TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to grant sanction and the prosecution is at liberty to produce the order of sanction even during the trial of the case - When, where court proceeds against public servant without sanction, he can raise the issue of jurisdiction of court. Sanction can be obtained even during trial depending upon facts of individual case. In that view of the matter, the respondent investigating agency is competent to file chargesheet even without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Therefore the first issue is answered against the petitioner. Whether any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as per the material placed by the prosecution agency warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT:- It is also settled law that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Section 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary and thus the file passed through various phases - Since no ingredient under Section 120-B and 409 have been made out so also the ingredients of Section 420 IPC therefore, there is no reasons as to why the petitioner must be made to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. On perusal of material produced by the prosecution itself, are inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner; that allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would also amount to an abuse of the process of court. Hence, the cognizance of offence and the chargesheet filed insofar as the petitioner is liable to be quashed in order to meet the ends of justice. Petition allowed. - CRL. P. No. 14146 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2014 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO For the Appellant : H PRAHALADA REDDY For the Respondent : K SURENDER SPL P P FOR CBI ORDER: This Criminal Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chosen persons. The entire effort to implicate the petitioner apparently is to achieve the said objective of the allegations against A.1. The prosecution alleged inter alia that A.1 company (M/s. Indu Projects Ltd.) received undue favours from the Government of A.P. namely allotment of 250 acres of land for M/s.Indu Tech Zone Pvt. Ltd. (A.5), that the petitioner/accused no.7 as Principal Secretary, IT C has conspired with A1 and others in favouring by allotment of lands, that the petitioner/A.7 dishonestly and fraudulently acted causing undue favours. The Government of Andhra Pradesh after technological strides that India has made during the recent past few decades in the field of Information Technology with a view to promote the same and to give a special thrust to its endeavour to be the pioneer in the said field framed a policy and created a separate department for Information Technology and Communications by its order in G.O.Ms.No.133 of the General Administration (AR T.I) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 10.4.2000. In the said G.O. it is categorically stated that the department will function as an officer oriented department thereby intending to assign t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed after evaluation of the guidelines by the Consultative Committee on IT Industry i.e. CCITI. On 3.1.2006 the Department of IT C communicated to the APIIC the minutes of CCITI which had decided to direct the APIIC to examine the applications keeping the parameters of the selection criteria for IT Park developers. Originally the IT policy was only employee subsidy oriented land allotment to the IT entrepreneurs but subsequently it was modified upon the suggestive initiation of the petitioner into a reasonable cost oriented link also in addition to the employment commitment in the interests of the State. The Note which was circulated was for all the three IT parks mentioned above after the recommendations and observations of the various officers in the IT C Department including the Joint Director(Promotions) and the Special Secretary, IT, (IPS Officer). After obtaining the comments of Law, Finance, Revenue, the Cabinet Note has been prepared and circulated to the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary has endorsed on 15.4.2006 to the effect that the IT Department should take care of Finance Department observations vide Para 23 and Revenue Department minute vide para 25 . S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that there is ample material available with the respondent demonstrating the role of the then Chief Secretary, the Additional Secretary in the Department ( an IPS officer ) and the Joint Director (Promotions) of the Department and other officers in considering the file of A5 and in the light of the said approvals made, no fault can be found against the petitioner. The said fact is being winked at by the CBI thereby trying to victimize the petitioner for reasons best known to it. The entire procedure adopted appears to be shoddy, motivated, predetermined, misleading, malicious investigation apart from being subjecting the petitioner to an unfair and abusive process of law. The respondent has fabricated a false case against the petitioner by projecting an impression in the charge sheet as though the petitioner has processed the file of A5 single handedly in isolation as part of the conspiracy and is a figment of imagination of the CBI. The expression in para 47 of the charge sheet that This signifies a sudden and significant shift in the stand of A7 is without reference to the true and correct factual matrix and the subsequent paras of the charge sheet proves the quality o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Cabinet goes before the Chief Secretary not only once but on four occasions, firstly the Chief Secretary sees the file as reflected on page 13, para 26 of the Circulation Note therefore, when the file was circulated to the IT Minister, there were no changes either in the note for circulation or memorandum to the Council of Ministers. The petitioner further states that the approval of the Minister for IT and also the Chief Minister has been sent to the General Administration (Cabinet) Department (GAD), well in advance i.e. on 25.4.2006 itself, the second occasion, for placing before the Cabinet meeting scheduled on 29.4.2006, in the first set of proposed listed items for the Agenda, leaving enough time for GAD to process the proposal for inclusion in the Agenda to Cabinet. Incidentally the Chief Secretary is the Head of General Administration (Cabinet) Department and Secretary to the Cabinet/Council of Ministers will have the occasion to peruse the proposed items for being listed and only upon discussion with the Honourable Chief Minister the Agenda for the Cabinet Meeting will be finalised which will be sent for preparation of the Agenda. In fact the agenda of the Cabine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he must not and could not have made, would only be to rejected by the prosecution as utter falsehood which is necessarily obligated to make a critical appraisal of the respective versions of the officers relating to the facts in issue by acting in a fair and impartial manner but not to adopt pick and chose procedures. In the light of the above the petitioner for her role as Secretary of IT C cannot be held responsible. If at all, the CBI has found any fault, they should have to hold the Chief Secretary and the entire Council of Ministers responsible for any illegal decisions and they alone could be alleged for the commission of the offences of conspiracy and such other offences that are to be found by the investigation but not the petitioner. The State Cabinet in its wisdom decided and approved the proposals before it, as finalized by the Chief Secretary of the State and the same cannot be construed as a conspiracy, cheating or breach of trust involving the petitioner as A7. The respondent transgressed its limits, ignored the fundamental provisions of Criminal Law and also the constitutional provisions relating to the service conditions and protection of the Members of All I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of law. On a plaint reading of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. it can be discerned that no public servant can be prosecuted except with the sanction of the Government, if the alleged offence is said to have committed by him/her during the course of discharge of his official functions. The petitioner also contends that there is no malice anywhere in the entire conduct of the petitioner in discharge of her functions and she discharged her duties as exemplary officer without any fear or favour for anybody. The petitioner, truly on account of her relentless efforts, the IT field in the State of Andhra Pradesh has achieved stupendous growth as desired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is also instrumental in the resultant generation of lot of employment in the software filed. The petitioner relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court stated that on meticulous reading of entire charge sheet the offence shown against the petitioner is not all made out since the ingredients necessary to constitute any of the above are conspicuously absent. However, it is loosely used that there is criminal conspiracy and dishonest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector M/s.Indu Projects Ltd from the year 2006 onwards and the said company also had received several undue favours in the form of allotment of 250 acres at Shamshabad, 8,444 acres in Ananthapur District under the cover of developing infrastructure projects. M/s. Indu Projects Ltd., in turn paid an amount of ₹ 70,00 Crore to the companies owned and controlled by Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy routing them through the private companies of Nimmagadda Prasad as quid pro quo to the undue benefits received by them. The investigation further revealed that 250 acres of land at Shamshabad was allotted to M/s. Indu Techzone Pvt. Ltd., by Information Technology Communications Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh headed by the petitioner Smt. Ratna Prabha and that she played a dubious role in allotment of the lands to an otherwise unqualified and ineligible company M/s.Indu Techzone Pvt. LTd., owned by M/s. Indu Projects Ltd. Accordingly, a charge sheet has been filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 17.9.2013 against 15 persons/companies including the petitioner herein as A.7 for her involvement in commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he IT policy, vide G.O.Ms.No.3 IT C Department dated 25.5.2000, a Consultative Committee on IT Industry (CCITI) has been constituted to achieve co-ordinate between the Government and the representatives of the Industry and to prescribe procedures/guidelines from time to time; allotment of land ; stamp duty rebates etc., After the first and second ICT Policies announced in May,1 999 and in June 2002 respectively, Government of Andhra Pradesh announced ICT Policy 2005-2010 vide G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 21.3.2005 with an objective to transform the State into a knowledge society and attain leadership in the formation economy by attracting best-in-class ICT companies and institutions. As per the Policy, Government of Andhra Pradesh has decided to allot lands to the IT industry through APIIC and for all such lands, the APIIC is the nodal and implementing agency. Several incentives such as supply of power at highly subsidized rates; 100% reimbursement of stamp duty and registration charges etc., were also proposed to be provided. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, IT C Department will act as the Chairman of CCITI with heads of APIIC, power companies, representatives of various other Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 states that an application for approval of SEZ will have to be made to the Board of Approval (BOA) under Ministry of Commerce constituted by the Central Government. The process has two approaches (i) Direct Application to BOA for final approval where the applicant has identified the land and the concerned State Government has already agreed to extend the mandatory dispensation/facilities. In such cases, the applicant, after grant of approval from the BOA, has to obtain concurrence of the State Government within 6 months to the said approval; (ii) Application to State Government in cases, where the land has not been identified and the State Government has not provided any of the mandatory dispensations/facilities, an application has to be filed with the State Government, which in turn will forward the same to the BOA along with its recommendations. The SEZ Rules, 2006 allows 100% FDI under automatic route to the SEZ developers for setting up townships with residential, educational and recreational facilities on a case to case basis apart from many other incentives contemplated in the Act. It also stated in the counter that Food Agriculture Department, Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1 of Mamidipally and Raviryal villages in Ranga Reddy District on the lands taken over from Animal Husbandry Department on 12.9.2005. On the same day, Sri I. Syam Prasad Reddy (A.3) of M/s. Indu Projects Ltd., submitted an application dated 19.10.2005 addressed to VC MD, APIIC stating that they are specialized in urban infrastructure development and have right type of highly reputed strategic allies and know-how providers to partner them in establishing IT parks. He further stated that they have tied up with 2/3 highly