K.G. SHANKAR, J.
ORDER:
1. It is a curious case. The petitioner is supposed to be A.1 in A.P.R.C.No.4 of 1997 on the file of the Agency First Class Magistrate, Parvathipuram supposedly because the very record is not available. Apparently, no one knows the fate of the case.
2. The allegation in the charge sheet is that the petitioner belonged to Kondabardidalam of P.W.G. Group operating in Elwinpeta area. Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1, however, submitted that the petitioner belonged to CPI (M-L) from 1990 till 1996.
3. The petitioner was involved in Crime No.3 of 1996 of Seetampeta Police Station, Srikakulam District. He allegedly was found to be in possession of explosives on 16.01.1996. The petitioner faced trial. He was acquitted by the Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in 2001, the petitioner came to know that Non-Bailable Warrant was pending against him in Crime No.1 of 1995 of Neelakanthapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District. It was a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) as well as under Sections 148 and 149 IPC. The charge sheet was also laid for the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Having realized about the case, the petitioner surrendered before the Court and was enlarged on bail.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner/A.1 that the Agency First Class Magistrate-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parvatipuram allegedly committed the case to the Sessions Court in 2003. Nobody knows what happened thereafter.
6. The petitioner, who has been on bail, submitted a representation to the Registrar (Vigilance) to intimate him about the fate of the case. The learned Registrar (Vigilance) responded, through a letter dated 02.07.2007, that the building of the Mandal Revenue Office at Kurupam was blasted on 17.09.2005 by Maoists and that the entire records including the records in A.P.R.C.No.4 of 1997 were destroyed, so much so, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kurupam was not able to furnish the details about the case. The learned Registrar (Vigilance) advised the petitioner to contact the District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram for further details.
7. It is surprising for the Registrar (Vigilance) to advise the petitioner to approach the District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The petitioner himself contended in his letter that nobody was able to inform him as to what happened to the case after committal. There lies the curious.
8. This is the instance where a case was committed to the Sessions Court, the accused was granted bail and thereafter, nobody knows about the fate of the record. Such being the circumstances, it is an eminently fit case where the First Information Report and the Charge Sheet in A.P.R.C.No.4 of 1997 deserve to be quashed. In fact, the Sessions Case, if any, also deserves to be quashed, but nobody knows if the case was registered as a Sessions Case at all.
9. In the above circumstances, where the record in Crime No.1 of 1995 has not been traced out in the office of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kurupam and the entire records in A.P.R.C.No.4 of 1997 stood destroyed when the building was blasted, there is no alternative but to quash further proceedings against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The further proceedings in A.P.R.C.No.4 of 1997 on the file of the Agency First Class Magistrate-cum-Sub.Divisional Magistrate, Parvathipuram relating to Crime No.1 of 1995, Neelakantham Police Station, Vizianagaram District is hereby quashed.