THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.547 OF 2009 DATED: 18-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of further proceedings in C.C.No.289 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-A5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. 2nd respondent-plaintiff is stated to be no more. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-A5 along with others is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC in C.C.No.289 of 2007. 4. According to the prosecution, on 06-11-2005 at about 06.15 p.m. a lorry bearing No.AP-02-T-8434 was found plying on Kanaganapalli-Puttaparthy road and on seeing the police party, the driver and cleaner of the lorry abandoned the vehicle and ran away and on suspicion the Circle Inspector of police examined the lorry and found that it was loaded with 300 rice packets and the same was seized under panchanama in the presence of mediators. It is stated that during the course of investigation it was revealed that the 300 bags of rice, each containing 50 kgs of rice, which was meant for ‘food of work’ scheme was being illegally diverted and transported by the accused. 5. A perusal of the charge sheet does not disclose any reference to A5 nor the role played by A5 in the alleged illegal transportation of the rice, except stating that A5 is still absconding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-A5 has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he has nothing to do with the transportation of the rice or seizure of the same by the police nor with the lorry. Even according to the prosecution, one A.V.Ramana Reddy was the registered owner of the lorry as on the date of the alleged offence, but the said Ramana Reddy is not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the confessional statement of the driver, petitioner-A5 is the owner of the lorry. 8. Except the alleged confessional statement of the driver of the lorry, who is A1, there is absolutely no material gathered during the course of investigation to show that the petitiner-A5 was the owner of the lorry. On the other hand, even according to the prosecution, it was one Ramana Reddy who was the registered owner of the lorry. The said Ramana Reddy is stated to have filed Crl.M.P.No.2277 of 2005 before the trial Court for release of the said vehicle on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle and the trial Court by order, dated 25-11-2005, directed release of the lorry in favour of the said Ramana Reddy imposing certain conditions. 9. In the circumstances, as the charge sheet does not contain any allegation, whatsoever, against the petitioner-A5 and no role or overt acts are attributed to the petitioner-A5, attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence, even prima facie, and as Ramana Reddy is stated to be the owner of the said lorry, it is held that the further proceedings against the petitioner- A5 in C.C.No.289 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, Anantapur District, are not sustainable. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings against the petitioner-A5. Accordingly, further proceedings against the petitioner-A5 in C.C.No.289 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, Anantapur District are quashed. However, proceedings against the other accused can go on. 10. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th November, 2010. Tsy