with K.S.E.Z. and mislead and the learned Judge ought to have seen the allegations that the petitioner/A.1 colluded with his father-in-law/A.2 and maternal grand aunt/A.3 filed P.I.L.No.84 of 2016 before the High Court and said allegations set aside by the Court in Crl.R.C.No.172 of 2017 and the learned Judge ought to have seen that K.S.E.Z. Vytirekaporata Committee filed W.P.No.28056 of 2008 before the High Court, wherein LW.6-Surya Narayana and by order, dated 22.12.2014, the writ petition was dismissed. It is further averred and contended of the learned trial Judge should have seen that the farmers filed W.P.No.680 of 2007 and batch before the High Court, which observed no hesitation to hold that the purpose of acquisition in 'formation of a Special Economic Zone' (SEZ) is a public purpose under Section C(f) (vii) of the Act and SEZ authority under Section 31 of the Act would amply satisfies the test of local authority under Section 3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and convinced that the 5th respondent is not obtaining a proprietary right on the acquired land and as per the rules under the SEZ Act, and there is a prohibition on the developer from alienating the land and the learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner/A.1 is unnecessarily roped to harass and thereby the revision to be allowed by setting aside the dismissal order of the discharge application.

(3.) Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of hearing reiterated the same and drawn attention of the Court including to the reply to the counter of the 2nd respondent to the revision petition averments and drawn attention of the Court to the two expressions, particularly on the scope of Section 383 and 384 IPC, the expression of the Apex Court in ISAAC ISANGA MUSUMBA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, 2014 15 SCC 357 and that the Single Judge expression of this Court in Lanka Hanumantha Rao and others v. State of A.P. and others, 2005 1 ALD(Cri) 986 (AP).