Decided on November 05,1992

B.SATHAIAH Respondents


- (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 circumstances? (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?


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.