HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASES No:2075, 2162, 2163 & 2164 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are directed against the orders dated 25.10.2010 in Crl.M.P.Nos.50, 51, 58 and 59 of 2010 in C.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. CID, A.P., registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2009 against the petitioners herein and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC. In view of the magnitude of the offence, the said case was referred to CBI for the purpose of proper investigation and the CBI after completion of detailed investigation filed three charge sheets against the petitioners and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 419, 467,468, 471, 477- A and 201 of IPC. On 9.4.2009, the 14th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, had taken cognizance of the same and numbered as C.C.No.187 of 2009. As the record is voluminous and there are about 400 witnesses, a Special Court is constituted to try this case exclusively and thus, it was transferred to XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and renumbered as C.C.No.1 of 2010. Before the charges were framed, the petitioners herein filed applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.50, 51, 58 and 59 of 2010 under section 239 Cr.P.C. stating that even by a reading of the entire charge sheet, no offence under section 467 IPC is made out and as such, they may be discharged insofar as the offence punishable under section 467 IPC is concerned. The learned XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, after considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and also the contents of the charge sheet, dismissed the said applications by orders dated 25.10.2010. The same are questioned in these revisions under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel tried to impress upon this Court stating that the contents in the charge sheet do not fall within the ambit of valuable security as defined under Section 30 of IPC. When there is no valuable security, the question of framing charge under section 467 IPC does not arise, whereas Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that subsequent to the orders impugned herein, the Court below framed as many as 22 charges, proceeded with the trial and examined as many as 125 witnesses as of now. It is his further submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the said case as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31st July, 2011. Heard. Having regard to the said submission made by the learned Special Public prosecutor that the charges were already framed, 125 witnesses were examined and further there is a specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to decide the case at the earliest preferably on or before 31st July, 2011, this Court is of the view that it may not be necessary to go into the contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel and further, even if this Court finds that the said charge viz., Section 467 IPC is bad, in my considered view, the petitioners will not have any relief for the reason that the trial Court has to proceed insofar as the other charges are concerned. In those circumstances, I see no merits in these revisions and accordingly, these revisions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these Criminal Revisions Cases are dismissed. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 15.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASES No:2075, 2162, 2163 & 2164 OF 2010 15.2.2011