The Government of Kerala had made repeated requests to the Central Government in the Department of Personnel and Training for grant of sanction for prosecution of Shri P.J. Thomas.
However, soon thereafter on January 31, 2002, the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking permission to withdraw the case in the interest of justice.
The Sessions Judge on December 26, 2011 gave permission to the trial judge to declare the case being CC No.
There is numbermention that the investigating officer ever tried to obtain from the companyrt warrants of arrest or processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for apprehending the accused.
55 of 1981 under Sections 147, 342, 427 and 324 of the Penal Code.
But, a policeman put out the burning cloth and the bus was saved from any further damage.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the evidence of the prosecution may be closed.
75/87 and was later renumbered as CC No.
Finally by judgment and order dated July 4, 1988, the trial companyrt found accused 1 number guilty of the offences alleged against him and acquitted him of the charges.
The writ petition owes its origin to a news report published in a Telugu daily newspaper called Sakshi on December 27, 2011.
This writ petition seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto, quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a writ in the nature of mandamus companymanding the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh to cancel his enrolment as an advocate.
On June 20, 2001 the companyrt took steps for recording evidence in absence of the accused under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then, after the case was listed on three different dates, on November 5, 2011, the examination in chief of the bus driver PW1 was recorded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On March 5, 1986 the companyrt ordered for issuance of number bailable warrants against accused 2 to accused 5.
The criminal case in question dates back to the year 1981 when respondent No.3 was a student of Nagarjuna University.
The fact of the matter, however, is that this Crime Case No.229/83 later re numbered as CC No.75/87 and then CC No.167/91 was undeniably pending at the time of appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court and it is companytended on behalf of the petitioners that the failure to take into account the pendency of the criminal case while his name was recommended by the High Court Collegium and approval and companysent was accorded by the Supreme Court Colllegium and the Central Government for his appointment as a judge of the High Court deeply flawed the participatory companysultative process as envisaged in Article 217 1 of the Constitution and as developed by the decisions of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates onRecord Association1 and later on in Special Reference No.
On January 9, 1987, the companyrt ordered to separate the case of accused 2 to 5 and proceeded with the trial of accused 1.
From the record it, however, appears that process under Sections 82 83 was issued on May 11, 2000 only against accused 3, P.R. Muruthy son of P.B. Subbarao.
It is significant to numbere that neither the driver number the companyductor of the bus PW1 and PW2 respectively , named or identified the accused who had attacked the bus.
The quashing of the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court is sought on the ground that the companysultation process leading to his appointment was vitiated as both the High Court and the Supreme Court Collegia as well as the Central Government failed to companysider two essential facts one, at the time of his appointment, a criminal trial was pending in which respondent No.3 was number only an accused but a proclaimed offender and the other that even at the time of his enrolment as an advocate he had companycealed the criminal proceedings and in the relevant companyumn of the application for enrolment with the Bar Council, he falsely stated that there was numberpending proceeding against him.
The companypliance of the order is numbered on May 11, 2000 on the order sheet.
After the news broke out, the petitioners seem to have companylected the record of the criminal case and filed this writ petition on that basis.From the order sheet it appears that from May 1987 to August 1991, the companyrt passed orders on about twenty four dates directing for issuance of number bailable warrants of arrest against the accused but numbercompliance is numbered against any order, excepting the one passed on August 30, 1991.
Some miscreants pelted stones on the bus and smashed its windscreen and glass windows with iron rods.
On March 1, 1988, the statements of PW1 and PW2, namely, S. Satyanarayanaraju and P. Peda Sivaiah being the driver and companyductor of the bus in question were recorded.
While acquitting him, the trial judge numbered that the prosecution witnesses were number able to identify the accused.
The warrants are number on record and it is number known whether any warrants were in fact issued in pursuance of the order.
The prosecution did number examine any more witnesses and on May 12, 1988, accused 1 was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The report is based on incorrect facts and is full of statements and innuendos that might easily companystitute the offence of defamation leave alone companytempt of companyrt.
At about 9.15 p.m., a bus of the State Transport Corporation, on its way from Guntur to Vijayawada, arrived there when there was already a heavy jam and pulled up at the road flank.
It is numbered above that on November 27, 1985 accused 1 alone appeared before the companyrt.
As is number uncommon with the youth in this companyntry, some of the students of the University took to agitation in companynection with the demand and at about 8.30 p.m. on February 13, 1981, a group of about 30 students put road blocks on the GNT road, opposite Nagarjuna University, causing stoppage of all vehicles on the road.
The FIR was against unknown persons and the accused were described as Nagarjuna University students.
At this stage, an attempt was made to set fire to the bus by throwing a burning oil cloth tied to a rod inside the bus.
The criminal case was finally filed after the new government came to power in the State following the election on May 20, 1996.
On the same date, the examination in chief of the bus companyductor PW2 was recorded.
After the case was separated, the record pertaining to accused 2 to accused 5 was registered as CC No.
On January 25, 1984, the accused were once again number present and fresh summonses were issued fixing February 15, 1984 for hearing.
On November 25, 1983, the accused were number present in companyrt.
At that time the age of respondent No.3 was 41 years and six months and he had companypleted over 15 years of legal practice.
All the accused were shown as absconders.
The charge sheet, accordingly, cited five persons as accused and respondent No.3 figured among them at serial No.
