IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15039 of 2008 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.457 & 458 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.15039 of 2008 Between: 1 M. Satyanarayana Raju S/o M. v. Raju R/o Dumpagadapa, Akivedu mandal, West Godavari District, 2 G. Krishna Mohan Rao @ Babu s/o Rammohan Rao R/o NGO's Colony, Kaikalur, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS And 1 The Union of India, rep by its Secretary law and Legislative Affairs, New Delhi. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by itsPrl. Secrtary Home (Legal II) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad Hyderabad. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Yerneni Raja Ramchander @ Rajababu, S/o Venkata nageswara Rao MLA, Kaikalur Assembly Constituency, Kaikalur, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to protect the 4th respondent, who has misappropriated the public funds to the tune of Rs.4,14,566/- by fabricated documents and cheating, from being prosecuted for the offences committed under Sec. 420, 463, 468 and 471, r/w. Sec. 120 B of IPC, by issuing consecutive G.Os., ie., G.O.Rt. No. 1617, Home (Legal.II) department dt 3-11-2007 and G.O.Rt. No. 407, Home (Legal.II) Department, dt 5-3-2008 and tampering with the course of justice by getting file consecutive petitions to withdraw the prosecution and interdicting the due process of law by invoking the power conferred on them under Section 321 of the Criminal procedure code, 1973 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, irrational, whimsical, and unconstitutional apart from contrary to the doctrine of Rule of law and a blatant attack on the criminal justice system of this country and is the result of favouritism and based on collateral, extraneous, political and partisan considerations and violative of aRt. 14 of the Constitution of India, after declaring Section 321 of the Criminal procedure, code 1973 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Rule of Law and contrary to the Doctrine of Separation of powers and has the effect of scuttling the judicial process by enabling the State Executive to interfere with the adjudicative process and a constitutional anachronism and a colonial legislation which is not in conformity iwth the Constitution of India and consequentially set a side G.O.Rt. No. 407 Home (Legal.II) Department, dt 5-3-2008 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY (ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.K.SURESH REDDY Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.457 of 2008 (Criminal Revision case under Section 397 and 401 Cr.p.c against the order of the VI Additional Chief Metropoltian Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2008 in CC.No. 392 of 2006, dated 17th day of March ,2008) Between: 1 Y.Raja Ramachandar, (A-1) Krishna District. 2 J.Veeraswamy,(A-2) R/o. Peyyuru, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS And 1 The Additional Public Prosecutor, in charge of CID Cases, Hyderabad rep by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2 M.Suryachandra Rao, Kaikaluru , Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Form-NIC-OGS/CRLRC{NS} CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.458 of 2008 (Criminal Revision case under Section 397 and 401 Cr.p.c against the order of the VI Additional Chief Metropoltian Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2008 in CC.No. 392 of 2006, dated 17th day of March ,2008) Between: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER And 1 Y.Raja Ramachandar, (A1) Kaikaluru, Krishna Dist. 2 J.Veeraswamy, (A2) R/o Peyyuru, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Form-NIC-OGS/CRLRC{TSN} The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15039 of 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.457 & 458 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Common issues arise in these three cases, rendering them amenable to a conjoined disposal. Presently, the writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is as hereunder: “… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to protect the 4th Respondent, who has misappropriated the public funds to the tune of Rs.4,14,566/- by fabricated documents and cheating, from being prosecuted for the offences committed under Sec.420, 463, 468 and 471, r/w. Sec.120 B of IPC, by issuing consecutive G.Os., i.e. G.O.Rt.No.1617, Home (Legal.II) Department, dt.3.11.2007 and G.O.Rt.No.407, Home (Legal.II) Department, dt.5.3.2008 and tampering with the course of justice by getting filed consecutive petitions to withdraw the prosecution and interdicting the due process of law by invoking the power conferred on them under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, irrational, whimsical, and unconstitutional, apart from contrary to the doctrine of Rule of Law and a blatant attack on the criminal justice system of this country and is the result of favouritism and based on collateral, extraneous, political and partisan considerations and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India, after declaring Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Rule of Law and contrary to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and has the effect of scuttling the judicial process by enabling the State Executive to interfere with the adjudicative process and a constitutional anachronism and a colonial legislation which is not in conformity with the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside G.O.Rt.No.407, Home (Legal.II) Department, dt.5.3.2008 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The first petitioner in the writ petition, a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering and an active member of the Congress Party, claims to be deeply involved in public service. Likewise, the second petitioner, a graduate in Commerce and an active member of the Congress Party, is stated to be a public-spirited citizen interested in the public good. It is the case of the petitioners that Yerneni Raja Ramchander, MLA, Kaikalur Assembly Constituency, Krishna District, the fourth respondent in the writ petition, misappropriated public monies to the tune of Rs.4,14,566/- by way of fabricated documents and cheating. The first petitioner made a representation on 24.07.2004 to the Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in this regard. Thereafter he, along with one M.Surya Chander Rao, filed W.P.No.15879 of 2004 before this Court seeking institution of an enquiry into the alleged misappropriation. