THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5575 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Gurrala Muni Reddy @Sanna & 4 others … Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its PP & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5575 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 448, 506, 149 I.P.C. in P.R.C.No.7 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mydukur, Kadapa District. The offence took place when the 2nd respondent’s husband is said to have given representation to the Revenue authorities for deletion of names of some voters from the voters list. It is alleged that A1 to A6 trespassed into house of the 2nd respondent and questioned her about whereabouts of her husband and propriety of her husband giving representation to the Revenue authorities for deletion of voters. It is further alleged that A1 caught hold tuft of hair of the 2nd respondent and dragged her outside the house and that A2 to A6 hurled bombs and beat the 2nd respondent and threatened her. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against A1 only and did not file charge sheet against a2 to A6. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed Protest Petition before Magistrate, who after enquiry in which the 2nd respondent and four other witnesses were examined, took the case on file for the above offences as against A2 to A6 also. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when the allegation is hurling of bombs, the lower Court should not have taken cognizance of the offences against A2 to A6 without taking on file for the offence under the Explosive Substances Act. The question of taking cognizance of the case for the offences under the Explosive Substances Act may not arise because there is no sanction for prosecution for the offences under the said Act. When there is legal bar for taking cognizance of the offences under the Explosive Substances Act without sanction, there is no legal bar for taking cognizance of the offences under I.P.C. for consequences flowed from throwing of bombs. As per the allegations of the 2nd respondent and her witnesses, A2 to A6 trespassed into the 2nd respondent’s house and also beat her and threatened her. In that view of the matter, taking cognizance of the case against A2 to A6 for the above offences is not in any way contrary to law. At the same time, it is for the trial Court to decide whether the version given by the 2nd respondent and her witnesses during trial is true or not having regard to the evidence to be let in by all the parties. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 28.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5575 of 2009 DATED: 28.02.2011 ysk