IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS. 27800 OF 2008 AND 1168 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 27800 of 2008 Between: Guggilla Bhargav Yadav S/o.Mallaiah 1-7-769 Koratla Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police Karimnagar,Karimnagar District 2 The Sub Inspector of Police Karimnagar I Town Karimnagar District 3 Pemmaraju L.S Mohan Rao S/o.L.S Prasad Rao, 21-241 Shanthinagar Tiruvuru(V)&(M) Krishna District 4 Pemmaraju Kishore S/o.L.S Prasad Rao, 21-241 Shanthinagar Tiruvuru(V)&(M) Krishna District 5 Mittapally Venkat Rama Rao S/o.Krishna Murthy Takulapally Panubelly(M) Khammam District 6 Kilari Nageswar Rao S/o Muttaiah Nemalikonijerla Gampalagudem(M) Krishna District 7 Chitturi Bhaskar Rao S/o.Gopaiah Marrayyapalli Gunnachintalapadu(V) A-Konduru(M) Krishna District 8 Alapati Srinivas Rao S/o.Venkat Rao 10-51 Thiruvuru,Krishna District .RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO : 1168 of 2009 Between: 1 Mittapally Venkata Rama Rao S/o.Krishna Murthy R/o.Tekulapalli, Penubally Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Kilaru Nageswara Rao S/o.Muttaiah R/o.Konigerla Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Chitturi Bhaskara Rao S/o.Gopaiah R/o.Gunduchintalapadu Village, Marepalli Grampanchayat A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Alapati Srinivasa Rao S/o.Venkat Rao R/o.H.No.10-51, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-I Town Police Station, Karimnagar District. 3 Sudha Enterprises, Premises No.8-6-237/3, Rajeev Authonagar, Karimnagar, represented by its Proprietor Guggilla Bhargav Yadav S/o. Mallaiah, R/o.1-7-769, Koratla, Karimnagar District. 4 Agri-Tech Harvester Agencies, Premises No.23-64-1, Tiruvuru, represented by its Proprietor, P.L.S. Mohan Rao S/o.L.S. Prasad Rao R/o.21-241, Shantinagar, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since common issues arise in both these writ petitions, they are heard and being disposed of together. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.27800 of 2008. The petitioner in W.P.No.27800 of 2008 is the proprietor of M/s Sudha Enterprises-respondent No.3 in W.P.No.1168 of 2009. He is the authorized dealer of BALKAR B-525 harvesters manufactured by Gurnanak Agri Engineering Works of Punjab State. The harvesters are attached to the tractors of prospective customers and sold at the price of Rs.4,75,000/-. The petitioner alleged that in the month of November, 2006, respondents 3 and 4, who are the natives of Krishna District, brought five tractors for attaching harvesters belonging to different persons, namely; respondents 3, 5 to 8 and got the harvesters attached at an expenditure of Rs.23,75,000/- and got the delivery of two tractors at the first instance by promising to pay the money and later they got two more tractors delivered again promising to pay the entire amount at the time of delivery of the fifth tractor. The petitioner alleged that believing the words of respondents 3 and 4 and in view of their not taking the relevant sale invoices in Form Nos. 21 and 22, and temporary registration certificates of Karimnagar District, they have been delivered the four tractors. The petitioner alleged that in the month of February, 2008, the recovery staff of Srirama Finance and Investments seized tractor bearing No.AP 16 BB 1631 fitted with harvester bearing Chassis No. BC-TD-J-06-00560, which was lying with him, on the ground that respondent No.3 purchased the tractor under hire purchase agreement and failed to pay the monthly installments. Suspecting some foul play, the petitioner visited the native places of respondents 3 to 8 and also the Office of the Regional Transport Authority at Vijayawada and allegedly came to know that four tractors along with harvesters were got registered at Vijayawada by submitting false and fabricated invoices by the name “Agri-Tech Harvesters Agencies”, an authorized dealer for BALKAR Agencies situated at Tiruvuru, Krishna District. The petitioner alleged that the said agency was a bogus one, created by respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the petitioner filed private complaint before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, which was referred to police, based on which Crime No.200 of 2009 was registered by the Karimnagar I-Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner further stated that during the investigation, respondents 3 and 4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.08.2008. His grievance is that since then, there is no progress in the case in spite of the police receiving the concerned files from the Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada. He alleged that respondents 3 to 8 colluded among themselves in getting the tractors with harvesters registered through fake and fabricated documents and thereby cheated him. W.P.No.1168 of 2009 is filed by respondents 5 to 8 in W.P.No.27800 of 2008 anticipating seizure of the tractors. They claimed that they are bona fide purchasers for value from Sudha Enterprises-cum-Agri-Tech Harvesters Agencies, which belongs to respondent No.3. At the hearing, Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even the documents produced by respondents 5 to 8 in their writ petition, clearly show that sale certificates in Form No.21 were issued by Agri-Tech Harvesters Agencies, which were fabricated documents. However, Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela invited the Court's attention to invoices filed by his clients in W.P.No.1168 of 2009, which purported to show that the petitioner's agency, namely; Sudha Enterprises issued invoices in favour of Agri-Tech Harvesters Agencies on the basis of which his clients have purchased the harvesters bona fide and therefore, respondents 5 to 8 would suffer irreparable injury if the harvesters are seized, pending the criminal case. