THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.6331 of 2009 15th March, 2010 Between :- Balla Srinivas Rao .. Petitioner – A.2 And State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the S.H.O., Kattangur Police Station, Nalgonda District, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Respondent-Complainant THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.6331 of 2009 ORDER;- Heard the Counsel. 2. Sri Nagendra Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner – A.2 having taken this Court through the grounds specifically raised in the Criminal Petition would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition to be allowed and the proceedings are to be quashed. The learned Counsel also placed “No Due Certificate” before this Court. 3. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the specific allegations made in the charge- sheet, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 4. It is stated that the petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C.No.170/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner – A.2 worked as Village Secretary of Kattangur village from 5-2-92 to 31-12-2001. Later he had been transferred to Jameelpet village of Bibinagar Mandal. At the time of transfer, the petitioner handed over the entire records to the MRO. The MRO issued “No Due Certificate” to the petitioner. Later the petitioner joined in the new place at Jameelpet village and working there. 5. Further it is stated that as the matter stand thus, the police filed chargesheet against the petitioner and others ft offence under Section 409 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the chargesheet that the RDO, Nalgonda and MRO, Kottangur inspected the house of A.1 on 28-8-2003 and found revenue records in the house of A.1 which are supposed to be in the safe custody of Record Assistant in the MRO Office, Kattangur. A.1 is not the Revenue employee. The against against the petitioner is that he handed over the records to A.1. 6. It is also stated that the allegation made against the petitioner in the chargesheet is absolutely false. Admittedly, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Village Secretary of Kattangur village on 31- 12-2001. The MRO issued No-Due Certificate. After 1 year and 9 months i.e., on 28-8-2003, the ROD & MRO raided the house of A.1 and found possession of revenue records. The complaint was lodged on 6-9-2003. The same revenue records are supposed to be in the custody of A.3. Even before giving the complaint, the MRO submitted a report dt.4-9-2003 to the RDO stating that all the records in which the receipt has been issued to the petitioner are in the Office and there is no misappropriation of amount by the petitioner as there is no balance amount outstanding against the Kattangur village towards land revenue. 7. Further it is stated that the petitioner handed over entire records on 31-12-2001 itself and obtained No Due Certificate and the said records are supposed to be in the custody of A.3 and the MRO. The investigation and material do not show how the petitioner handed over the records to A.1 evenafter relieving from the said post prior to 20 months back. Admittedly, there is no allegation that the petitioner misappropriated the amount. The material on record do not disclose that the revenue records seized from the possession of A.1 were entrusted to the petitioner on earlier occasion and thus the records are in the custody of the petitioner. Therefore the allegations in the chargesheet did not make out the ingredients of Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. For these reasons, any further proceedings against the petitioner before the Court below is abuse of process of law. 8. This Court had carefully gone through the allegations made in the chargesheet and also the No Due Certificate placed before this Court. These factual controversies cannot be gone into at this stage may be that these grounds may be urged by the petitioner at the appropriate stage. 9. With the aforesaid liberty, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 15th March, 2010 smr