HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9146 OF 2010 DATE: 13.09.2010 BETWEEN: Konda Lokeswara Rao .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9146 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2008, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases. The brief facts necessary for disposing of the present criminal petition are as follows: K.Siva Prasada Rao/A1, who is a retired Divisional Forest Officer was charge sheeted by the ACB on the ground of possessing disproportionate assets worth Rs.65,75,062/-. The allegation in annexure II, abstract of income from agriculture is shown in column 8 as Rs.3,02,000/-, which is said to be from the lands possessed by the wife of the first accused at Devudala Village of Regidi, Amudalavalsa Mandal and Bukkuru Village of Palakonda Mandal. It is stated that the petitioner/A2 issued agricultural income certificate dated 20.02.2006 in the name of Smt. Chudamani, wife of the first accused for an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- from her lands at Bukkuru Village for the years from 1982 to 2005 on the basis of report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector I, Palakonda Mandal, who is the accused No.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 that the petitioner got promotion as Mandal Revenue Officer on 14.11.1999 and worked as such at Ponduru, later at Amadalavalasa and at Palakonda till 27.01.2005. While such was the position, it is said that issuing of agricultural income certificate dated 20.03.2006 for the agricultural lands situated at Bukuru Village which falls within Palakonda Mandal for the years 1982 to 2005 does not arise at all and it is unrealistic. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the so called agricultural income certificate was said to have been issued on the report of Y.V.Padmavathi-A4, Mandal Revenue Inspector, who joined in Revenue Department on 06.12.1986 as typist and worked as such from 06.12.1986 to 30.06.2005 at various places and therefore she could not have submitted report prior to 20.02.2006. Contending as such, the learned counsel submits that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are therefore without any basis and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases would submit that the same can only be decided at the time of trial after adducing evidence by both the parties and this is not a case wherein the proceedings are liable to be quashed. He relied upon a decision reported in STATE OF M.P. v. AWADH KISHORE GUPTA AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Supreme Court held that the approach of the High Court in quashing the investigation and the proceedings acting upon the documents annexed to the petition under Section 482 is not proper and it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which was essentially a matter for trial. Accordingly the Supreme Court, set aside the order of the High Court. The case before the Supreme Court is also under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, in the present case, assuming for a moment that the petitioner ought not to have issued such a certificate, even though he was not acting as M.R.O at a particular place mentioned above at the relevant point of time, the said fact has to be proved by the prosecution by adducing evidence. It is impermissible while acting under Section 482 Cr.P.C to conclude that the version of the prosecution is unrealistic and the proceedings under the charge sheet are liable to be quashed. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the criminal petition are only limited for the purpose of disposal of this criminal petition and it is made clear that they have no bearing on the trial Court before which the matter is pending for trial. On the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, there are no merits to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2008, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam and consequently the criminal petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 13.09.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9146 OF 2010 DATE: 13.09.2010 [1] (2004) 1 SCC 691