quashing of criminal case Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. = It was held that in order to attract the clause secondly under Section 464 IPC, the alteration of a document has to be for some gain or for some objective of the accused. = The first ground, on which quash is sought for, is that the petitioner is not the person who signed on the disputed letter and the person, who signed on the said letter, is not brought to book for the alleged offence and this petitioner is only Secretary and Correspondent, who handed over the letter to the AICTE, without knowing as to whether the said letter is genuine or forged. The second ground is that the AICTE, in fact, was not mislead by the letter given by the petitioner. There was another letter given by the Andhra Bank, sanctioning Rs.5 crores and the said amount would satisfy the requirements of AICTE for granting approval. = A perusal of the said letter shows that it was not signed by the petitioner and he is not the applicant. Hence, from the said angle also, strength is gained to the petitioners pleas and the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be sustained.- the Apex Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. , wherein the facts are that the accused is alleged to have altered dates in the certified copy of revenue record. It was held that in order to attract the clause secondly under Section 464 IPC, the alteration of a document has to be for some gain or for some objective of the accused. It was also held that merely changing a document does not make it a false document. The Supreme Court considered that adding of figure 1 in the date in document, in question, cannot be said that the document became false for the simple reason that the appellant/accused had nothing to gain from the same and she was not going to save the bar of limitation.

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI   

CRLP.No.1778 of 2013 

20-12-2017

D.B.Suresh Babu  PETITIONER   

State, represented by SHO, Kavali Rural P.S., rep. by Public Prosecutor and another... RESPONDENTS 

Counsel for Petitioners:MR. N.BHARAT BABU   

Counsel for Respondent  :       PUBLIC PROSECUTOR     

<GIST   :

>HEAD NOTE:   

? Cases referred:
1.AIR 2010 SC 840 

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI   

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1778 of 2013   

ORDER: 

        This petition is filed seeking for quashment of the
proceedings against the petitioner  in C.C.No.528 of 2012 on the
file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.  The
offences alleged are under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420
IPC.

2.      Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.  None appears for
respondent No.2 in spite of notice.

3.      The complaint is filed against the petitioner with the
following allegations:
        The petitioner intended to establish Engineering College at
Maddurupadu Village of Kavali Mandal.  As per the norms laid
down in clause 13.5 of All India Counsel for Technical Education
(AICTE), a new Engineering and Technology College is required
to have funds of Rs.1 crore for building and Rs.1 crore for
equipment and Library, at its disposal, for stating a new college,
besides an amount of Rs.35 lakhs  in Joint FDR. The accused,
who was having meagre amount in the current account of Indian
Bank, Kavali Branch, Kavali, on behalf of the Society i.e..,
D.S.Naidu Educational Society, orchestrated a plan to create
forged documents.  In pursuance of his plan, he created forged
document i.e., letter, dated 24.12.2008, purportedly issued by
the Indian bank, Kavali Branch, addressed to the Member
Secretary, AICTE, New Delhi, certifying that M/s.Damisetty
Srinivasa Naidu Educational Society, Kavali was having balance
of Rs.2,46,34,500/- in their Current Account, in support of its
fund position and also created some other forged documents in
respect of his account.  The accused enclosed copy of the said
forged letter dated 24.12.2008 issued by the Indian Bank, for
grant of approval.  The application was forwarded and believing
the said documents, approval was given after hearing the
accused.   A fake letter purportedly issued by the Indian Bank
dated 23.02.2009 was also produced by the accused, wherein it
was certified that their Society had balance of Rs.1,89,76,600/-.
The accused obtained consent letter from Andhra Bank, Kavali
Branch, in which LW5 provisionally agreed to sanction a loan of
Rs.5 Crores.  Having believed the said documents, the letter of
approval was given on 30.06.2009.  Later, a case was registered
at CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam, on the allegation that some 
unknown officers of AICTE, in collusion with the management of
the Educational Societies, granted approval for establishment of
Engineering Colleges and CBI submitted a report to the higher
authorities of AICTE for taking necessary steps to lodge a
complaint against the Secretary and Correspondent.

4.      Now the argument of the petitioners counsel is two fold.
The first ground, on which quash is sought for, is that the
petitioner is not the person who signed on the disputed letter
and the person, who signed on the said letter, is not brought to
book for the alleged offence and this petitioner is only Secretary
and Correspondent, who handed over the letter to the AICTE,
without knowing as to whether the said letter is genuine or
forged.  The second ground is that the AICTE, in fact, was not
mislead by the letter given by the petitioner.  There was another
letter given by the Andhra Bank, sanctioning Rs.5 crores and the
said amount would satisfy the requirements of AICTE for
granting approval. The said fact is not disputed. The counsel
further submits that the complaint discloses that the sanction of
Rs.5 crores by Andhra Bank was also a basis for sanctioning the
approval and hence, it amounts to the Society fulfilling the
conditions laid down by the AICTE. The counsel also submits that
by the date of getting approval itself, constructions were made
to a large extent and that the college was being run successfully
since 10 years.

5.      The counsel relies on a ruling of the Apex Court in
Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. , wherein the facts are that
the accused is alleged to have altered dates in the certified copy
of revenue record.  It was held that in order to attract the clause
secondly under Section 464 IPC, the alteration of a document
has to be for some gain or for some objective of the accused.  It
was also held that merely changing a document does not make it 
a false document. The Supreme Court considered that adding of
figure 1 in the date in document, in question, cannot be said
that the document became false for the simple reason that the
appellant/accused had nothing to gain from the same and she
was not going to save the bar of limitation.

6.      The facts of this case would also show that there was no
benefit that was gained by the Society for which the petitioner
herein is a Secretary, by submitting the impugned letter given
by the General Manager, which is allegedly a forged letter.  The
AICTE, however, had the security that is given by the Andhra
Bank and hence, this case is also a case similar to the one dealt
with by the Apex Court (referred supra), where no gain is
achieved by the accused by submitting the said letter.  A perusal
of the said letter shows that it was not signed by the petitioner
and he is not the applicant. Hence, from the said angle also,
strength is gained to the petitioners pleas and
the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

7.      With the above observations, the Criminal petition is
allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.528 of 2012 on the file of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, against the
petitioner, shall stand quashed.

        As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
__________ 
T. RAJANI, J
December 20, 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.