HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4197 OF 2006 Date: 19.01.2010 Between: Gavini Srinivasa Rao ……Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B., High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. ……Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4197 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 1st accused (A-1) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Vijayawada relating to offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the Act) and Sections 344, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town Police Station. A-2 was the then Head Constable in the same police station. Crime No.135 of 1994 of Bapatla Town Police Station was booked against the deceased Nannam Guravaiah and his son for offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 506 and 309 I.P.C and it was pending. The deceased was shown to be absconding in that crime. That case was registered on 19.10.1994. It is prosecution case that the deceased was brought to Baptla Town Police Station 10 days prior to his death in Crime No.135 of 1994 and was wrongfully confined in Baptla Town Police Station by A-1 and A-2 for a period of 10 days demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- for his release from the police station and for closing Crime No.135 of 1994 against him and his son and that the deceased disclosed the same to his wife who made efforts to secure money to meet demand of A-1 and A-2 to get release of her husband but could not secure the amount and that her failure to secure money was informed to the deceased at the police station on 16.12.1994 and that the deceased felt that there was no chance of his release from the police station and became vexed with wrongful confinement in the police station; and that the deceased committed suicide on 17.12.1994 by tying coconut rope used for driving water from well around his neck and jumped into well located in police station compound. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that originally the present case in Crime No.155 of 1994 relating to death of the deceased was booked under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by A-1 on report of A-2 and that subsequently it was altered to Sections 344, 384 and 306 of I.P.C and that thereafter the present Investigating Officer before filing charge sheet in the lower court added Section 7 of the Act in the charge sheet with a view to get over period of limitation provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., because by the time of filing of charge sheet in the year 2004, it was barred by limitation for offences for which the crime was originally registered. It may be seen that Crime No.155 of 1994 was originally booked by A-1 on report of A-2 in their official capacities under Section 176 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently the local police altered Section of law therein to Sections 344, 384 and 306 I.P.C. Thereafter, investigation of the case was taken up by C.I.D wing of the police. It was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Visakhapatnam. There is no bar for the Investigating Officer to add any Section of law which is attracted by evidence collected by him during course of investigation. It has to be seen whether adding of Section 7 of the Act is proper and legal having regarding to evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. As per statement of the defacto-complainant, the deceased informed her about demand of A-1 and A-2 for Rs.10,000/- for releasing the deceased from custody and for closing Crime No.135 of 1994 against the deceased and his son. There are other circumstances also which lent support for the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and for invoking Section 7 of the Act. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that adding of Section 7 of the Act in the charge sheet is not in any way illegal or improper or unjustified. It is for the trial court to appreciate evidence to be let in by the prosecution during trial and come to its own conclusion on charge under Section 7 of the Act. I am of the opinion that adding of Section 7 of the Act is not for the purpose of getting over the period of limitation in this case. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that when Section 7 of the Act is invoked, then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Visakhapatnam is not competent to investigate and to file charge sheet in this case and that the investigation should have been done by an officer from Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is not correct. Section 17 of the Act gives list of persons authorized to investigate a case relating to offence under that enactment. As per Section 17 ( c ) of the Act, any Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank is competent police officer to investigate any offence punishable under the Act. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in this case who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Visakhapatnam is competent to investigate into the case and to file charge sheet in this case not only for offences punishable under I.P.C but also offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Having regard to material collected by the Investigating Officer and presented before the lower court, I am of the opinion that no grounds are made out in law for quashing proceedings in the pending case against A-1. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:19.01.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4197 OF 2006 Date:19.01.2010. Gk.