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.08.2005, recording the assurance given by the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh that the Government had decided to get a case registered against the fourth respondent. This Court expressed the hope that the investigation by the Police would be carried out strictly in accordance with law, and observing that no further orders needed to be passed, the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the first petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1419 of 2005 alleging violation of the order dated 09.08.2005 in W.P.No.15879 of 2004. This Court passed an order on 22.12.2005 in the said case, taking note of the submission that 24 more witnesses were required to be examined by the investigating officer, and granted three months time to him to complete the investigation and submit his report before the appropriate Court. It appears that the Contempt Case was closed thereafter by order dated 27.03.2006. On a complaint filed by M.Surya Chander Rao before the Director General of Police, a criminal case was registered against the fourth respondent and another, in Crime No.18 of 2005 under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471 read with 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation in Crime No.18 of 2005, a charge sheet was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and the said case was taken on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad as C.C.No. 392 of 2006. The first petitioner is L.W.2 and the second petitioner is L.W.9 in the criminal proceedings. M.Surya Chander Rao, the other petitioner in W.P.No.15879 of 2004 and the complainant in Crime No. 18 of 2005, is arrayed as the complainant in C.C.No.392 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.No.15879 of 2004, being the first petitioner herein and M.Surya Chander Rao, filed W.P.No.5486 of 2007 before this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the authorities in initiating prompt and proper penal action against the fourth respondent. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice passed an interim order dated 12.06.2007 in W.P.No.5486 of 2007 which is extracted hereunder: “We have gone through report dated 11.06.2007 sent by VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The adjournment of case for eight months and three days is prima facie indicative of the non-seriousness on the part of the judicial officer to expeditiously deal with the case involving the accusation of cheating, fraud etc., by a representative of the public. Without making further comments, we direct VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to complete the trial of the case within three months commencing from 30.07.2007. If necessary, the learned trial Judge should take up the matter on day-to-day basis and conduct the proceedings. If the Public Prosecutor concerned shows slackness in assisting the Court, it will be open to the concerned Magistrate to send a written information to this effect to this Court. The judicial officer should also send weekly reports on the progress of the case and the case shall be listed on every Friday for considering whether the direction given by the Court is being complied with in its true spirit. Put up on 07.08.2007.” Pursuant to the said order, progress report dated 14.09.2007 was sent by the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to this Court and upon perusal of the same, the writ petition was adjourned to 03.10.2007 by order dated 20.09.2007, directing the Judicial Officer to send a report on the further progress in the case, by October 1, 2007. During the pendency of W.P.No.5486 of 2007, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.1617, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 03.11.2007, stating that it had decided to withdraw the prosecution against the fourth respondent in C.C.No.392 of 2006 and the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, was requested to instruct the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned to file a petition under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. for withdrawing the prosecution against the fourth respondent, under intimation to the Government. G.O.Rt.No.1617 dated 03.11.2007 reads as hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Police – Withdrawal of Prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA Kaikaluru in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w.120 (B) IPC of CID Police Station Hyderabad – in C.C.No.392/06 of VIth Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad – Orders – Issued. HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT G.O.Rt.No.1617 Dated: 3.11.2007 Read the following: 1) Representation of Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA, Kailkaluru, dt.12.10.07 2) Report of Ethics Committee of Twelfth Legislative Assembly. ***** ORDER: Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA, Kaikaluru, in his representation 1st read above, has stated that he was falsely implicated by his P.A. in the case relating to claim of medical reimbursement amount from Government. He has further stated that the Ethics Committee of 12th Legislative Assembly, has recommended to drop the case against him and requested the Government for withdrawal of the case against him in C.C.No.392/2006 at VIth Addl.Chief Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w 120(B) of CID Police Station, Hyderabad 2. The Ethics Committee of 12th Legislative Assembly in its 1st report, dated:7.10.2007, observed that the Committee after obtaining the information about the good conduct and good character of the Hon’ble MLA Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, strongly feels that a hard core cheat, can take advantage of the illiteracy and humiliate a gentlemen. It can serve as a lesson for the representatives of the people to be very careful in affixing their signatures on loose papers at busy hours. 