THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3151 of 2007 Dated:22nd July, 2010 Between: Dr.K.Rama Mohan Rao ….Petitioner/A1 and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3151 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out by Dr.K.Rama Mohan Rao under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.54 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompet, Srikakulam District. 2. The petitioner is A1 in Sessions Case No.54 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Juddge, Sompet, Srikakulam District. He is the proprietor of Kranthi Granite Quarry. A2 Armugam Kumaraswamy and A3 Ramaswamy Salvaraj are the persons engaged by the petitioner to carry on quarrying operations in the leased land. On 19.11.2000, the Inspector of Police, Tekkali, inspected the quarry situated at Lingalavalasa village in Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District and noticed A2 and A3 attending blasting operations with explosive and explosive substances. He seized the explosives and explosive substances under the cover of occurrence report and registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2000 of Tekkali Police Station. During the course of investigation, he arrested A5 Battula Sekhar and seized explosive substances material under the cover of mediator report on 01.12.2000. After completing investigation, he laid a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.3 of 2002 and committed the same to the Court of Session, Srikakulam and thereupon, the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam took the case on file as Sessions Case No.54 of 2003 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompet, for disposal according to law. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioner with the prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents- State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possessed valid lease of the quarry and he never used explosive substances in the quarry. A further submission has been made that A2 and A3 are not engaged by the petitioner. He would also contend that the petitioner is residing far away from the quarry and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any activities of A2 and A3. The learned counsel by referring seizure panchanama relating to A4, submits that recovery of ordinary detonators numbering 90 from the pant pocket appears to be unnatural. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that the police after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet and the case is pending trial on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompet, and it is for the petitioner to face trial and plead his defence that the persons from whom detonators seized are not the employees of him. 6. I have gone through the charge-sheet, occurrence report and panchanama dated 01.12.2000. The Inspector of Police visited the quarry belonging to the petitioner and found A2 and A3 attending blasting operations. On enquiry, A2 and A3 failed to produce any record with regard to their possessing licence for using the explosive substances. The question whether the petitioner engaged A2 and A3 is required to be examined by the trial Court. Therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in Sessions case No.54 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sopmpet, Srikakulam District, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 01.05.2007 shall stand vacated. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd July, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3151 of 2007 Dated:22nd July, 2010