IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, the 15th day of April, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 3217 of 2011 Between: Arvada Johnson ..Petitioner And The State of AP and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 3217 of 2011 O r d e r: The petitioner herein is the accused in criminal case – C.C.No. 51 of 2011 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. He filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the said criminal case. 2. The point that therefore arises for determination in this petition is whether there are grounds to quash the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner. 3. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The offence alleged against the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case is one punishable under section 393 IPC i.e., attempting to commit robbery. The prosecution version, as disclosed from the charge sheet, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner’s counsel in a paper book, is that on 13-11-2010 at about 12-30 in the afternoon, the petitioner with an intention to commit robbery, entered the premises of Andhra Bank, A.K. Nagar Branch, Nellore and at the point of knife threatened one V. Rajeswari, a cashier then sitting in the cash counter of the said bank and demanded her to give cash. It is stated that the said Rajeshwari (List Witness No.2 in the charge sheet) raised alarm; thereupon the bank staff and the customers in the bank got alerted and seeing the same the accused tried flee away from the scene, but he was apprehended by one Kandala Suresh and Manchala Sudharshan and was handed over to Police. It is stated that subsequently on the report of the Gonatham Nirmal Kumar, Sub-Manager of the aforesaid bank, the SI of Police, V Town Police Station, registered a case and ultimately after completion of investigation charge sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under section 393 IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the pleas of the accused and contended that a perusal of S. 161 Cr.P.C., statements of Gonatham Nirmal Kumar, V.Rajeswari, K. Mohan Rao, B. Ramakrishna Reddy, T.S.N. Murthy, C.Sailaja and J. Subrahmanyam, who are all staff of the bank do not disclose anything about the identity of the petitioner and therefore the case should be quashed. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention. 6. It may be noted that in the charge sheet it is alleged that Kandala Suresh and another Manchala Sudarshan, an outsider, who were also cited as witnesses are said to have apprehended the petitioner and handed over him to police. A perusal of S. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the aforesaid two witnesses would show that they support the prosecution case regarding the identity of the petitioner. It is true that the list of witnesses enclosed to the charge sheet and charge sheet averments do not disclose that any previous test identification parade was held; but nevertheless the charge sheet would disclose that it is based on the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses, who are said to have apprehended the accused soon after the alleged incident. Hence the fact that the statements of other staff members do not contain anything about the identity of the petitioner cannot make any difference. What should be noted is that the police have considered it fit to charge sheet the petitioner on the strength of the evidence of Kandala Suresh and Manchala Sudarshan, while statements of the other witnesses are relevant to show about the occurrence of the alleged incident. It appears that as the accused could not succeed in taking away cash, he has been charged only for the offence under section 393 IPC i.e., attempt to commit robbery. 7. It can therefore be said that this is a case where the allegations in the charge sheet do disclose an offence against the petitioner and it cannot be said that the allegations in the charge sheet even if believed do not disclose any offence at all. It is true that the petitioner is a stranger to the witnesses, but nevertheless he is said to have been apprehended by the aforesaid two witnesses i.e., Kandala Suresh and Manchala Sudarshan and both of them are also cited as witnesses. The plea of the petitioner that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated has to be decided only on evidence adduced before the court in which the case is pending. 8. In the above circumstances, it follows that the plea of the petitioner for quashing the case cannot be accepted. The point is accordingly decided in the negative and this petition is dismissed. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. April 15, 2011. *BVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR PD Crl.P.No. 3217 of 2011 April 15, 2011.