THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.221 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1288 OF 2009 14TH OCTOBER 2009 CRL.R.C.NO.221 of 2009 BETWEEN: VATTIKUTI VEERAIAH AND ANOTHER . PETITIONER AND STATE OF A.P. CRL.P.NO.1288 OF 2009 BETWEEN: KONDAVEETI PADMAVATHI . PETITIONER AND STATE OF A.P. AND VANUKURI ANJAMMA . RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.221 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1288 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Petition arise out of the applications filed by A4 to A6 in C.C.No.1 of 2006 seeking their discharge for the offence punishable under section 5 of Land Grabbing Act. More precisely, A4 Kondaveeti Padmavathi filed Crl.M.P.No.42 of 2008 and whereas A5-V.Veeriah and A6-Kishore Reddy filed Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2008 under section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge for the offence punishable under section 5 of Land Grabbing Act. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dismissed the applications by a common order dated 5.11.2008. Assailing the common order, A4 filed Criminal Revision Case No.139 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, which ended in dismissal. Hence, she filed Crl.P.No.1288 of 2009 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Whereas A5 and A6 filed Crl.R.C.No.221 of 2009 under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C assailing the common order dated 5.11.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.42 of 2008 and Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Both the revision and the Criminal Petition are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under section 12 of A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 (for short Act) previous sanction of the Special Tribunal is essential to prosecute the accused for the offences under the provisions of the Act. Since there being no sanction, the petitioners are entitled to seek discharge for the offence under section 5 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent supported the order impugned in the revision as well as criminal petition. Section 12 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 reads as under: “ 12. Sanction for prosecution of offence under the Act: No court other than the Special court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act, except with the previous sanction of the Special Tribunal which sanction shall be accorded having regard to the circumstances of each case.” A plain reading of the above referred to provision indicates that previous sanction of the Special Tribunal for prosecuting the accused for the offences under the provisions of the Act is essential. Indisputably, no sanction has been obtained from the Special Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek discharge for the offence under section 5 of the Act. The Investigating Officer deleted Sections 420, 447 and 506 IPC since the accused are being challaned for the offence under section 5 of the Act. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the charge sheet, which reads as under: “ During investigation L.W.7 examined LWs.1 to 6 and recorded their detailed statements. L.W.7 arrested A1 on 3.7.2004 and set him for remand. A5 and A6 were arrested on 3.3.2005 and were released on bail since they got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court. A3 and A4 also got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court and they also were arrested by L.W.8 on 6.9.2005 and they were released on bail. A2 is absconding. Since the other acts of IPC such as trespass, criminal intimidation and cheating are done by the accused to grab the land of others, L.W.7 felt it sufficient to charge the accused under sections of Land Grabbing Act. As such, Sec.420, 447 and 506 IPC were deleted from the charge levelled against the accused.” Since the accused have been discharged for the offence under section 5 of the Act for want of sanction, the learned Magistrate has to consider the material brought on record afresh and exercise his discretion whether the cognizance of the case can be taken for any other offence/offences. The Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Petition are allowed and the order impugned in both the cases is set aside and consequently the petitioners are discharged for the offence under section 5 of the Act leaving open to the learned Magistrate to consider whether the material gathered by the investigating officer makes ingredients of any other offence/offences. 14th October, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.221 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1288 OF 2009 14TH OCTOBER 2009