THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5470 of 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.5770 of 2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5470 of 2010 BETWEEEN: A.V.Dharma Reddy, S/o.A.Subba Reddy. … Appellant AND 1. State of A.P.& 3 others. … Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.5770 of 2010 BETWEEEN: Kuncham Damodaram, S/o.Chinniah. … Appellant AND 1. State of A.P.& 3 others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5470 of 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.5770 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: By the previous order dated 02.08.2010 in these Criminal Petitions, this Court gave certain directions and entrusted further investigation of this case to CID of the State. During the course of further investigation, CID filed periodical reports dated 03.09.2010, 22.10.2010, 07.12.2010, 09.02.2011, 28.03.2011, 10.06.2011, before this Court. Also, draft final report/charge sheet was submitted by CID on 25.07.2011 to this Court. On perusal of the above reports, I am of the opinion that though the investigation is complete and reached logical end upto the stage of L.Boodireddy, Personal Assistant to TTD Board member- Janga Krishna Murthy, CID could not penetrate into office of Joint Executive Officer (JEO) to find out complicity of the petitioners herein who worked as Special Officer Camp Clerk/Steno of the Special Officer and Assistant/Shroff in the office of JEO. CID concluded the investigation by determining 1. Lingamguntla Kodanda Rama Naidu, 2. L. Boodi Reddy, 3. S.Sudhakar Naidu alias Sadhu Pratap and 4. L.Jeeva as the culprits involved in this crime. CID specifically stated that the investigation did not establish role of the petitioners herein in this crime. This conclusion was arrived at by CID inspite of the then Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams by name V.V.Ramana Kumar, who is an I.P.S. Officer and who worked in TTD on deputation expressing that there was conspiracy involving the petitioners herein also in this crime. It appears that CID also placed undue reliance on oral evidence inspite of there being documentary proof that camp clerk/steno attended the office on the crucial date. 2. Insofar as these two criminal petitions are concerned, they are filed against order dated 14.06.2010, passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupathi in Crl.M.P.No.1842 of 2010 in CC.No.306 of 2009, impleading the petitioners herein as A2 to A4 in CC.No.306 of 2009 in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary power which has to be sparingly exercised. Before invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted (See MOHD. SHAFI Vs. MOHD.RAFIQ[1]). In the case on hand, except examinations- in- chief of PWs 1 and 2 and a Compact Disc (CD) containing telephonic conversation between PW2 and A1-L.Rama Naidu in which there is reference to A2 to A4, there was no reason for the lower Court at that stage to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners herein are likely to be convicted on the basis of the said examination- in- chief of PW2 and CD produced by him. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court is hasty and premature. 3. At any rate, now CID has collected further evidence in this case and is going to file final report/additional charge sheet along with material collected by them including statements of all the witnesses recorded by them. Even though CID intended to give clean chit to the petitioners herein in the final report/additional charge sheet, it is open for the lower Court to go through entire investigation record of CID and take cognizance of the offences against all or any persons whom so ever the lower Court intends to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. on the basis of investigation record and irrespective of conclusions of CID. 4. In the result, subject to observations made in preceding paragraph of this order, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower Court. _______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:27.09.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5470 of 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.5770 of 2010 Dated:27.09.2011 ysk [1] (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 544