3. The Committee after careful examination came to the conclusion that the written, oral and self critical statement of Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA, where he has tendered apology for the misconduct of his P.A.be appreciated in the interest of moral and ethical standards for Legislators. The whole case of misrepresentation, though incriminating in the eye of Law, deserves to be condoned to uphold the truth of the matter and the spirit of ethics in the public life. 4. As Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA, has submitted his written apology to the Committee and remitted to the Government an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) vide Challan 1234, dated:3.10.2007, towards medical reimbursement claim which was wrongfully obtained for the angioplasty operation of his wife, the Committee recommended to drop the case against Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA. 5. Now, the Government after careful examination of the representation of Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA, Kaikaluru, and also taking into consideration of the report of the Ethics Committee, have decided to accept the recommendations of the Ethics Committee, and, accordingly, decided to withdraw prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramachander, MLA, Kaikaluru, in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w.120(B) of CID Police Station, Hyderabad in C.C.No.392/06 of VIth Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 6. The Collector and Director Magistrate, Hyderabad, is requested to instruct the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned to file petition under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) for withdrawal of prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramachander, MLA, Kaikaluru, in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w.120 (B) of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.392/06 of VIth Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under intimation to Government. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) AJOYENDRA PYAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” In pursuance of the above G.O., an application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.5498 of 2007 in C.C.No.392 of 2006 under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw the case against the fourth respondent. The trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 07.11.2007 holding that there were no convincing reasons forthcoming for withdrawal from the prosecution of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the State and the fourth respondent filed Crl.R.C.Nos.1546 and 1550 of 2007 respectively before this Court. The Revision Cases were dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.12.2007 holding that Crl.M.P.No.5498 of 2007 in C.C.No.392 of 2006 was moved without application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and did not constitute an application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. This Court observed: “the action of the respondents shows that the Government and its functionaries had decided that the case has to be withdrawn at any cost, therefore, we do not think that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, though for different reasons, can be faulted with.” It was further observed that the application had been moved by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the CID and not for himself. Accordingly, this Court set aside G.O.Rt.No.1617 dated 03.11.2007 and upheld the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the matter. After monitoring the case before the trial Court for some time, this Court by order dated 25.02.2008 disposed of W.P.No.5486 of 2007, taking note of the directions given by this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.1546 and 1550 of 2007 on 13.12.2007 and directed that the trial in the case should be concluded as soon as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order. These, then, are the facts that led up to the issuance of the G.O. impugned in the present writ petition. G.O.Rt.No.407, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 05.03.2008 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, referring to the orders of this Court in the Crl.R.Cs. and stating that the Government, after careful examination of the representation of the fourth respondent and taking into consideration the report and recommendation of the Ethics Committee of the 12th Legislative Assembly, had decided to withdraw the prosecution against the fourth respondent and another in Crime No.18 of 2005 in C.C.No.392 of 2006. The Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, was requested to instruct the Public Prosecutor concerned to file a petition under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. for withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused in C.C.No.392 of 2006, under intimation to the Government. G.O.Rt.No.407 dated 05.03.2008 is reproduced hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Police – Withdrawal of Prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramchander and Sri J.Veeraswamy(A2) in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w.120 (B) IPC of CID Police Station Hyderabad in C.C.No.392/06 of VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad – Orders – Issued. HOME (LEGAL.II) DEPARTMENT G.O.Rt.No.407 Dated: 05.03.2008 Read the following: 1) Representation of Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA, Kailkaluru, dt.12.10.07 2) Report of Ethics Committee of Twelfth Legislative Assembly. 3) G.O.Rt.No.1617, Home (Legal.II) Dept., dt.03.11.2007 4) Govt.MemoNo.812/Legal.II/A1/2008-1 dt.23.01.08. 5) From the Addl.DGP, CID, A.P., Hyderabad Lr.C.No.3106/C16/2005, dt.28.01.2008. 6) Govt.Memo No.812/Legal.II/A1/2008 dt.26.02.2008. 7) From the Addl. DGP, CID, A.P., Hyd. Lr.C.No.3106/C16/2005, dt.01.02.2008. ***** ORDER: In the reference 3rd cited above, the Government have issued orders for withdrawal of prosecution against sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA, Kaikaluru in C.C.No.392/2006 at VIth Addl.Chief Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w 120(B) of CID Police Station, Hyderabad 2. The Hon’ble High Court in its common order No.1546 and 1550 of 2007 dt.13.12.2007 has set aside the above order. 