IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 4412 of 2009 Between: Payyavula Keshav and another . .Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4412 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri C.Mastan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. 2) The petitioners and 2 others are facing prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet/complaint discloses that the petitioners and 2 others were accused of violating the Model Code of Conduct during the general elections and an order under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861. An order under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 can be promulgated only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District, but not by any of the insubordinates and under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case the charge sheet/complaint was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police and obviously there is blatant violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint is therefore incompetent and should not be taken cognizance in respect of the offence against the petitioners or even against the two others also, though accused 3 and 4 are not before the Court. In view of the fundamental un-sustainability of the prosecution, the entire criminal proceedings should fail. 3) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.96 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda, Anantapur District are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH