THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.4641 of 2007 Date of Order: 29-07-2010 Between: Sattuluri Ramachandra Chari ..Petitioner and The State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.4641 of 2007 Oral order: The petitioner, who is accused No.3 in C.C.No.416 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada charged for the offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 IPC along with A1, A2, A4 and A5 and further liable for punishment under Section 177 IPC, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The petitioner while working as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Elvinpeta Branch, Gandhinagar, Kakinada transferred to Nidadavolu and on his transfer, he handed over the charge to L.W.1 on 25-06-1997. In that connection, A1 and A2 prepared a charge list, after thorough verification of all the items, 35 in number, particularly, item Nos.3 to 5 and 33 and 34, and certified in the margin of the charge list “as verified”. After handovering the charge, L.W.1 gave keys of DCTO room to A1 and A2 in the presence of A3 for temporary custody. While so, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Kakinada (L.W.1) lodged a complaint with the II Town Police Station, Kakinada stating that on verification it was noticed that five bundles of Way Bill books bearing Nos. (1) D.2631 (containing Way Bills from 2630001 to 2631000; (2) D.2337 (containing Way Bills from 2336001 to 2337000) (3) E.3757 (containing Way Bills from 3756001 to 3757000) (4) E.3661 (containing Way Bills from 3660001 to 3661000) and (5) E.3788 (containing Way Bills from 3787001 to 3788000) are missing and all other records are available and his secret enquiries do not reveal anything and, therefore, requested to make thorough investigation into the matter and take action to retrieve the 100 Way Bill Books list. Basing upon the same, the II Town Central Crime Station, Kakinada registered a case in Cr.No.79/1997 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. After due investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada initially against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police moved the Magistrate under Section 178(3) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.547 of 2002 requesting the Court to permit him for further investigation into the matter. On allowing the said petition on 05-04-2002, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against 5 persons in which the petitioner herein was arrayed as A3 and dealers are arrayed as A4 and A5. As per the said charge sheet, the Way Bills mentioned in Annexure —I were allotted by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Elvinpeta, who is supposed to issue them to the dealers on his rolls. The said Way Bills were utilized in the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, whereas the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Elvinpeta, petitioner herein (A3), in his charge list mentioned the same numbers, which were already stolen and used by dealers of Tuni who are not at all registered dealers on the rolls of DCTO, Elvinpeta. A Way Bill (form-X) is a document that enables the trader to transport goods from one place to another. Usually, the Way Bills will be issued by the concerned officer of the Commercial Taxes Department in whose rolls the dealer/trader lies. A4 and A5 are bound to explain the source of 56 Way Bills as they have filed them along with their tax returns claiming exemption. At the time of handing over of the charge of the post of DCTO, Elvinpeta, the 56 Way Bills were already pressed into service claiming exemption by A4 and A5, but in the charge list, which was signed by A3, the 56 Way Bills along with other stolen Way Bills were shown to be in existence. Obviously, the Way Bills were filed before the Commercial Tax Officer, Tuni much prior to the date of handing over of the charge by A3 to his successor in office. Thus, A3 who is the custodian of the Way Bills knowingly furnished false information about the existence of Way Bills. Therefore, A3 is further liable for punishment under Section 177 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner/A3 was relieved on transfer on 25-06-1997 itself and theft case was reported few days after his handovering of charge. At the time of handovering the charge, the petitioner has delivered all the stocks of the office including the subject matter of Way Bills along with the stock register, which is evident from the charge list, which was also signed by his reliever on 25-06-1997 itself. Since unknown persons stole the property on the intervening night of 30/31-06-1997, a case was registered in Cr.No.79 of 1997 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and subsequently it was referred as “undetected”; after investigation A1 and A2 were held responsible for missing of Way Bills and they were accordingly charged. Once the petitioner, on transfer, delivered all the stocks of office including the Way Bills, which were stolen and found to be misutilised by A4 and A5, he cannot be charged for the said offence. I see no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the simple reason, in the charge sheet it is clearly mentioned that by the date of handing over of the charge of the post of DCTO, Elvinpeta, Kakinada, the 56 Way Bills were already pressed into service for claiming exemption by A4 and A5 but in the charge list, which was singed by A3, the 56 Way Bills along with other stolen Way Bills were shown to be in existence. The said Way Bills were utilised by A4 and A5 during the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 while the petitioner was in service. In view of the same, it is not a fit case where the proceedings can be quashed at the initial stage without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. On petitioner filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. to dispense with his presence, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 29-07-2010 Murthy