The appellant was a member of the Legislative Assembly from Kaikalur Assembly Constituency in Krishna District Andhra Pradesh .
No.1617, Home Legal.
The appellant being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the matter was referred to the Ethics Committee.
Again an amount of Rs.60,000/ was sanctioned vide G.O.Rt.
An amount of Rs.60,000/ was sanctioned vide G.O. Rt.
Moreover when once orders passed by the companyrt on the same subject matter, for the same relief, filing similar petition for the same relief is number maintainable.
He refunded a sum of Rs.60,000/ to the Government.
The State of Andhra Pradesh passed an executive order companytained in O. No.407 requesting the District Collector to instruct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution.
No.833 dated 18.7.2002 Yet again on 3.7.2002, the appellant claimed reimbursement of an amount of Rs.1,22,825.80/ stating that he was hospitalized at the Medicity Hospital during the month of April 2002 on account of generalized Scissors Disorder CAD and Hypertension under emergency circumstances.
The High Court, in its judgment, relied on a number of decisions including Sheonandan Paswan supra to opine The Public Prosecutor companyld number have filed an application for withdrawal of the prosecution case relying on or on the basis of the impugned Government Order.
Thereafter only, the Public Prosecutor filed the aforementioned application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Trial Judge for withdrawal of the case.
Claiming that he underwent Cardiac Surgery in the Medicity Hospital, medical reimbursement for a sum of Rs.2,89,489 was submitted to the Government which was sanctioned vide G.O. Rt.
The High Court by way of the impugned judgment, allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the State as also the appellant.
During the pendency of the above Criminal Revision Petitions, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a writ petition as stated hereinbefore.
On or about 18/19.8.2005, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein levelled charges of misappropriation against the appellant on the premise that he had obtained a huge amount on the basis of false and fabricated medical bills.
Pursuant to the said recommendations, the State Government issued the aforementioned GO directing the District Collector to direct the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case.
Before the Ethics Committee, the appellant, inter alia, companytended that he has withdrawn the amount in question, relying on or on the basis of the documents produced before him by his Personal Assistant.
The Ethics Committee accepted the said apology and having regard to the fact that the said amount had been refunded, recommended for withdrawal of the criminal case pending against the appellant.
II Department, dt.
II Department dated 5.3.2008 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
It is alleged that in the year 2000, he along with one Sri Veera Swamy, who is said to be an employee of the Medical Hosptal, Secretariat Hyderabad, fabricated bogus hospital records.
We may, however, place that an earlier attempt was made to the same effect but the application for withdrawal of the prosecution was dismissed.
Again on 21.03.2002 he claimed reimbursement of an amount of Rs.1,33,939.80 towards medical expenses stating that his wife had undergone Angiogram operation at the Medical Hospital.
Both the State as also the appellant filed Criminal Revision Petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh thereagainst.
5.3.208 and tampering with the companyrse of justice by getting filed companysecutive petitions to withdraw the prosecution and interdicting the due process of law by invoking the power companyferred on them under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, irrational whimsical and unconstitutional, apart from companytrary to the doctrine of Rule of Law and a blatant attack on the criminal justice system of this companyntry and is the result of favoritism and based on companylateral extraneous, political and partisan companysiderations and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, after declaring Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as violative of Article 14 of the onstitution of India and also violative of Rule of Law and companytrary to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and has the effect of scuttling the judicial process by enabling the State Executive to interfere with the adjudicative process and a companystitutional anachronism and companyonial legislation which is number in companyformity with the Constitution of India and companysequentially set aside G.O. Rt.
No.407, Home Legal.
II Department, dt.3.11.2007 and G.O. Rt.
No.407, Home Legal.
No.569 dated 10.5.2002.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 20.4.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing their writ petitions the prayer made wherein reads as under to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to protect the 4th Respondent, who has misappropriated the public funds to the tune of Rs.4,14,566/ by fabricated documents and cheating from being prosecuted for the offences companymitted under Section 420, 463, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC, by issuing companysecutive G.Os.,
He tendered an apology before the Ethics Committee.
i.e., G.O. Rt.
No.1339 dated 21.11.2002.
In the year 1998, he underwent a heart operation.
