Hc Against Sec 467 In Ayyanna’s Case, Legal News, ET LegalWorld – Legal Firms

Vijayawada: The high court on Wednesday said the NOC issued by the executive engineer of irrigation department to former minister Chintakayala Ayyanna Patrudu does not fall under the definition of ‘valuable security’ and therefore would not attract section 467 of IPC in the case registered by the CID. The court, however, said this is only prima facie finding and the CID can continue investigation into the alleged crime by following the guidelines prescribed by the SC in the Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar case by issuing notices under 41A CrPC.

Ayyanna Patrudu and his sons moved the HC seeking to quash the case registered against them by the CID over alleged forgery and criminal conspiracy charges following a complaint from the irrigation EE that the trio forged his signature in the NOC issued for construction of house at Narsipatnam in Anakapalle district. The CID registered the case under various sections of IPC including 467, which prescribe more than seven years of imprisonment.

Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, VV Satish told the HC that the house constructed by petitioners was in survey numbers 277/2 and 277/3 owned by them. As the NOC by the irrigation EE would not confer any valuable right on property to the petitioners, the court said prima facie it would not fall under the definition of ‘valuable security’ according to section 30 of IPC and therefore, a case under section 467 of IPC is not available against the petitioners.

As this are only prima facie findings, the high court allowed the CID to continue its investigation without applying section 467 which implies that the petitioners would get the benefit of a notice under section 41A CrPC as no other sections in the crime prescribe more than seven years of imprisonment.