ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. An unfortunate incident has occurred on 28th August, 1999 at 10 p.m. at Narasaraopet of Guntur District. A place where life is infused, four lives were snuffed out. Instead of life-saving material, there was found life-threatening material i.e., bombs and bomb-making material, which have exploded. Result was loss of four lives, who succumbed to seveie bomb-blast injuries. The building was rocked and some portion of it was blown off into rubbles. The scene of offence is Nursing Home-cum-residence at Rajakota Centre of Narasaraopet run under the name and style of Lakshmi Nursing Home/ Palnadu Poly Clinic. In a three-storied building on an area of 3850 sq. yards (3250 sq. yards standing in the name of Dr. Kodela Siva Prasad Rao and 600 sq. yards standing in the name of his wife Smt. Kodela Sashikala). Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao, the Minister for Panchayat Raj resides in one of the portions alongwith his family members, who include his wife-Smt. Kodela Shashikala, his two sons and his father-Mr. Kodela Sanjeevaiah – along with host of servants. In other portion, hospital is run and yet another portion is being used for the Office of Telugu Desam Party.
2. The case assumed importance as the blast occurred on the eve of ensuing elections to the Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies. Elections have been notified on 11th August, 1999 for 17-Narasaraopet Parliamentary Constituency and 7 of its Assembly segments of which 109-Narasaraopet is the one. The petitioner is the contestant to the said Assembly Constituency as the nominee of Congress-I Party, while Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao, who is presently a Minister in the Cabinet of State Government is the contestant on behalf of the ruling Telugu Desam Party. Suffice it to say that the incident had sent shock waves through out the State. Narasaraopet and the surrounding areas were tense.
3. Crime No. 336/99 was registered by Narasaraopet Town Police Station for the offences Under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, on the report given by Circle Inspector of Police, as it is stated that nobody came forward to lodge a complaint. Four persons, namely, Yelavarthy Raghunadha Rao alias Raghu, Gadiparthi Srinivasa Rao alias Choudhary Sreenu, Poodota Satish Kumar and Seedamsetty Koteswar Rao alias Koti died in the said incident. While Yelavarthi Raghunadha Rao alias Raghu died on the spot, three others were struggling for their lives with severe blast injuries. They were shifted to Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital, Guntur. But, Gadiparthi Srinivasa Rao alias Choudhary Sreenu succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital, while Poodota Satish Kumar died immediately on reaching the said hospital and Seedamsetty Koteswar Rao died a little later.
4. Formalities, such as inquest and post-mortem, were conducted and the viscera and tissues of the deceased persons were preserved and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and report. Scene of offence was photographed and videographed and the material found there was seized.
5. The above writ petition has been filed on 30-8-1999 seeking directions to the Central Election Commission to take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of free and fair elections in the Narasaraopet Assembly and the Narasaraopet Parliamentary Constituency including appointment of Special Observers and engagement of Special Central Police Force in the said constituencies and to ensure fulfledged enquiry into the said act as a poll violence by the Central Bureau of Investigation. State Government, though a necessary party, was not made a party and on a query posed by the Court, Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged the Court to permit him to make the State Government as a party and on such permission being accorded by the Court, State Government was made a party as 3rd respondent. Mr. C.P. Sarathi, the learned Senior Counsel appeared for the 1st respondent-Central Election Commission, while Mr. Sanghi appeared for the 2nd respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Additional Advocate-General appeared for the 3rd respondent-State Government.
6. On 1st September, 1999, Mr. C.P. Sarathi, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted before us the proceedings of the Election Commission of India contained in 464/HP-LA/AP99, dated 31-8-1999 which reads that in view of the bomb blast and the impact created thereto, the Election Commission came to the conclusion that the polls, both for Parliamentary Constituency and the 7 Assembly segments comprised therein, have been postponed to 3rd October, 1999. The case was then posted to 6th September, 1999 to enable the learned Additional Advocate-General to get the instructions. Records were also called for including the reports of the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Guntur, as also of the Director-General of Police. Letters addressed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Special Secretary to the Government to the Director-General of Police on 2nd and 7th September, 1999 have also been perused. We have also perused the latest fax message dated 7th September, 1999 of Election Commission of India addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer of Andhra Pradesh. We have also perused the latest status report sent by the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, A.P., dated 19th September, 1999. We have perused the entire records submitted by the learned Additional Advocate-General including that of finger print reports and Forensic reports.
