IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7927 OF 2007 Between: Nadisetti Prasada Rao and others … PETITIONERS And The State of Andhra Pradesh and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7927 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3/A2 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 485, 486 and 120B I.P.C. along with five others in C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. They filed Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2007 in the lower Court for their discharge and the lower Court dismissed the said petition holding that there is material produced by the prosecution by way of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and also panchanamas. 2. In this criminal petition it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that initiation of the complaint itself is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as the private complaint was filed by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who claims to be an Advocate and Press Reporter, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate - cum - I Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam and that the said Court being a sessions Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same as per Section 193 Cr.P.C. and equally has no power to refer the complaint to the police for the purpose of investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in the District whether Additional Sessions Judge or otherwise, does not cease to be Magistrate. He is the head of Magistracy in the District. Since the private complaint was presented before him under Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C., he had chosen to refer the same to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Section 156 Cr.P.C. speaks about a Magistrate only and does not specify whether such Magistrate should be of the First Class or of the Second Class or the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Any Magistrate whether of the First Class or Second Class or the Chief Judicial Magistrate is entitled to refer a private complaint disclosing cognizable offence to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 3. It is contended that this Court in Crl.P.No.1526 of 2005 by order, dated 19.07.2006, quashed proceedings against A1 for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. At this stage, a reference to facts of the case becomes relevant. A1 is the then Municipal Commissioner of Machilipatnam Municipality. A2 to A4 are suppliers of electrical bulbs to the said Municipality as per order given by A1. Alleging that A1 should not have ordered for private supply of electric bulbs to others and should have ordered HMT Company for supply of electrical bulbs as per Circulars of the Government, the de facto complainant filed the private complaint alleging conspiracy and other offences causing loss to Municipal funds. Simply because A1 exonerated himself from the criminal liability for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are A2 to A4 cannot claim the same benefit to themselves, because they are neither public servants not Government servants. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even in departmental enquiry A1 was exonerated. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot consider the effect of A1's discharge from departmental proceedings. If that fact is relevant, it is open to the petitioners to urge the said fact before the lower Court during trial, after placing record relating to the same. Thus, there are no grounds in this petition to give relief to any of the petitioners from C.C.No.1 of 2002 pending in the lower Court. 4. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7927 OF 2007 July 23, 2010