ORDER
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.
1. Inasmuch as both the petitions emanate from the same crime and as Petitioners 1 and 2 in Criminal Petition No.322/2004 are A.1 and A.2 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.752/2004 is A.3 in the said crime they can be disposed of together. They seek to quash the proceedings in Crime No.798 of 2003 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, to which the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 (‘the COCA’ for brevity) are sought to be added.
2. On the report given by one T. Babu Rao, the above crime was registered against the petitioners on 27.12.2003, by the Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 388, 194, 195, 211 read with 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘the IPC’ for brevity) said to have been committed some time prior to 10.03.2003 and First Information Report was issued.
3. It is alleged inter alia in the said report that A.3 sent an amount of Rs.5,000/- through one Prasad to the complainant for undergoing cataract surgery and after undergoing surgery he joined as a driver in Venakata Narasimha Rao Lorry Transport at Tenali. In the month of February, 2003 when he was at Guahati, the Clerk of Lorry Transport Office contacted and informed him that A.3 wanted the complainant to contact him over phone. Four days thereafter when he went to the office of A.3, his Clerk told him that A3 wanted the complainant to meet A.1. When the complainant went to the office of A.1, whereat A1 and A2 were present, and they asked him that he should give evidence against the Commissioner of Police; and that on his enquiry he was informed by them that a case was filed against the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, and Sub-Inspector of Police; and he should depose to the effect that when he went to Governorpet Police Station, having come to know about the arrest of one Santan Kumar, the sentry at the police station asked him to come later as officers were there in the police station and that in the meanwhile Surendra Babu, and Rami Reddy, the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police respectively came in a car and brought Santan Kumar and that Surendra Babu directed Srinivasa Rao, the Sub-Inspector of Police to shoot him as he was making galatas and accordingly the Sub-Inspector of Police and sentry Constable-Nanchariah shot that man dead with guns and took the dead body in a Jeep. As the complainant did not incline to depose, he returned to A.3 and told him as to what had happened. A.3 informed him that there was no need to be scared as he had already spoken to the Public Prosecutor and the Judge and even if he refuses to depose, A.1 would get somebody to give evidence. A.3 further informed him that later they could enter into a compromise. As A.3 helped him previously, the de facto complainant accepted to give evidence in Court and accordingly on 10.03.2003 he gave false evidence in the Court. Before going to the Court, A.2 the junior Advocate introduced him to one Rama Devi who is the paternal aunt of the deceased Santan Kumar and he did not know anything about the said Santan Kumar and Rama Devi. The complainant after coming to know about the warrant issued against the Commissioner of Police, informed the entire incident to his owner Narasimha Rao at Tenali and as per his advice he wanted to tell the truth to the Commissioner of Police but on the same day night the driver of A.3 by name Prasad came to him and took him to Vijayawada stating that Police were searching for him and gave him Rs.3,000/- at the Steel Plant belonging to A.3 at Yanam. He stayed there for about 50 days and when returned home his wife informed him that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Avanigada, required him at his office. Having realized that he gave false evidence, on 22.12.2003 the complainant informed the Additional Superintendent of Police at Machilipatnam as to what had happened. His statement was recorded by the A.S P, upon which a case has been registered as Crime No.798 of 2003 against the petitioners for various offences punishable under Sections 388, 194, 195, 211 read with 109 and 120-B of the IPC.
4. While the investigation in the said case had been pending, the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, by his proceedings in C.No.5/C.P. Camp/2004 dated 17.01.2004 directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Division-II, to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA, in the First Information Report and take over the investigation after such addition. The A.C.P. accordingly filed a petition before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the F.I.R was forwarded to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA. The learned Magistrate returned the said petition raising an objection about the maintainability of the same since those offences are exclusively triable by the Special Judge under the COCA and to explain as to how could they be added. Thereafter, it appears that he filed a petition before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, requesting him to transfer the First Information Report to the Court of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, which is designated as Special Court for trial of the offences punishable under COCA. At this stage, the petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash the First Information Report.
5. Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, represents that the proceedings dated 17.01.2004 issued by the Commissioner of Police are vitiated inasmuch as all the crimes enumerated therein registered against the petitioners eventually ended in acquittal and, therefore, the permission granted by the Commissioner of Police to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA is beset with mala fides.
