Criminal Petition No. 8446 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners – Accused Nos.11 to 13 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in P.R.C.No.8OF 2010 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, whereby they are arrayed as accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 177, 202 IPC read with 109 IPC read with 34 IPC and Sec.4 of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Heard both sides.

The case of the prosecution is that the first accused applied for registration under AP VAT Act, 2005 for doing business in coconut coir and iron scrap at Narasannapeta through the second accused and accordingly after verification of the said application, A1 was granted VAT Registration Certificate in the year 2006 for doing business in coconut coir only. During the course of business, the second accused filed requisition for waybills on behalf of the first accused and took 900 waybills triplicate from 04.12.2006 to 07.05.2007 department for transporting coconut coir only. Meanwhile, cross check references were received from different officials of Commercial Tax Department furnishing the details of the way bills obtained by A1, which were used for transporting different goods, instead of the goods for which the way bills were issued, causing huge loss to the Government. Hence, the charge.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners- accused submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are the workmen under A1 and A2 on payment of monthly salaries and it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to do the work entrusted to them by their employer. He further contends that there is no specific allegation made against the petitioners in the charge sheet to connect them with the alleged offence.

This Court is of the view that these are all the matters to be decided by the trial Court at the time of trial only and the learned counsel for the petitioners is at liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court and this Court is not inclined to stay the proceedings at this stage.

In any event, considering the nature of offence and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except the dates on which the learned Magistrate insists for their appearance and they shall be properly represented through their counsel.

With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 19th September 2011, Rns.