HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1343 OF 2004 Date: 14-07-2011 Between: A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Secretary, King Koti Road, Hyderabad. - - - Petitioner/ Complainant. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1343 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 17-02-1994 in C.C. No.6 of 1993 in L.G.C. No.8 of 1991 on the file of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition), Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : L.G.C. No.8 of 1991 was filed to declare the respondents therein as land grabbers and to induct the applicant in the possession of the petition schedule property and for other reliefs, and, after detailed consideration of the matter, by judgement dated 17-08-1993, the Land Grabbing Case was allowed against the respondents 2 to 18, 20 to 24, 26 to 42, 44 to 73, 75 to 78 and 80 to 96 holding them as land grabbers and directing them to deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the authorities of A.P. Wakf Board within a month from the date of order, after removing existing constructions thereon also with a direction that in the event of the said respondents not delivering the vacant possession of the petition schedule property as ordered, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam had to take steps to evict those respondents and to report compliance, whereas the petition against the respondent No.22 therein was dismissed. Further, it was observed that in the event of respondent No.22 being in the possession of any portion of the petition schedule property, he should also be evicted, and a further direction was given to initiate criminal proceedings against the Respondent No.1/accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 (3) read with Section 4 (1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. As such, the present private complaint is filed against the Accused herein on 17-08-1993 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition), Hyderabad. 3. Before the trial Court, though sufficient time was given for supplying documents to the accused and for recording the evidence of the complainant, neither the complainant nor any witnesses were present, and, ultimately, by the impugned judgement dated 17-02-1994, the trial Court discharged the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. with an observation that because no evidence was produced, the further procedure to be followed was the one prescribed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 4. On the last occasion i.e., on 01-07-2011, the matter was directed to be posted “for orders” and today despite the matter being listed under the caption “for orders”, there is no representation for the complainant/Revision Petitioner. However, in the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the lower Court erroneously discharged the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on account of non-production of evidence on behalf of the complainant at 12-45 noon, and the Court ought to have waited up to 05-00 p.m. for doing so, and in fact, the complainant took time up to 17-02-1994 for getting and examining a witness because the witness was busy, which fact was brought to the notice of the lower Court, but no positive steps were taken by the lower Court. 5. The point for consideration is, whether there are any grounds to uphold the claim of the complainant? 6. I have gone through the record. The contents of the record clearly show that the complaint was filed on 17-08-1993 and the matter was posted to 20-12-1993 and from there to 27-01-1994 and from there to 17-02-1994, on which date the matter was initially called at 10-30 a.m., and then learned Government Pleader requested to pass over the matter claiming that no witnesses attended by then and again the matter was called at 12- 45 noon, but then there was no representation on behalf of the complainant. Further, the trial Court observed that the maximum punishment which could be imposed under Section 12 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 12 of 1982 is 5 years and consequently the case was treated as a private warrant case and as no evidence was produced, by following the procedure under Section 245 Cr.P.C., the accused was discharged under Section 245 Cr.P.C. 7. The circumstances enumerated ample establish that in spite of giving sufficient time or number of adjournments, to commence and proceed with the trial of the case, no positive steps were taken on behalf of the complainant. Further, already 17 to 18 years lapsed from the date of taking cognisance of the matter and no useful purpose may be served by taking a lenient view of the matter. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in the case and accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 14h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 202 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1343 OF 2004 July, 14, 2011 DSH