6. From the factual matrix, it is discernible that on a complaint lodged by one T. Babu Rao, the crime was registered against the petitioners on 27.12.2003, for various offences punishable under Sections 388, 194, 195, 211 read with 109 and 120-B of the IPC and First Information Report was issued and forwarded to the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. A perusal of the First Information Report shows prima facie the essential ingredients that constitute the above offences. While things stood thus, the Commissioner of Police issued the impugned proceedings dated 17.01.2004 permitting the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Division-II, Vijayawada, to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA in the said crime and to take over investigation from the Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station whereat the crime was registered earlier thereto. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police sought to add those two Sections by filing the necessary petition before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate and when an objection was raised about the jurisdiction, he requested the learned Magistrate to transfer the First Information Report to the Court of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the designated Court for trying the offences under the COCA. It is not known as to what happened thereafter. At any rate, it is not obvious that Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA have been added thus at the request of the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
7. Assuming for a moment that the addition of Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA would be a matter of course, it is to be seen whether the First Information Report in such an event is to be quashed to that extent or not. The COCA is a special enactment having been passed by the state of Andhra Pradesh came into force with effect from 05.11.2001. Having found that the existing penal and procedural laws and adjudicatory system to be rather inadequate to curb and control the powerful challenges of organised crime and inasmuch as it is posing an alarming and serious threat to the society and as organised criminal syndicates are now making a common cause with terrorist gangs and promoting narco terrorism extending beyond the national boundaries and tentacles of organised criminal syndicates are fast penetrating into various sections of society and economy due to illegal wealth and black money generated by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contraband, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, money laundering, etc. and as the State has reason to believe that the organised criminal syndicates who are operating in the country have also extended their activities to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in order to curb and control the organised crime, the present Act was passed.
8. The Act inter alia provides punishment for an organised crime under Section 3, and punishment for possessing unaccountable wealth on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate under Section 4 thereof. Constitution of a Special Court has been envisaged for an effective trial and adjudication of such crimes. Appointment of competent authority to authorize or approve the interception of wire, electronic or oral communication by the Investigating Officer; and constitution of review committee to review the orders passed by the competent authority have also been contemplated. It provides for special rules of evidence under Sections 17 and 22 According to section 17, the Special Court may take into consideration as having probative value the fact, that the accused on any previous occasion, was bound over under Section 107 or 110 of the Cr.P.C.; was detained and convicted under any law relating to preventive detention, and on any previous occasion was prosecuted in the Special Court under the Act. If the accused was found to be in possession of movable or immovable property, which he cannot satisfactorily account for, the Special Court shall presume that such property or pecuniary resources have been acquired or derived by his illegal activities. Furthermore, if it is proved that the accused has kidnapped or abducted any person it shall be presumed that it was for ransom. Under Section 22 a presumption can be drawn about the commission of offence of an organised crime punishable under Section 3 of the Act if it is proved that unlawful arms and other material including documents or papers were recovered from the possession of the accused and there is reason to believe that such unlawful arms and other material including documents or papers were used in the commission of such offence; and if it is proved that the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person accused or reasonably suspected of, an offence of organised crime that such person has committed the offence under the Act. The Act further seeks to protect the witnesses by keeping the identity and addresses of any witnesses secret.
9. From the scheme of the Act, it is obvious that a special Act has been passed for curbing effectively the menace of organised crime and its ramifications in the society and economy of the State. Section 2 of the Act, is an interpretation clause. Clause (d) thereof seeks to define the expression “continuing unlawful activity”. Similarly clauses (e) and (f) seek to define the expressions “organised crime” and “organised crime syndicate” respectively. Clauses (d) (e) and (f) may be extracted hereunder thus:
“(d) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either single or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;”
“(e) “organised crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, single or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency;”
“(f) “organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime;”
10. All the above three provisions shall have to be read together so as to understand what exactly the expression “organised crime” means. The quintessence of the above excerpted provisions is that two or more persons shall group together as a syndicate or a gang so as to indulge in activities of organised crime. They can act singly or collectively but as members of the syndicate or gang. If a member of the syndicate either singly or jointly either as a member of the crime syndicate or on its behalf indulges in continuing unlawful activity which activity is prohibited by law for the time being in force and is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, by use of violence or threat of violence or coercion, or other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency in respect of which more than one charge sheet have been filed within the preceding period of ten years and the competent Court has taken cognizance of the same, then it is said that he has committed the organised crime.
11. The essential ingredients that constitute the offence of organised crime are discernable on a combined reading of the above three provisions thus: In the first instance, the accused must be a member of an organised crime syndicate or a gang; the gang should involve in the activities of an organised crime; the accused shall commit an unlawful activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more; the accused shall continue to commit such unlawful activities either singly or jointly but as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on its behalf; the accused shall resort to use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency by indulging in such continuing unlawful activity either singly or jointly but as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on its behalf; more than one charge sheet must have been filed against him before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years; and the Court should have taken cognizance of the same. All the above ingredients shall have to be satisfied so as to constitute the offence of organised crime.
