IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.287 of 2005 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Mehdi Hussain, S/o Mohd. Nazir Pasha .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.995 of 2001 on the file of the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, by the judgment dated 12-09-2002, led the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor to institute this appeal. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 12-05-2001 at about 12.30 P.M. Shaik Dawood, S.W. Hussain, Syed Ali Zaheer Asad, Syed Merajuddin and N. Venkatesh of Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Mehdipatnam Branch went to the house of Shabana Mehdi at Shergate, Kingkoti, Hyderabad. When the distraint order notice was attempted to be served on Smt. Sabana Mehdi as per the orders of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the accused suddenly came out of the house armed with a knife and threatened the five officials with dire consequences and prevented them from discharging their lawful duties as Government servants. Abids Police registered the crime on report and the accused surrendered before the Court and was released on bail. After furnishing copies of documents to the accused after he entered appearance, he was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he pleaded not guilty. PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked during trial and the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not produce any defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment accepting the claim that PWs.1 to 5 and 7 were public servants. However, the trial Court found that when PWs.5 and 7 clearly stated about the service of Ex.P.2 notice on the wife of the accused, the accused preventing the officials from serving such notice on his wife did not arise and any obstruction for the public servants from carrying out their duties cannot be considered to have happened. The trial Court also found that the contradiction about the overt acts of the accused was material and the investigating officer was noted to have stated that no neighbour or independent person came forward to speak about the incident. While considering the evidence of interested witnesses to be unsafe for acceptance at face value without any independent corroborative evidence, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 7 was considered to have not established the alleged offences against the accused and consequently, the trial Court acquitted the accused. The appellant contends that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 7, which was consistent and cogent, could have been given due credit and the alleged service of notice later on the wife of the accused will not dilute the culpability of the accused. Heard Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and none appeared for the respondent/accused in spite of service of notice of the appeal. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code? A close perusal and consideration of the evidence on record shows that no attempt was made to recover the knife used by the accused to threaten the officials. It is also seen that if the notice/ warrant in question was successfully served on the wife of the accused, there was no further official act to be performed by any of the officials as part of their official duty or in discharge of their official functions. If the accused was so violent at the relevant time as alleged, he would not have left all the persons uninjured and the discrepancy in the evidence about the accused armed with sword chasing the witnesses after service of Ex.P.2 notice on the wife of the accused or the accused attacking PWs.1 to 5 and threatening them with a knife even while the officials were attempting to serve the notice on the wife of the accused is very material and relevant. If the incident were true, it is unnatural that no neighbour or independent person agreed to assist the investigating agency and the discrepancy between the earliest version and the evidence is undoubtedly material as opined by the trial Court. Any violent reaction after service of notice is not natural and consequently, the trial Court cannot be considered unreasonable in finding the prosecution to have not established the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be interfered with. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-12-2009 Ksn