7. In so far as the steps to be taken for the proper conduct of free and fair elections as also appointment of Special Observers and engagement of Special Central Police Force is concerned, having regard to the information supplied by the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer of this State, to this Court, we are satisfied that all such steps which are necessary for the proper conduct of free and fair elections in Narasaraopet Parliamentary Constituency and the 7 Assembly segments therein, have been taken. As such, no directions in that regard are warranted. Then remains, the other issue regarding the demand of probe into the above bomb blast explosion incident on 28-8-1999 by the Central Bureau of Investigation, instead of the State Police.
8. The incident has occurred at 10 p.m. on 28-8-1999. Narasaraopet Town Police Station got telephonic information at 11 p.m. and then both the Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector went to the scene of occurrence. Neither the injured were in a position to give statement nor did anybody come forward to give statement. The Circle Inspector prepared occurrence report and got registered as FIR at 12 mid-night. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Additional Superintendent of Police as also Sub-Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, have visited the scene of occurrence. No witness was examined on the said night or the following day. Circle Inspector of Police had examined M/s. Dr. Moparthi Venkateswar Rao, Dr. Kadiala Venkateswara Rao and Dr. Marri Peddaiah on 30-8-1999 and on the next day (31-8-1999), he had examined 12 witnesses. On 1-9-1999, he had examined 14 witnesses. 5 witnesses were examined on 2-9-1999 and important among them is Dr. Veerisetty Saila Kumari and 13 more witnesses were examined on 3-9-1999.4 witnesses were examined on 4-9-1999, among whom Dr. Kamineni Achutha Babu is important one. 2 witnesses were examined on 6-9-1999. 3 witnesses were examined on 7-9-1999. 8 witnesses on 11-9-1999, 3 witnesses on 14-9-1999,7 witnesses on 15-9-1999, one witness on 16-9-1999, 2 witnesses on 17-9-1999 and one witness on 18-9-1999, were examined. One witness was examined and Nandigam Lingaiah who was already examined was further examined on 20-9-1999. One witness was examined on 21-9-1999. On 21-9-1999, a memo was filed in the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur producing one Mr. Pemmasani Srinivas Rao alias Beecharam Sreenu, to be one of the accused in the above occurrence as having been arrested on the said date at 7 a.m. at Indira Gandhi statue at Peddacheruvu Lenin Nagar, Narasaraopet and he was remanded to judicial custody. According to the police, the other accused is one Vemulapally Venkata Narsaiah and he is at large and teams were deployed to identify the involvement of others, if any, and that the investigation is in progress.
9. In fact, Mr. Pemmasani Srinivasa Rao was already examined on 2-9-1999 as witness No. 35 and was re-examined on 10-9-1999. While M/s. Kodela Sanjeevaiah, Kodela Sivaramakrishna, Kodela Satyanarayana and Kodela Shashikala were there available in the house at the time of the incident, they were not examined immediately. Even Dr. Kamineni Achutha Prasad, who went to the scene of offence immediately after knowing the same was not examined either on 28-8-1999 or even the next day. He was examined only on 4-9-1999. Mr. K. Sanjeevaiah, the father of Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao, was examined on 10-9-1999. Two sons of Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao, namely, Kodela Sivaramakrishna and Kodela Satyanarayana were examined on 14-9-1999. Smt. Kodela Shashikala was examined on 16-9-1999. Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao has not yet been examined. Who were the accused was not indicated in the First Information Report. Much later, the four deceased were shown as accused and (that of) Pemmasani Srinivasa Rao as the 5th accused. Lease-deed dated 19-9-1998, even though contains the signatures of Smt. Kodela Shashikala and Dr. Kamineni Kavitha, is not a document, which was produced before the Central Bank of India, Narasaraopet for securing the loan for the reason that loan application was filed by Smt. Kamineni Kavitha much before i.e., on 31-8-1998 and in the pre-sanction report dated 4-9-1998, after inspection of the premises No. 2-15-53, Narasaraopet, the loan was sanctioned. As such, the basis of possession and as to whether there was any document for such nature of possession as a lessee for the period between 3-5-1998 and 19-9-1998 has to be probed into. The factum