12. Pendency of the case, which has been taken cognizance of by a competent Court, or result of the same seems to be inconsequential. What is required is that more than one charge sheet should have been filed against the accused and a competent Court should have taken cognizance of the same during the period of ten years preceding the date of offence or organised crime in question. Having regard to the statement of objects and reasons where inter alia it is said that the organised crime syndicates are now making a common cause with terrorist gangs and promoting narco-terrorism extending beyond the national boundaries and that the State has reason to believe that the organised criminal syndicates who are operating in the country have also extended their activities to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the learned senior counsel seeks to contend that by no stretch of the imagination, the petitioners can be treated as narco-terrorists extending their operations beyond the national boundaries and indeed the Act has been passed keeping in view the said object to curb such terrorist activities. It is no doubt true that a glance at the statement of objects and reasons may sound the same. Nonetheless, that is not the sole factor. Objects also include that the organised criminal syndicates are fast penetrating into various sections of society and due to the illegal wealth and block money generated by contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contraband, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnapping for ransom, money laundering, etc., the economy of the State is being affected and therefore it needs to be effectively curbed. Though one is not a person belonging to the terrorist gang which is promoting narco-terrorism, if he indulges in kidnapping for ransom, contract killings, extortion, money laundering and thereby amasses wealth in my considered view, he can squarely be brought within the purview of the organised crime. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned senior counsel merits no consideration.
13. Turning to the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner of Police making his own enquiries submitted a report to the Commissioner of Police about the alleged indulgence of the petitioners in such organised crime which eventually made the Commissioner of Police to issue the proceedings in C.No.5/C.P.Camp/2004 dated 17.01.2004 and to accord the necessary permission to him for adding Sections 3 and 4 of COCA, and to take up investigation. Inter alia in the said proceedings it has been alleged that during the course of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police examined some vital witnesses, verified the antecedents of A.I to A.3, and that investigation revealed that A.1 is an Advocate and he was President of Krishna District Bar Federation for some time and that he attached himself with C.P.I. party for political cover while conducting all sorts of criminal activities; and that he amassed huge wealth by private settlements, threats and extortions through his syndicate members; and that he is a legal advisor for Siti Cable Network in Vijayawada City but actually controls a large chunk of Siti Cable distribution Network in Satyanarayanapuram and Payakapuram areas; and that that was a major source of unaccounted income for him; and that he also involved himself in several cases of Vijayawada City and as many as 13 crimes have been registered against him; and that a rowdy sheet was opened against him in Satyanarayanapuram P.S.; and that he was a detenue under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. and that A.2 is the junior advocate of A.1 and he is deeply involved in the present case. It is further alleged that A.3 is a land grabber and financier; and that he used to lend money to the needy on usurious rate of interest and later used to take over the properties of defaulters by coercion; and that he is one of the mafia capitalist in the City; and that he is organizing syndicate comprising of his henchmen; and that he grabbed C.S.I. properties situated at Suryaraopet area and some properties belonging to Muslims near Benz Circle by deceitful means and by threats; and that he is conducting private settlements and resorting to blackmail and extortions and thus acquired properties; and that he was one of the accused in a murder case registered in Crime No.151/98 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the IPC; and that there are several criminal cases against A.3 but he is managing to escape by money and muscle power of his syndicate; and that he acquired properties of C.S.I. in the name of his family members by deceitful means and cheated the C.S.I. in respect of which Crime No.373/2001 under Section 468, 408, 420, 120-B of the IPC; and that he amassed immense immoveable properties in Vijayawada by deceitful means; and that all his illegal acts of extortions, private settlements, and money lending on higher rates of interest were put to stop due to strict vigil by the Vijayawada Police; and that A.3 and his syndicate were involved in as many as 12 crimes.
14. After perusing the said report and after satisfying himself that the petitioners have been indulging in organizing crimes through their syndicates and are posing an alarming and serious threat to the society by neutralizing the normal legal process through subversion of the enforcement machinery and causing violence against those who are inclined to depose against such crime and syndicates, the Commissioner of Police issued the proceedings.
