IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26911 of 2008 Between: R. Suryaprakash Babu, S/o. R. Gopal Rao, R/o. 40/36/1, Tickle Road, Vijayawada, Patamata Post, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 C.B.I, Rep by Inspector, Range-II, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Court of Hon'ble Spl. Judge for C.B.I. Cases at Visakhapatnam in C.C. No. 11/93 Sri J. Narayana Babu, S/o. Appa Rao, Indian Bank, Moglarajapuram Branch, Vijayawada, r/o. H.No. 401, Satyam Enclave, Main Road, New P & T Colony Patamata, Vijayawada - 532 0010 Krishna District. 4 K. Srinivas Kumar, S/o. Late Mallikarjuna Rao, Proprietor, Vahini Transports, Flat No. 1, Aswini Apartments, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada - 532 0010 .....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 a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Prohibition against the 2nd Respondent Court of the Hon'ble Spl. Judge for C.B.I cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No. 11/99, directions to the 2nd respondent Court to strict adherence to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. vide 2008 (2) ALD (Crl) 591 (SC); (2) CBI Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Vide 1996 (2) ALD (Crl) 546 (SC); (3) Bugdhomal Gangaram Vs. State of Gujarat vide 1984 (1) (SCC) 319 interpreting Section 60 Evidence Act 1860, in exercise of powers vested in this Hon'ble Court per Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India; (ii) To grant or issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Transfer to this Hon'ble Court C.C.No. 11/99 on the file of the 2nd Respondent's Court to decide the substantial question of Law as to the interpretation of the Constitution which is necessary for the disposal of said C.C.No. 11/99 on the file of the 2nd Respondent Court in exercise of the power of Constitution interpretation vested in this Hon'ble Court by Article 228 of the Constitution, the said substantial question being (a) Whether the non following of and the non adherence by subordinate Criminal Courts to the Law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. vide 2008 (2) ALD (Crl) 591 (SC); and (2)j CBI Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Vide 1996 (2) ALD (Crl) 546 (SC); did or did not cause prejudice to the Petitioners/Accused in the nature of abrogation and abnegation of his Fundamental Rights secured to him by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (iii) To Pass or grant as Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of a Writ of Compliance to Article 144 of the Constitution of India to review judicially all judgments of conviction and sentence and fine awarded by the C.B.I., Courts in the State which were passed oblivious to or in derogation of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) Nikhil Merchants Vs. C.B.I., case vide 2008 (2) ALC (Crl.) 591 (SC); (2) C.B.I., Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd., vide 1996 (2) ALC (Crl..,) and to quash all such judgments/orders of conviction, sentence and fine awarded by the C.B.I., Courts for transgressing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases stated above; (iv) And/or in the alternative to quash the complaint and charge sheet in C.C. No. 11/99 on the file of the 2nd Respondent's Court submitted in material documents 2 and 3 and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem just, fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri G. Vidya Sagar The Court made the following : Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.6945 of 2008 under the provisions of Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the Charge Sheet filed against him in C.C. No. 11 of 1999 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, arising out of Crime No. R.C. 21(A)/96-VSP, dated 28.11.1996, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said petition was dismissed without going into the merits of the case and it was observed that the petitioner was at liberty to adduce any defence evidence if he so chooses. The petitioner in the said petition has now filed the present petition due to an apprehension that the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court would not be followed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. In our opinion, this petition is absolutely premature because no final decision has yet been taken in the case, which is pending on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. We do not find any substance in the petition. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 11th December, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY,J pnb