of the filing of the lease-deed dated 19-9-1998 before the bank also needs a probe. This is in the context of the possession of Kamineni Kavitha and her husband – Dr. Kamineni Achutha Babu before 19-9-1998, as spoken to by Dr. Achutha Babu and also Mr. Kodela Sanjeevaiah that Palnadu Poly Clinic was being run from 3-5-1998 at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. This aspect also needs a probe. In the municipal records produced, Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao is recorded as the owner of the premises bearing No. 2-15-53, Rajagarikota of Narasaraopet. The aspect with regard to authority of person other than the owner i.e., Dr. Kodela Sivaprasad Rao to enter into lease transaction also needs a probe. That apart, it is obvious from the Fingerprint Expert’s report that the sublease said to have been executed by Dr. Kalyana Chakravarthy in favour of Pudhota Satish Kumar is found to be a forged document. Then the complicity of Dr. Kamineni Achutha Babu who has endorsed the same as a true copy and Dr. Kalyana Chakravarthy who has signed the said document as an alleged Lessor needs a thorough probe.
10. At this stage, it is not desirable that we should dwell on the merits of the prosecution case. Suffice it to say that the local police who had initially investigated into the offence as also the C.I.D. which has taken over the later investigation, were complacent and, thus, a case is made out for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and as such, we direct the 3rd respondent to entrust the investigation of Crime No. 336 of 1999 of Narasaraopet Town Police Station to Central Bureau of Investigation – the 2nd respondent herein, forthwith.
11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
ORDER
1. This case was disposed of yesterday i.e., 29-9-1999. After disposal of the case, the learned Additional Advocate General mentioned that there are some facts, which need to be clarified. As such, we directed to post this case for being mentioned’ to-day.
2. It is now being explained by Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Additional Advocate General, that M/s. Kodela Sanjeevaiah and Kodela Sasikala were, in fact, examined by the local police on 29-8-1999, though not immediately after the occurrence. But, there is no explanation as to why they were not examined when they were present at the time when the Circle Inspector went to the scene of offence around 11.15 p.m. on 28-8-1999. Even according to the record placed relating to the investigation part of the local police, the statements of 13 witnesses were recorded only on 29-8-1999, but not immediately after the occurrence. Dr. Kamineni Atchutababu, who is said to be the Administrative Officer of the Poli Clinic and Dr. Veerisetty Saila Kumari, who was assisting him in his duties were also present when the police came soon after the incident, but they were not examined. Even the statements of M/s. Kodela Sanjeevaiah and Kodela Sasikala recorded by the Police on 29-8-1999 do not give any material particulars or of lease or Sub-lease. Admittedly, Dr. Kodela Siva Prasada Rao reached the spot at 2.30 a.m. of that intervening night 28/29-8-1999; but, he was not examined by the local police. It is pointed-out that though he was not examined by the local police immediately after the occurrence when he reached the spot at the time mentioned above, but was summoned and examined by the Circle Inspector, C.I.D., Guntur, on 30-8-1999. But, his statement Under Section 161(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded, though mentioned in case diary. Insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, they are numbered as P.Ws.1 to 81 and their statements are found in the record in addition to the statements of 13 witnesses recorded by the local police mentioned above, which are in a separate set of papers. It is significant to note, as already mentioned in the yesterday’s order, that Circle Inspector of Police himself sent the occurrence report on the ground that neither the injured were in a position to give a statement nor did anybody come forward to give statement. Our main thrust was that either the local police or C.I.D. were not diligent as expected to be, in investigating into this case and that they were complacent and these factors, which are brought to our notice by the learned Additional Advocate General can in no way have the effect to vary the order passed yesterday directing the State Government to entrust the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). As such, our order of yesterday i.e., 29-9-1999 needs no variance.
3. Clarified accordingly.