HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6123 of 2009 Dated : 12.08.2009 Between : B.Yenkanna and 4 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6123 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Crime No.80 of 2009 of Devanakonda Police Station of Kurnool District was registered against the petitioners and others and the basis on which the petitioners were implicated in the crime was the confessional statements said to have been given by the work inspectors concerned. The confessional and seizure panchanama dated 14.06.2009 mentions that the petitioners, who are political leaders indulged in threats and also bribing the public servants concerned, and even without the completion of the relevant stages of construction of houses in question, got payment orders completed and the funds transfer requisitions acted upon distributing the money between themselves and also to officers and others. It is true that in accordance with the prescribed procedure concerning the construction of these houses by the Government under the ‘Indiramma Housing Programme’, the petitioners will not figure in at any stage, but the allegations in the confessions of the work inspectors are that the petitioners were part of the extra legal methods by which public money is swallowed without being actually spent for the purpose of construction of the houses and the allegations are serious in nature and require further investigation by the statutory investigating agency. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.V.Raghuveer brought to notice of this Court that the accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 were granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session, but the reasons for which the Court of Session considered grant of anticipatory bail to them are not germane insofar as the consideration of the case against the petitioners is concerned herein. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available only in rarest of rare cases and that too must be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection and cannot be utilized to curtail justified investigation by the statutory investigating agency into the allegations, which are of serious social consequences including loss of public money and violation of public interest. Whether the claims of innocence of the petitioners are proved or not and whether alleged confessional statements were given by the public servants concerned, are matters which have to be gone into by the investigating agency and if a police report were to be filed against the petitioners by the investigating agency before the competent court, by the said court on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during the trial, but not for this Court to go into in a deep fact finding enquiry in a summary proceeding. Therefore, the criminal petition does not appear to be sustainable and has to fail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of and it is made clear that no observations made in this order shall influence either the further investigation by the investigating agency or the consideration of the merits of the case by the trial Court. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 12th August, 2009 SUR