HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6933 OF 2009 DATED.28-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-7’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.235 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor, registered for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-1 to A-7, the respondent No.2 is the complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case from here afterwards. 3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : The complainant is running a private institution with an intention to uplift the poorer sections of the society purely with service motive having got registered the same as Non Governmental Organization with registration No.320/1988 under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860 on 08-09-1988 as its president. The complainant in the institution has been offering various training programmes like running residential school for 200 scheduled castes students since 13-06- 1990, providing computer training programmes for 30 scheduled caste students since 01-04-1994, Typewriting and Shorthand training for 50 scheduled caste students since 01-05-1995, two old age homes for 25 persons each since 1992-93 and giving training for physically handicapped persons since 1999-2000. For providing all the above said services, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment used to sanction grant in aid up to the year 2002-2003 and also for one more service programme i.e. short stay home for woman and girls from 01- 06-1992 with the financial assistance of the Department of woman and child welfare, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi on the recommendation of the District Woman and child welfare officer under due care at Rs.1,87,300/- per year up to 1998-99. But from the year 1999-2000 the short stay home for woman and girls was taken over by the Central Social Welfare Board officials and after their due verification and satisfaction issued sanction letter for the year 1999- 2000 for an amount of Rs.3,38,696/- in that regard. In the meanwhile, one K. Lokanatham the Secretary of Praja Abyudaya Seva Samithi, Durga Nagar Colony, Chittor sent a forged report in the name of the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor vide No.CB/1/Dt.30-06-1999 as if the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer enquired and reported to the Central Social Welfare Board that the short stay home programme in the complainant’s institution was not functioning as per the norms fixed, upon which A-4 sent a notice to the complainant’s institution without ascertaining the genuineness of the report sent in the name of District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer for which the complainant had given a suitable reply. Thereafter, A-1 directed A-6 and A-9 to inspect the institution and accordingly after their inspection A-6 informed the Central Social Welfare Board not to release the funds for the short stay home programme, whereas A-9 reported that funds for the year 1999- 2000 to an extent of Rs.3,38,996/- were released and mis-utilized. That resulted in setback to the complainant’s institution. In fact no funds were released by then except a sanction letter for the relevant amount. It is further the case of the complainant that after the inspection by A-6 and A-9, there was further joint enquiry held by A-7 and A-8 who reported against the complainant’s institution for releasing necessary grant in aid for the short stay home programme for the year 1999-2000. A-4 sent a letter informing the Central Social Welfare Board to blacklist the programme of short stay home for women and girls from 2002 to 2006, which in fact resulted in blacklisting the entire institution and heavy monitory loss to the complainant. But the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chittoor who conducted the investigation of the case and submitted final report in Crime No.101 of 2004 on the file of Gangadhara Nellore police station stated that the reports of A-5 to A-9 happened to be false. It is the further case of complainant that all the programmes are functioning as per the norms prescribed by the Central Social Welfare Board, which is clear from the reports of Smt. G.V.Manjula Bai, Project Officer, Karnataka State Social Welfare Board, Smt. Padala Aruna, Chairperson, A.P. State Social Welfare Board and Joint Inspection Committee Report under the supervision of the District Collector, Chittoor. Subsequently, the complainant made several representations before the accused to de-blacklist the institution and release the pending grant in aid, for which A-4 sent a message through A-5 to call on the complainant to Tirupati on 15- 05-2002 to pay a bribe of Rs.2,50,000/- to get released the pending grant in aid of the institution, which the complainant refused and hence with that grudge in mind A-4 directed A-5 to report against the institution resulting in loss to the complainant’s institution. In fact, some of the inspection reports are against conducting the programme of short stay home for woman and girls but subsequently all other programmes financed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment funds were also stopped though their functioning was satisfactory. Thus A-2 acted as per the instructions of A-4 without applying his mind as the complainant failed to fulfill the illegal demand of A-4. Further the complainant filed writ petition No.4003 of 2003 on the file of this Court with a plea to direct A-1 herein to de-blacklist his institution and see that the pending grant in aid be released, the same was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation by order dated 06-05-2003. Subsequently, as no action was taken by the accused he filed another writ petition No.2692 of 2004, which was also disposed of later. Thus the accused being responsible officials failed to discharge their duties and caused serious damage to the complainant’s institution and to its president and their actions in submitting fabricated false reports and using the same in judicial process are in the nature of defaming the complainant. Further, the complainant with a fond hope that his institution would get de- blacklisted and necessary grant in aid released in future, continued the programmes by borrowing amounts from several third parties bearing in mind the welfare of the poor students or people but all the accused deserted the institution by their false and fabricated reports. Further, the complainant had also issued legal notices to A-1 to A-9 on 25-01- 2007 calling upon them to pay the corresponding damages but all of them kept quiet after receiving the notices. Hence, A-1 to A-9 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 to A-7 that all of them are public servants and the alleged acts, which do not constitute any offence were done by them only with reference to their duties as public servants and hence without obtaining necessary sanction from the Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the proceedings are not tenable. Further the proceedings are barred by limitation in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and further the Central Social Welfare Board issued proceedings dated 01-12-2000 in file No.2-22/1/99-2000 SSH/FCC, dt.24-05-2001 in file No.1-18 (AP)/99-2000/C VC (B.L.), dated 24-07-2000 in File No.1-18(A)/99-2000/VC(B.L.)/491 and order passed on 29-04-2003 as to the cancellation of grant in aid and blacklisting the complainants’ institution. Further their official acts would fall within the purview of exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. in any case, ultimately has prayed to quash the proceedings against them. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State and Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. It is significant to note here that the proceedings were closed in the year 2001 but the complaint was filed in the month of december, 2007. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 500 of I.P.C. is only two years. By virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the complaint should have been filed within that two years period from the date of the alleged offence. Further, by virtue of Section 197 Cr.P.C. necessary sanction should have been obtained for prosecuting A-1 to A-7 being public servants, which is mandatory, about which there is no dispute. Further, having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find anything which is defamatory against the complainant. If A- 1 to A-7 did so for discharging their duties, those acts fall within the purview of the exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. Section 499 I.P.C. reads as follows : “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.” 8. Unless necessary material is there, there is no question of prosecuting A-1 to A-7 for the alleged offences and doing so would amount to prosecuting innocent persons, which is against the cardinal principles of criminal administration system. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in the petition and accordingly the criminal petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in Calender Case No.235 of 2009, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor in so far as A- 1 to A-7 are concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:28-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6933 OF 2009 December 28, 2011 DSH