HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5597 of 2009 Dated : 06.08.2009 Between : Nagara Andela Srinivasulu ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5597 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Dhananjayaa, learned Additional 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. The first information report in Cr.No.186 of 2008 of Kurnool Taluk Police Station was registered against the petitioner and on completion of the investigation, the statutory investigating agency filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.1196 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations of the prosecution are essentially about the accused taking a sub-contract from one Gopi Himashekar concerning issuance of new ration cards and issuing bogus ration cards to four persons in Ulindakonda fair price ration shop for Rs.300/- each. What the petitioner contends herein is that Gopi Himashekar who is said to be the person, who gave the sub-contract to him, is neither a witness nor an accused and the four persons, who allegedly obtained bogus ration cards, also should have been arrayed as accused, but not as witnesses. The role of Gopi Himashekar does not appear to have been investigated into at all and hence he contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law. Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel, argued at length with reference to the material papers on record, more particularly, the letter of the District Supply Officer to the Collector dated 12.07.2008 referring not only to Gopi Himashekar as the contractor but also one Mallikarjun and Murali Mohan to be sub-contractors under whom, the present petitioner was stated to have acted. The learned counsel pointed out that the said Mallikarjun and Murali Mohan figured nowhere in the process of investigation and the learned counsel further referred to the memorandum of evidence appended to the charge sheet in support of his contentions. If, apart from the accused/petitioner, any contractor or sub- contractors or any persons, who received the bogus ration cards, were to be implicated in accordance with law, for being part of any culpable conduct, it is for the trial Court to take recourse to appropriate action under the enabling provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure basing on the material placed on record before it, if it is so required on the facts and circumstances of the case. Assuming that any such person was omitted from being an accused or witness in violation of any accepted norms of criminal liability, this criminal petition is not the appropriate proceeding in which any steps can be ordered in respect of the said persons. Any action or the absence of it on the part of the prosecution to include such person either as a witness or as an accused cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner/accused and basing on the allegations in the charge sheet and other material on record, it cannot be said that ex facie there is nothing on record to attribute any culpable conduct to the petitioner. The allegations of fact on which the prosecution of the petitioner is based are for the trial Court to go into. This Court will not indulge in any fact finding enquiry in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent jurisdiction is available only in rarest of rare cases to be exercised with extra care, caution and circumspection and not as a matter of course, more so, in an offence, which appears to involve societal interest at large. While no part of this order shall influence the further proceedings in the case against the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to move the trial Court under appropriate provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the alleged contractor or sub- contractors or persons, who secured bogus ration cards from him, if he were to be entitled to any relief against them under law, which requires no specific leave or permission or liberty as requested. With the above observations, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 6th August, 2009 SUR