STATE OF A P Vs. B SATHAIAH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a reference made under Sec.395(2) Cr.P.C. by the Addl. Chief
Judge-cum-Prl. Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, at the instance of the
Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B. The facts giving rise to the reference are in
brief as follows:-
One Narasimhulu, working as Medical Record Officer in Osmania General
hospital, Hyderabad, was trapped while accepting some illegal gratification on
19-3-1991. Subsequently, the house of the said Narasimhulu and that of his
father-in-law Sattaiah were searched. During the search of the house of the
father-in-law of Narasimhulu some fixed deposit receipts and Indira Vikas
Patras and some other documents were seized. Then Sattaiah, the father-in-law
of Narasimhulu filed an application Crl.M.P. No.125/91 for return of the
documents that were seized by the Police from his house. That application was
ordered on 9-8-1991 on condition that he should file xerox copies of those
documents and that the accused in the event of his prosecution should not
object to the marking of those zerox copies during the trial and that Sattaiah
should furnish security to a tune of Rs.5 lakhs. Subsequent to this order,
Sattaiah made another application in Crl.M.P.No.203/91 stating that he is
unable to furnish security to a tune of Rs.5 lakhs and requesting the court to
reduce the amount to Rs.3 lakhs. That petition was allowed on 6-9-1991. It
appears that in the meanwhile the A.C.B. Officials decided not to prosecute
Narasimhulu under Section 13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act for disproportionate assets.
They also found that Sattaiah had capacity to make the investments as disclosed
from the documents seized by them.
(2.)After the disposal of Crl.M.P. No.203/91 Sattaiah filed a Memo for return
of the documents. That memo was registered as Crl.M.P.No.21/92. The Special
Judgedismissed that petition, filed by Sattaiah to return the documents, on 28th
March, 1992. While disposing of that petition, the Special Judge directed that
the case be investigated into by one Subba Rao after registering a fresh F.I.R.
Thus, in effect he revised the earlier order of the Special Judge directing return
of the documents.
(3.)Then the Special Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the Special Judge
purporting to be under Section 395(2) Cr.P.C. for a reference to be made to this
Court on the following points:
(a) Can the Special Judge under P.C. Act who had made an order for return
of property in favour of a third party on the merits of the case and after hearing
the Investigating Agency, revise or set aside the said order suo motu or
otherwise during the subsequent stage of same proceeding? If so, under what
(b) Whether a Special Judge under the P.C. Act can make an order specifying
or nominating particular Inspector of Police, A.C.B. to register a case and
investigate an offence u/s.13(l)(e)of the P.C. Actagainst an accused whose case
was already investigated by another Inspector of Police, A.C.B. and exonerated
him of the offence u/s.13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act?
(c) Can a Special Judge make such an aforesaid order in the face of second
proviso to Section 17 of the P.C. Act r/w.Sec.4(2) of Cr.P.C.?
(d) Is the Superintendent of Police who has to order investigation of an
offence u/s.13(l)(e) of the P.C. Act, bound to make an order in favour of the
particular Inspector of Police, A.C.B. to register and reinvestigate the offence for
the reason that the Special Judge has made an order?
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.