IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION No. 4 5 5 8 OF 2010 Between: Abdul Hafeez & Anr. … Petitioners – A1 & A2 V/s. The State, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D. GOVERDHANA CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION No.4 5 5 8 OF 2010 O R D E R : The petitioners 1 and 2 – A1 and A3 are accused of offences punishable under sections 420 and 465 IPC in Cr.No.46 of 2010 of Kalwakurthy Police Station. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners obtained photostat copies of original ration card of the second respondent-defacto complainant and his father representing that their names will be included in Rural Employment Scheme and job cards will be obtained, but they misused the same by enclosing them to a petition filed with forged signatures of the defacto complainant before R & B authorities seeking information under the Right to Information Act. Similarly the petitioners obtained Photostat copies of several other ration cards of other villages and gave forged petitions under the Right to Information Act. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no harm was done to the defacto complainant or any other villager by using photostat copies of ration cards and that no property is involved in this case. It is further stated that the petitioners are social activists and that they filed the petition under the Right to Information Act on behalf of encroachers in order to file public interest litigation. It is also stated that the second respondent gave affidavit to the effect that he did not give any such report to the police. 5. Affidavits are no pieces of evidence in criminal law. It is for the second respondent to approach the police and give statement to that effect, so that the Investigating Officer would record his further statement or second statement and proceed on the basis of such statement. Under the name of social activism, the above alleged activity cannot be undertaken. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to stall the investigation at its threshold. It is not known what further circumstances would come to surface during investigation. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu.. 02-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO. 4 5 5 8 OF 2010 Circulation Entry No. 2 7 Date: 02-06-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L