15. It is no doubt true that insofar as A.1 is concerned, 13 items of cases listed out inter alia in the impugned proceedings are only the crime numbers. Out of them, item No.10 is a crime registered under Section 302 of the IPC. All other crimes are for criminal intimidation, extortion, kidnapping, forgery and cheating. These crimes pertain to the years 1998, 2000 and 2001. Similarly, insofar as A.3 is concerned as many as 12 items have been listed out and all of them are only the crime numbers, out of which item No.10 pertains to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The rest pertain to criminal intimidation, extortion, theft, kidnapping, forgery and cheating besides the other offences but it is not known as to whether they are followed up by filing charge sheets. As discussed hereinabove, to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the COCA, they must be organised crimes in respect of which more than one charge sheet should have been filed within the preceding period of ten years and not only that, a competent Court has taken cognizance of the same.
16. At this stage, Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned senior counsel, represents that many of the cases registered against A1 and A3 have been referred by Police themselves as false and some of them ended in acquittal. Such a contention cannot at this stage be taken into consideration as it requires some proof in token thereof. I am afraid, in these proceedings such an attempt is not permissible.
17. The learned senior counsel further contends that under Section 23 of the COCA, prior permission of the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police is required before recording the information about the commission of an offence and, therefore, the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, after the information was laid before him by the A.C.P. without prior permission is vitiated. Section 23 reads as under:
“23. Cognizance of an investigation into an offence:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,-
(a) No information about the commission of an offence of organised crime under this Act, shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police;
(b) No investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of a police officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police.”
18. A perusal of the above provision shows that the Act seeks to provide certain safeguards so as to prevent the misuse or abuse of the provisions. The first check sought to be included under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 is that no crime shall be registered without the prior approval of a superior police officer of the cadre of Deputy Inspector General of Police or above. Similarly, investigation shall be carried out by a police officer who is not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Special Court is prevented from taking cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of the police officer of the cadre of the Additional Director General of Police or above. A three judge bench of the Apex Court in similar circumstances in STATE OF A.P. v. A.SATHYANARAYANA, 2001 CRI.L.J. 265 had to consider similar provisions under TADA. In para 7 it was observed thus:
“We have considered the provisions of the statute itself which nowhere made it imperative that the so-called prior approval must be in writing. It is no doubt true that this provision was brought in by way of amendment by Act 43 of 1993 so that there would be some amount of check by the superior authority before a case is registered under TADA. But, innumerable cases may arise where it may not be possible to obtain approval in writing before registering the case and without registering the case, the concerned officer will not be entitled to proceed with the investigation of the matter which may lead to obliteration of evidence in the case.”
19. The factual matrix in the instant case reveals that information was laid before the Commissioner of Police while seeking permission to add Sections 3 and 4 of COCA to the offences in respect of which crime had already been registered. The information furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police to the Commissioner of Police while seeking permission, in my considered view, will not tantamount to recording information about the commission of an offence as per Section 23 of the COCA. Before seeking prior approval, he must furnish information to the authority to its satisfaction for according permission to record the information under the COCA. Even for laying such information, if prior permission is required, it would lead to chaos. What is sine qua non is that the information about the commission of an offence, in other words registration of the crime under the Act, shall not be recorded or made without the prior approval of the police officer. To accord the necessary approval as can be seen from the scheme of the Act; the officer must satisfy himself that the facts warrant such an approval. To satisfy himself, he must have the necessary material before him, which shall be placed or informed by the officer before seeking approval. Instances are not lacking where given the urgency and to prevent the obliteration of any evidence about the commission of an offence, information can orally be laid before the competent authority while seeking approval for recording the information or registration of the crime. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel cannot be countenanced.
20. It may be mentioned here that the validity of the impugned proceedings cannot be the subject matter of enquiry in this quash proceedings. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the said proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police to know the validity or otherwise of the same. I am afraid that those proceedings cannot validly be assailed before this Court while seeking to quash the First Information Report either on the ground of inadequacy of the material to reach the necessary satisfaction by the Commissioner of Police or on the ground of legality or otherwise of the said proceedings. What is germane for consideration at this stage is as to whether the impugned proceedings disclose prima facie any case under Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA. Neither the material said to have been gathered by the Investigating Officer and laid before the Commissioner of Police for according necessary permission nor the satisfaction reached by the later on such information is decisive. Still it is the subject matter of investigation.
21. At this juncture, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that PRC No.13 of 2003 has been taken on file against the Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and two other constables for lockup death by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and warrants have been issued against the police officers in connection therewith and as a counterblast and as a personal vendetta, the police now seek to involve the petitioner in the organised crime so as to deny them the benefit of anticipatory bail and, therefore, the very attempt to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA to the existing crime is beset with mala fides and personal vendetta.
