- (1.) COMMON issues arise in these three cases, rendering them amenable to a conjoined disposal. Presently, the writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is as hereunder: ". . . to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to protect the 4th respondent, who has misappropriated the public funds to the tune of Rs. 4,14,566/- by fabricated documents and cheating, from being prosecuted for the offences committed under Sections 420, 463, 468 and 471, read with Section 120 B of IPC, by issuing consecutive G. Os. , i. e. G. O. Rt. No. 1617, Home (Legal. II) Department, dated 3. 11. 2007 and g. O. Rt. No. 407, Home (Legal. II) Department, dated 5. 3. 2008 and tampering with the course of justice by getting filed consecutive petitions to withdraw the prosecution and interdicting the due process of law by invoking the power conferred on them under section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, irrational, whimsical, and unconstitutional, apart from contrary to the doctrine of Rule of Law and a blatant attack on the criminal justice system of this country and is the result of favouritism and based on collateral, extraneous, political and partisan considerations and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, after declaring Section 321 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Rule of Law and contrary to the doctrine of Separation of Powers and has the effect of scuttling the judicial process by enabling the State Executive to interfere with the adjudicative process and a constitutional anachronism and a colonial legislation which is not in conformity with the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside G. O. Rt. No. 407, Home (Legal. II)Department, dated 5. 3. 2008 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "
(2.) THE first petitioner in the writ petition, a Diploma holder in Automobile engineering and an active member of the congress Party, claims to be deeply involved in public service. Likewise, the second petitioner, a graduate in Commerce and an active member of the Congress Party, is stated to be a public-spirited citizen interested in the public good. It is the case of the petitioners that Yemeni Raja Ramchander, mla, Kaikalur Assembly Constituency, krishna District, the fourth respondent in the writ petition, misappropriated public monies to the tune of Rs. 4,14,5 66/- by way of fabricated documents and cheating.
(3.) THE first petitioner made a representation on 24. 7. 2004 to the Hon'ble speaker of the Legislative Assembly in this regard. Thereafter he, along with one M. Surya Chander Rao, filed W. P. No. 15879 of 2004 before this Court seeking institution of an enquiry into the alleged misappropriation. The said writ petition was disposed of by a division Bench of this Court by order dated 9. 8. 2005, recording the assurance given by the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh that the Government had decided to get a case registered against the fourth respondent. This Court expressed the hope that the investigation by the police would be carried out strictly in accordance with law, and observing that no further orders needed to be passed, the writ petition was disposed of.;