3. The Government have further examined the matter carefully and decided to withdraw the prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA (A1) and Sri J.Veeraswamy (A2) in Cr.No.18/05 under Section 468, 171, and 420 read with 120-B of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, on the following grounds: a). The Ethics Committee of 12th Legislative Assembly in its 1st report, dated:7.10.2007, observed that the Committee after obtaining the information about the good conduct and good character of the Hon’ble MLA Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, strongly feels that a hard core cheat, can take advantage of the illiteracy and humiliate a gentlemen. It can serve as a lesson for the representatives of the people to be very careful in affixing their signatures on loose papers at busy hours. b) The Committee after careful examination came to the conclusion that the written, oral and self critical statement of Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA, where he has tendered apology for the misconduct of his P.A.be appreciated in the interest of moral and ethical standards for Legislators. The whole case of misrepresentation, though incriminating in the eye of Law, deserves to be condoned to uphold the truth of the matter and the spirit of ethics in the public life. 4. Accordingly, Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA (A1) has submitted his written apology to the Committee and remitted to the Government an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) vide Challan 1234, dated:3.10.2007, towards medical reimbursement claim which was wrongfully obtained for the angioplasty operation of his wife, the Committee recommended to drop the case against Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA. 5. Now, the Government after careful examination of the representation of Sri Y.Raja Ramchander, MLA, (A1) Kaikaluru, and also taking into consideration of the report of the Ethics Committee, have decided to accept the recommendations of the Ethics Committee, and, accordingly, decided to withdraw prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramachander, MLA, Kaikaluru, in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w.120(B) of CID Police Station, Hyderabad and also decided to withdraw the prosecution against Sri J.Veeraswamy (A2) in Cr,No.18/05 under Section 468, 471 and 420 read with 120-B of CID Police station Hyderabad. 6. The Collector and Director Magistrate, Hyderabad, is requested to instruct the Public Prosecutor concerned to file petition under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) for withdrawal of prosecution against Sri Y.Raja Ramachander, MLA (A1), Kaikaluru and Sri J.Veeraswamy (A2) in Cr.No.18/05 u/s.468, 471 and 420 r/w.120 (B) of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.392/06 of VIth Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under intimation to Government. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) P.V.NAIDU PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” Thereupon, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2008 in C.C.No.392 of 2006 under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. referring to the recommendation of the Ethics Committee, the rejection of the earlier petition filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C., the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.407 dated 05.03.2008, and stating that he, upon going through the material on record, oral and documentary evidence, report and recommendations of the Ethics Committee and on re- appraisal of the facts independently, unhindered or uninfluenced by the dictates of the Executive Authorities, felt that it was a fit case for withdrawal. It is further stated in the petition that the Government in G.O.Rt.No.407 had accepted the pardon (apology?) of Accused No.1, the fourth respondent herein, and thereby pardoned the acts of the accused. It is relevant to note that in this petition prosecution was sought to be withdrawn against both the accused in C.C.No.392 of 2006 and not the fourth respondent alone. This petition was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 17.03.2008, taking note of the fact that a similar petition had been dismissed by it earlier and stating that no satisfactory material had been placed before it to justify withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused in C.C.No.392 of 2006. This order of the trial Court is challenged in Crl.R.C.Nos.457 of 2008 and 458 of 2008. Crl.R.C.No.457 of 2008 is filed by the accused in C.C.No.392 of 2006, while Crl.R.C.No.458 of 2008 is preferred by the State. By interim order dated 26.03.2008, a learned Judge of this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.392 of 2006 for a period of two weeks initially, which was extended thereafter. As the Writ Petition and the Crl.R.Cs. pertain to the same subject matter, we were of the opinion that all the three cases required to be heard together and by order dated 31.03.2009, the matter was directed to be placed before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for necessary orders for clubbing of the cases. Thereupon, the Crl.R.Cs. were tagged on to this writ petition and are being disposed of by way of this common order. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary, Home (Legal) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, second respondent herein, filed its counter stating that the records revealed that the fourth respondent submitted a representation to the effect that he was falsely implicated by his Personal Assistant in the case relating to the claim of medical reimbursement from the Government. The Ethics Committee of the 12th Legislative Assembly had also recommended dropping of the case against the fourth respondent. Accordingly, the fourth respondent had requested the Government to withdraw the case against him in C.C.No.392 of 2006. Reference is made in the counter to the report dated 07.10.2007 of the Ethics Committee, which reads: “… the Committee after obtaining the information about the good conduct and good character of the Hon’ble MLA Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, strongly feels that a hard core cheat, can take advantage of the illiteracy and humiliate a gentlemen. It can serve as a lesson for the representatives of the people to be very careful in affixing their signatures on loose papers at busy hours. The Committee after careful examination came to the conclusion that the written, oral and self critical statement of Sri Y.Raja Ramchandar, MLA, where