(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for records relating to C.C.No.652 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Vellore and quash the same.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.652 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Vellore.

2. The gist of the allegations under which the case was registered in Crime No.222 of 2012 is that on the day of the occurrence, i.e., on 17.08.2012, a vehicle bearing Registration No.AP03 TA 9428 was intercepted and it was found that rice weighing a total of 4,000 kilograms, packed in 80 bags of 50 kilograms each and belonging to the Civil Supplies Corporation, was being smuggled and dealt with by private persons. The case was registered, and thereafter, a final report was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.563 of 2017 with reference to a total of 9 accused persons.

3. The crux of the allegations, as per the prosecution, is that A1 to A3 obtained the consignment of rice from a specific godown of the Civil Supplies Corporation and instead of transporting it to its regular destination, were smuggling it to be supplied to A8, named Balaji Agencies.

4. On the strength of these allegations, the case was taken up. Finding that only A1 to A3 were appearing, while summons had not been served and warrants were pending against A4 to A9, the case against A4 to A9 was split up into C.C.No.652 of 2019, and the trial proceeded in C.C.No.563 of 2017. To bring home the charges, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined by the prosecution, and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked.

5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court held that even though the mahazar witness was examined, the Investigating Officer did not proceed to the concerned godown to collect records showing that this rice was taken away from the godown, nor did they examine any responsible official of the godown. The Trial Court doubted the version of the prosecution, gave the benefit of the doubt to A1 to A3, and acquitted them.

6. Thereafter, in the pending split-up case, although one Balaji, son of Venugopala Chetty, was originally arrayed as A8 by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer subsequently filed a Memo. The Memo stated that the rice was supposed to be supplied to Balaji Agencies and that there was no person named Balaji, rather, it was Prasad Babu, the son of Venugopal Chetty, who is the proprietor of the said Agency. The Investigating Officer sought to correct the name of A8 to Prasad Babu, which was accepted by the Trial Court, and that is how the petitioner subsequently faced the case in C.C.No.652 of 2019.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be subsequently included after the acquittal of A1 to A3. In any event, the learned counsel relied upon the findings made in the principal case.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) submitted that when subsequent summons could not be served and a warrant was pending, the mistake regarding the name change was realised, and the petitioner was accordingly brought on record. It is contended that he was not substituted for someone else, but rather an error in mentioning the name was corrected.

9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record.

10. Since the petitioner is running the Balaji Agency, is the only son of Venugopal Chetty, and is carrying on business at No.10-905, S.S. Peeran Street, Kattamanchi, Chittoor District, no exception whatsoever can be taken to the correction of the name. However, at the same time, it must be noted that a full-fledged trial has already been conducted against the other accused who faced the case.

11. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to even prove the seizure of the rice. In that view of the matter, A1 to A3, who allegedly transported the rice, were acquitted because the Court doubted the very seizure itself. The further allegation is that the rice was meant for supply to this petitioner. Thus, it can be seen that the Trial Court found that the Investigating Officer not only failed to visit the godown or collect materials regarding the dispatch of the rice, but also failed to visit the destination, even to verify the name of the individual or whether Balaji Agencies was the business name. Therefore, when the final report was filed without collecting any proper evidence and the Trial Court in the main case went through the entire evidence and found that the seizure itself was not proved, no useful purpose will be served by going through the process once again.

12. In view of the findings in the earlier case in C.C.No.563 of 2017, it would be an insurmountable task for the prosecution to sustain any allegation and prove the charge against this petitioner. This Court is of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.

13. Accordingly, the final report and proceedings insofar as they relate to the petitioner in C.C.No.652 of 2019, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Vellore, is hereby quashed and this criminal original petition stands allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.