Goondla Venkateswarlu vs State Of A.P. & Anr

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

The officials went to the premises at 5 p.m. on 24.10.1994. In the same business premises, the documents and business stocks relating to Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were also noticed. During the inspection, the son of the respondent no.2 alongwith one Sri. Kasanagottu Satyanarayana said to be one of the partners of Sri Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were available.

3 The slips were not seized by the appellant but they were submitted on their own by the owners of the business. Since the accounts books were not written by them, these slips were filed before the appellant for a subsequent examination, which was on their own volition.

On three dates, i.e. 7.11.1994, 15.11.1994 and 25.11.1994, the son of the respondent no.2 and Kasanagottu Satyanarayan came to the office of the appellant but failed to 4 give any proper explanation for the business transaction. Thereafter the matter had been taken up and best judgment assessment was completed.

After a period of three months after the inspection, i.e. on 24.1.1995, the respondent no.2 herein filed a complaint for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 380, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Karimnagar, stating that the appellant along with his subordinate, have taken away the bill books, cheque books, records and also Indira Vikas Patras (for short `IVPs') worth Rs.2 lacs forcibly without giving any acknowledgement and without conducting panchanama duly intimidating his son and forcibly taking the signatures of his son on white papers with an intention to extract Rs.3 lacs.

In the complaint it was mentioned that the shop-cum- residence was inspected on 24.10.1994 and the time of inspection was 7 - 9.30 p.m. 5 In the sworn statement he mentioned it as 3 p.m. as the time of inspection.

After a thorough enquiry the police filed a final report on 18.9.1995 that the complaint itself is a false complaint.

However, the police report was objected to by the complainant as wrong and incorrect and that it is without any proper investigation.

The appellant had appeared from time to time before the learned Magistrate and it was pointed out that the said complaint itself is false and in any case process ought not to have been issued since there was specific bar contained under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short `the Act') read with Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

The appellant herein along with the other officials preferred a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 37 of the Act read with Section 197 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

During the course of the hearing it was pointed out to the High Court that Crl.M.P. No.54/1997 has been filed by the appellant and others before the learned Magistrate under Section 37 of the Act read with Section 197 of Cr.P.C. seeking dismissal of the complaint. The High Court disposed of the Crl.O.P. No.4006 of 1997 directing the learned Additional Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Karimnagar to dispose of the Crl.M.P. No.54 of 1997 within a period of 3 months. Subsequently the mistake of the fact that the application itself has been dismissed for default on 21.4.1997 came to the knowledge of the appellant. The mistake has occurred since there was communication gap between the appellant and his counsel at trial court since the appellant has been transferred to various places subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint.

8 Therefore, the appellant herein filed a fresh Crl.O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court pointing the aforesaid facts and seeking the quashing of the complaint. This was numbered as Crl. Petition No.5218/2001.

13. As the factual scenario goes to show the proceedings were nothing but abuse of the process of law.

14. In view of what is stated in Section 37 of the Act and the ratio in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The proceedings in CC No.356/96 pending before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar stand quashed.

The appeal is allowed.