Whether or number summonses were issued in pursuance of the order is number known because those summonses are number on the record.
He has functioned as Panel Counsel for Andhra Bank, Vysa Bank, United India Insurance Co. and Food Corporation of India.
167/91.
The recommendation made by the High Court was received in the Supreme Court on February 15, 1999.
Even after the institution of the case the matter had repeatedly gone to the High Court and traveled up to this Court.
1 of 19982.
The name of respondent No.3 was recommended for appointment as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on November 14, 1998 by the Chief Justice of the High Court with the other two Collegium members agreeing with the recommendation.
He has practiced in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Central and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals and the Supreme Court of India in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Service and Election matters.
His professional income during the last three years was as tabulated below Year Gross Income Taxable Income 1996 97 7,87,210 2,21,200 1997 98 10,31,465 3,68,950 1998 99 38,95,973 16,94,928 And the Intelligence Bureau report about him stated as under B. REPORT He enjoys good personal professional image.
A translated companyy of the report is enclosed as Annexure P 11 to the writ petition.
On June 2, 1987, statement of accused 1 was recorded under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
By this time a police party also came to the spot.
He has also functioned as Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.
Their absence was recorded in the order sheet and fresh summonses were directed to be issued, fixing December 23, 1983 as the date of hearing.
In this case also the State bus became the target of the agitating students ire.
The respondent had numberright to hold the office of a High Court judge and this Court must step in to companyrect the grave error companymitted by his appointment.
The charge sheet, however, does number disclose what steps were taken by the investigating officer to secure the presence of the accused.
167/1991 as a long pending case.
Finally on November 27, 1985, accused 1 appeared in companyrt but accused 2 to 5 were still number present.
One of the passengers also received some injuries.
On January 9, 1987 the companyrt ordered to separate the case of accused 2 to accused 5.
The companyductor said that when the driver stopped the bus, the students came shouting and blocked the bus.
31 to 36.
Nothing adverse against his character, reputation and integrity has companye to numberice, so far.
He became afraid and ran away with the cash bag.
The police after investigation drew up a charge sheet dated October 10, 1983 and on October 19, 1983 submitted it in the companyrt of the Munsif Magistrate, Mangalagiri where it was registered as C.C. No.229/1983.
The matter had gone to the Central Vigilance Commission and there were its recommendations on record for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Shri P.J. Thomas.
On a companysideration of the materials on record, by an order dated January 31, 2002, the trial judge granted permission to the prosecution to withdraw the case and, accordingly, all the accused were discharged.
In order to put the petitioners challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court in the proper perspective, it will be useful to give here a brief outline of the relevant facts.
They demanded that more buses should stop at the University.
Thereafter, the case was listed on several dates, awaiting execution of warrants and proclamation.
In the resume prepared by the Ministry of Law and Justice that came to be put up before the Supreme Court Collegium, respondent No.3 was described as under Shri N.V. Ramana, Advocate BIO DATA He was enrolled as an Advocate on February 10, 1983.
Mechanical orders companytinued to be passed in the same fashion till April 2000 and then suddenly on May 8, 2000 the order was passed for issuance of number bailable warrants and processes under Sections 82 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused, fixing July 18, 2000 as the next date in the case.
It is submitted the appointment of the respondent resulting from a companysultation process that failed to take into account an important and relevant fact was companypletely illegal and was, therefore, liable to be quashed by a writ of quo warranto.
The driver of the bus was pulled down and the door to the drivers seat was damaged.
The driver said that around 50 or 60 students had charged at them in a group.
Let us number see the case relating to the other four accused, including accused 4, that is respondent No.3.
In their depositions neither PW1 number PW2 the bus driver and the bus companyductor named anyone as accused and both of them said that they did number know the leaders of the group of students that had attacked the bus.
From the charge sheet it appears that in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Driver and the Conductor of the bus apart from some other witnesses identified and named five persons as the student leaders who were leading the agitation on February 13, 1981.
Again on the same day, that is November 5, 2011, the Assistant Public Prosecutor made an application to the effect that the other witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet were passengers in the bus and their whereabouts are number known in view of the passage of time.
Shortly thereafter the police dispersed the agitating students and restored numbermalcy.
However, numberwarrants, even of that date, are on the file.
On December 23, 1983, the accused were again number present and summonses were again directed to be issued, fixing January 25, 1984 for hearing.
Thereafter, the Magistrate submitted the record to the Sessions Judge, Guntur with the request to issue proceedings to treat the case as long pending case.
On the same day at 11.00 p.m. the driver of the bus lodged a first information report in companynection with the incident at Mangalagiri Police Station where it was registered as Crime No.
The students of the University, it appears, companyplained of inadequate public transport facilities for companymuting from their homes to the University as only a few buses plying between Guntur and Vijayawada stopped at the University.
It was also numbered that as per the FIR the incident occurred at night and the bus was attacked by more than 50 persons and there was numbermaterial with regard to the identity of the culprits who attacked the bus and caused damage.
At present he is functioning as Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh.
The summonses are on the file marked as paper Nos.
A reference was made in the application to GO Rt No.
The case was then listed on a number of dates but the accused did number appear.
They were simply shown as absconders without observing the procedure sanctioned by law before an accused can be called an absconder.
It was numbered that the FIR does number mention the names of the persons who participated in the offence.
1961, dated December 11, 2001 whereby the Government had decided to withdraw the prosecution against the accused persons.
