The Court held that the receipt did number appear to be a genuine document and that defendants evidence was number true.
Lands situated in Pisinikada village in the district of Vishakhapatnam were acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society.
It was opined that an inquiry may be companyducted by District Judge, Vishakhapatnam.
A large scale fraud, allegedly, took place in awarding companypensation wherein the Sub ordinate Judge, Anakapalle, his staff, the advocates of the claimants, the advocates appearing on behalf of the State and other officials were said to be involved.
The High Court got the matter examined by a Special Committee.
In its report dated 4.5.1998, the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad indicated about a large scale companyspiracy and fraud companymitted by the accused persons.
Before that application companyld be heard Mr. Augustine was also transferred and numberSubordinate Judge of the First Class was appointed in his place.
When the decree was passed the Court was presided by one Mr. Barlow.
When the application was made for filing the companyplaint Mr. Barlow was transferred and Mr. Augustine was the Subordinate Judge.
One Mr. K.K. Gujral, a Subordinate Judge of the Fourth class was sent to the area and was asked to decide the matter, but as he was only a Subordinate Judge of fourth Class he made a report to the District Judge that he had numberjurisdiction because the offence had been companymitted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of First Class.
P.C. Dicidedly the Court under Land Acquisition Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court as all appeals lie to the High Court.
Final decree followed on 15 7 1950.
Allegations made as against the accused came within the purview of the offences specified under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code as a result thereof an inquiry under Section 340 thereof was imperative.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, in view of the importance of the question involved, referred the matter to a Division Bench by an order dated 31.10.2000.
After Mr. Preetam Singh passed an order which was challenged in an appeal before the Additional District Judge Mr. J.N. Kapoor.
Nos.2181 2211 of 2004 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
It was directed In the light of what has been stated herein above, we set aside the order passed by the District Judge, but in the facts and circumstances of the case direct the Registrar to place the matter before the Honble Chief Justice who may place the matter before an appropriate Bench for orders under Section 340 Cr.
An appeal came to be filed thereagainst by respondents herein before the High Court, which was marked as Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2000.
The report of the said Committee having been approved by the Full Court of the High Court, an inquiry was made by the District Judge, Vishakhapatnam.
That was done by Mr. Pitam Singh.
An appeal was taken to the High Court which was dismissed on 9 5 51.
Upon obtaining requisite permission from the High Court, the CBCID registered a case and investigation thereinto was carried on.
The learned District Judge examined a large number of witnesses and ultimately filed a companyplaint on 1.5.1999, pursuant to the findings recorded therein.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
Interpretation of the provisions of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.9.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby and whereunder a companyplaint petition filed by the District Sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam in terms thereof was quashed.
Awards in respect of the said acquisition were made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
The District Judge then transferred the matter to the Senior Subordinate Judge Mr. Preetam Singh and he made a companyplaint which was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court.
Accordingly it passed a preliminary decree against the defendant for the full amount of the claim on 15 3 1950.