22. There has been no gainsaying about the pendency of PRC against the police officers for their alleged indulgence in lockup death. By the existence of such a circumstance which is innate and emanating from the record it is not legitimate at this stage to draw the necessary hypothesis that it is nothing but an attempt on the part of the investigating agency to wreak vengeance against the petitioners as a personal vendetta by seeking to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA to the existing crime so as to implicate them falsely in an organised crime. Such an inference shall have to be drawn from out of the circumstances by the Criminal Court only after a full-fledged trial when the fact situation warrants the same. It is not desirable nay hazardous to draw a conclusion at the threshold that the guards who have been entrusted with a solemn duty to investigate to unravel the truth would try to subvert the law for their personal ends. Such a conclusion could be drawn, legitimately, only when the fact situation warrants after a full-fledged trial in which case undoubtedly the persons who are responsible for such subversion of law shall have to pay dearly for such sinister motives and they cannot be allowed to escape from the consequences of such arbitrariness on their part, so as to maintain the rule of law. The case is at the threshold where the investigating agency seeking to add Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA to the existing crime, having regard to the data available which prima facie in their view is sufficient and warrants to investigate into the case. Such a course cannot be thwarted by invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is the prerogative of the agency having been entrusted with the same under law. Having regard to the avowed object, ordinarily it is desirable to allow the agency to conduct the investigation save and except in cases where prima facie there is no case and the essential ingredients that constitute the offence are not at all discernible from the record. The law is well settled on the point and there is no need to copiously cite the authorities on the point and to dilate the order. Suffice at this stage to quote the authoritative pronouncement of the privy council in KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD’s case 1945 PC 18 it has been quoted with approval in many a Judgment by the Apex Court. The Privy Council in para 18 of the Judgment held thus:
“Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India there is a statutory right on the part of the police under Ss.154 and 156, to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under S.561A. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under S.491, Criminal P.C., to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In the case of a cognizable offence, the Court’s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then and, therefore, the High Court can interfere under S.561A only when a charge has been preferred and not before. As the police have under Ss.154 and 156, a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence without requiring the sanction of the Court to quash the police investigation on the ground that it would be an abuse of the powers of the Court would be to act on treacherous grounds:
No doubt if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation and if they do so the High Court may interfere under S.561A.”
23. Even otherwise, the main premises upon which the First Information Report is now sought to be quashed namely: the personal vendetta on the part of the investigating agency, is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage at the threshold. I am reinforced in my above view by a Judgment of the Apex Court in M. NARAYANDAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, . The Apex Court has extracted its earlier observations made in para 108 in Bhajan Lal case, thus:
“108. No doubt, there was no love lost between Shri Bhajan Lal and Dharam Pal. Based on this strained relationship, it has been then emphatically urged by Mr. K. Parasaran that the entire allegations made in the complaint due to political vendetta are not only scurrilous and scandalous but also tainted with mala fides, vitiating the entire proceedings. As it has been repeatedly pointed out earlier the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation is not yet proceeded with except some preliminary effort taken on the date of the registration of the case, that is on 21-11-1987. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the court on the basis of which alone the court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, we are sure, the investigation will say so. At this stage, when there are only allegations and recriminations but on evidence, this court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. Therefore, we are unable to see any force in the contention that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. In this connection, the following view expressed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar,
‘It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant.’ ”
24. The whole attempt of the petitioners seem to be that when there had been a lockup death in Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, the Bar Association at Vijayawada appears to have passed a resolution condemning the said lockup death and that A.1 and A.2 who are the practicing Advocates at Vijayawada filed a private complaint on behalf of the kin of the deceased which was taken cognizance of by the Court as PRC No.13 of 2003. The police so as to backlash are now seeking to involve the petitioners in the organised crime. At this stage, this Court cannot visualise and take note of certain facts which are otherwise required to be established at the time of the trial in the case. The request of the petitioners 1 and 3, for the above reasons, cannot be considered. However, the case of the second petitioner-A.2 is distinguishable from the case against A.1 and A.3. Obviously, no crime has been registered against A.2 except the one in question for the last ten years preceding the present case as can be seen from the impugned proceedings of the Commissioner of Police. The essential ingredients that constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA are not discernable from the said proceedings qua A.2. In that view of the matter, Sections 3 and 4 of COCA cannot be added against, A.2 as sought for and any such attempt shall have to be prevented. However, the proceedings in crime number 798/2003 registered for the offences punishable under sections 388, 194, 195, 211 r/w 109 and 120-B of IPC cannot be quashed for the reasons hereinabove discussed.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition No.322/2004 is dismissed with the observation that no proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the COCA can be maintained against the second petitioner-A.2 for the reasons mentioned inter alia in the order. Similarly, Criminal Petition No.752/2004 is also dismissed at the threshold.