268 of Home SC.A Department, dated 23.05.2009, to withdraw the prosecution against the accused officer.
21/2006 u S.366 A Indian Penal Code was registered in Town Police Station of Kamareddy on 01.02.2006 against Naresh Goud, son the of companyplainant.
Thus, there was numberofficial favour that was to be done to the companyplainant or his son in this case as alleged.
His services were recognized by way of awarding Police Katina Seva Pathakam in 2005 and his name was also recommended for Prestigious Indian Police Medal for Gallantry for the year 2003.
Ranga Dharma Goud of Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.
B. Muralidhar, Sub Inspector of Police.
We have heard Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned companynsel for the petitioner and Mr. ATM Rangaramanujam, learned senior companynsel for the State.
After narrating the factual matrix about the case, while seeking withdrawal the following grounds were put forth It is further submitted that as the matter stood thus, the Government has reviewed the case and decided to modify the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.06, Home SC A Department, dt.
When the case came up for hearing on charge the public prosecutor filed a petition on 22.06.2009 to withdraw the case against the accused officer on the ground that the Government of A.P. had issued G.P. Ms. No.
Bairam Murlidhar and the same may be treated as withdrawn and the respondent accused officer may be discharged in the interest of justice and equity.
I respectfully submit that on perusal of the Government order and the material evidences available on record and on application of the mind independently and for the reasons accorded by the Government I am satisfied that the case is fit for withdrawal from prosecution in accordance with the settled principles of law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India.
As the permission was number granted by the learned trial Judge the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court and the learned Single Judge after adverting to the facts and the reasons ascribed by the learned trial Judge came to hold that the order passed by the learned trial Judge was absolutely impeccable inasmuch as the public prosecutor had actually number given any valid reason for withdrawal of the case and further, the case, in the obtaining factual matrix, did number warrant withdrawal under Section 321 of the Code.
In the reference fourth read above, the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, while rebutting the companytentions of the Accused Officer has stated that there are numbermerits in the application filed by the applicant and it is number maintainable and as such requested the Government to dismiss the application filed by the Accused Officer Sri.
10.01.2007 and placed the respondent accused officer on his defense before Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and issued G.O. Ms. No.
27/2006.
When he resisted the said acts of the companyplainant for the unprecedented act, the Anti Corruption Bureau, officials rushed to the spot and companyducted trap proceedings on him without heeding to his requests.
Therefore, under the above said circumstances it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit me to withdraw the case of the prosecution against the respondent accused officer Sri.
24/2007 The application for withdrawal that was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor deserves to be referred to.
268, home SC A Department, dated 23.5.2009, the said G.O. is filed along with the petition for companysideration.
Hence, keeping in view his previous record, he requested the Government to companysider his request for withdrawal of prosecution and also to reinstate into service.
In the said case, as we numberice, an application was preferred for withdrawal of the case where charge sheet had already been filed under Section 13 2 r w Section 13 1 e of the Act and the Principal Special Judge for SPE ACB had declined to grant the prayer and the High Court had refused to entertain the criminal revision.
In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
He further informed that he is discharging his legitimate duties and his case was companysidered for Accelerated Promotion from Sub Inspector of Police for his companytribution in the anti extremist work.
Bairam Muralidhar, Sub Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Town Police Station, Nizamabad, be placed before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, duly withdrawing the prosecution in C.C. No.
The companyplainant himself persuaded him to accept the bribe.
Government have examined the matter in detail, keeping in view of his good work in the anti extremist field and other meritorious service and order that the case of Sri.
The learned trial Judge referred to the companyy of the G.O. Ms. No.
When he refused to accept, the companyplainant forcibly thrusted some currency numberes into his left side shirt pocket.
299 of 2014 decided on 30th January 2014, this Court has after reproducing paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Constitution Bench decision in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others1 has quashed the prosecution and remanded the matter.
Bairam Muralidhar, Sub Inspector of Police, has submitted a representation wherein he has stated that a trap was laid on him on 5.5.2006 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad, along with his staff on a false and frivolous companyplaint lodged by the companyplainant by name Sri.
The relevant part of it reads as follows In the reference third read above.
268 that was annexed to the petition of the Special Public Prosecutor wherein it was mentioned that on the due examination the Government had found regard being had to the good work of the accused in the anti extremist field and other meritorious service his case be placed before the Administrative Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings after withdrawal of the prosecution pending in the companyrt of Special Judge.
The learned trial Judge referred to various authorities, adverted to the role and duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the Court under Section 321 of the Code, and further taking numbere of the nature of the case and grant of sanction by the State Government to prosecute the case opined that the public prosecutor really had number applied his independent mind except filing the petition with companyy of G.O. Ms. issued by State Government that there were numbersufficient ground or circumstances for the Court to accept the withdrawal of the prosecution case against the officer and that there was numberjustification to allow such an application regard being had to the offences against the accused persons, and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
A charge sheet was also filed by him in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, against Naresh Goud on 20.03.2006 itself, and the same was numbered vide PRC No.