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is, inter alia, stated that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer seized the original invoices of the harvesters of the tractors mentioned in the complaint and copy of registration certificate of the petitioner, copy of dealership letter issued by Gurunanak Agricultural Engineering Works, Handiaya, Sangur District of Punjab State under cover of panchanama and arrested respondents 3 and 4, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 on 05.08.2008. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that respondents 5 to 8 got the harvesters registered by submitting invoices issued by the accused and that on obtaining legal opinion, a requisition was filed before the Court on 16.03.2009 for issuing orders to seize the harvesters of tractors mentioned in the complaint for further investigation and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar dismissed the said application and hence, the harvesters were not seized. It is further stated that when the investigation was in progress, respondents 5 to 8 filed W.P.No.1168 of 2009 and obtained interim order not to seize the tractors and the implements, which are in their possession except in accordance with the provisions of law. It is further stated that investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. The facts of these cases referred to above, reveal that serious accusations of fabrication and forgery of sale letters, invoices etc pertaining to harvesters are made by the petitioner. According to him, there is active collusion among respondents 3 to 8 and he was cheated by getting the harvesters registered on the strength of the fabricated invoices and sale letters. In the face of these strong accusations, it is necessary for the police to make a thorough investigation and no direction can be accorded by judicial intervention which may affect such investigation by the police. The innocence claimed by respondents 5 to 8 in the entire episode is required to be adjudicated in the criminal case after a full-fledged trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and in my view rightly that no meaningful investigation can be done and charge sheet can be filed without sending the invoices and other documents which are allegedly fabricated for examination by the handwriting experts. In his counter- affidavit, respondent No.2 has not disclosed that any such effort was made to send the disputed documents for the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that he had inspected the harvesters and examined the same before the charge sheet is filed. The manner in which the investigation appeared to have been conducted creates an impression in the mind of the Court that the investigating officer has proceeded in a casual manner. If the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application for seizure of the harvesters, he should have questioned the said order in appropriate Court. Such an attempt did not appear to have been made. Coming to the plea of respondents 5 to 8 that their interests will suffer if the harvesters are seized and detained till the criminal case is completed, in my considered view, while no useful purpose will be served in detaining the harvesters, at the same time, the police shall not be prevented from having access to the harvesters in connection with the investigation and to gather the relevant information. Having carefully considered the facts in their entirety, both these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. 1. Respondent No.1 shall examine the charge sheet stated to have been filed in the criminal case. If he finds that the investigating officer has not sent the documents, which are allegedly fabricated to the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, he shall ensure that they are sent and opinion is obtained. On receipt of such information, steps shall be taken to file an additional charge sheet, if necessary. 2. The police shall have freedom to inspect the harvesters which are in the custody of respondents 5 to 8, as and when they require in connection with the case. 3. Respondents 5 to 8 shall not alienate or in any manner change the nature of the harvesters till completion of the criminal case. 4. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that further investigation is completed and additional charge sheet, if necessary shall be filed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th July, 2009 vrn