reputed international partners to develop an integrated world class SEZ that could provide facilities to world players in software/hardware/ITES/Residential Retail and allied sectors and requested to allot 1,000 acres of land near international airport for the purpose. In another letter of even dated addressed to the VC MD with similar contents, Mr. Ram Pujari, Director, M/s. Indu Projects Ltd requested to allot 500 acres of land near the international airport. Copies of both the letters were endorsed to the Secretary, IT C Department and were received by the petitioner as the then Secretary as evidenced by her initials thereon. Next day, the Chief Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy (A.3) has been enjoying a high degree of rapport and patronage of late Chief Minister Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy in allotment of housing projects through APHB. In his application I. Syam Prasad Reddy (A.3) proposed to develop IT park through a consortium. M/s. Indu Projects Ltd was incorporated on 7.12.2001 and turnover of the company for the preceding years was shown at ₹ 128.490 Crore (2004-05); ₹ 59.245 Crore (2003-04); ₹ 16.62 (2002-03) and ₹ 1.35 Crore (200102) and enclosed annual reports. As per the certificate dated 19.12.2005 issued by Sri C.V.Koteswara Rao (A.15), Chartered Accountant, M/s.Indu Projects Ltd h as constructed 27,47,255 SFT of projects during the period between 2002-05. M/s. Golf Links Software Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore and M/s.Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd., Mumbai were declared as other members of the proposed consortium. Combined net worth of the proposed consortium was shown at ₹ 1,000 Crore and enclosed a copy of the Power of Attorney dated 17.12.2005 in favour of M/s. Indu Projects Ltd., as the lead member of the consortium. The consortium agreement was signed by the representatives of M/s.Indu Projects Ltd., and M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y criteria of having a net worth of ₹ 250 Crore and did not construct 40 Mn. SFT. Further, the claim of forming consortium with M/s.Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd., is not supported by any consortium agreement or GPA signed by all the three purported constituent members. The petitioner as head of the IT C Department cannot absolve herself of the responsibility to ensure that the applications placed before CCITI are complete in all aspects and supported with the necessary documents. In the absence of valid consortium agreement/GPA, it should not have been allowed to place before the Committee. The meeting discussed the issued involved at length and resolved to adopt a transparent and short duration method to identify the developers who can bring in quality IT space along with associated social infrastructure on a large scale. Defining the word transparency, Dr.V.P. Jauhari, former Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department has stated that the selection has to be through on the basis of criteria based on sound guideline/procedure to ensure that there should not be any undue favour to any one nor and should not be any loss to the Government and it should serve the public purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Projects Ltd., M/s.IDFC and M/s. Golf Links Software Parks Pvt Ltd. Since their experience/financial details were considered to decide their eligibility fixed by the CCITI, a fact which was declared by Sri Syam Prasad Reddy himself in his letter dated 20.1.2006. The counter further states that B.P. Acharya who was acting in league with other accused persons has not exercised any sort of due diligence about the claims of the private company and accepted the claims of consortium without therebeing any supporting documents of formation of the purported consortium with M/s IDFC and M/s.Golf Links Software Parks Pvt Ltd. Moreover Sri B.P. Acharya is well aware of the fact that the rate of ₹ 20.00 lakh per acre in the CM s meeting held on 20.10.2005 was agreed to only in the context that APIIC on its own would develop the SEZ. It is further stated that minutes of CM s meeting on 20.10.2005 have not been formally approved. However at a subsequent stage the petitioner has falsely informed the Council of Ministers that rate of ₹ 20.00 lakhs per acre was acceptable to APIIC which is the custodian of the lands. Immediately, the petitioner has conducted the CCITI meeting on 2.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1988. The counter affidavit also states that the statement of the then Chief Secretary based on the facts on record that the petitioner has violated Rule 15 in circulating and obtaining the approval of the Minister to the draft Cabinet Memorandum and Rule 37 in ignoring the observations of Finance and Revenue Development in fixing the price for government lands prove the contentions false. Statements of the Principal Finance Secretary and Special Chief Secretary, Revenue independently corroborate the observations/remarks of the Chief Secretary. In the light of the notings in the official records dealt by the petitioner and the statements of the senior officials of the Government including the former Chief Secretary prove that the allegations on the process of investigation are not correct and untenable. It is also submitted that the CBI has filed charge sheet after following all procedures and guidelines as per the CBI Manual and the said case was registered as per the orders of this Court and therefore sought to dismiss the criminal petition. Heard Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Wilson ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal after sent to the Minister, IT C and is pending consideration even as on this date is a factor which was lost sight of by the CBI to test the bonafides of the petitioner and her commitment for upholding the interests of the State in precedence to any individual interest and the said factor would go a long way in disproving the allegations against A7 and the alleged conspiracy with the other accused. The respondent thus fabricated up a false case against the petitioner by projecting an impression in the charge she et as though the petitioner has processed the file of A5 single handedly in isolation as part of the conspiracy and is a figment of imagination of the CBI. Learned counsel further submitted that lands were given on agreement to sale and not directly sold during the tenure of the petitioner. However, the APIIC much after the tenure of the petitioner seems to have alienated the land and violated the terms and conditions of the MOU prepared and finalized by the petitioner while she was in office. This was also lost sight of by the respondent and therefore the investigation against A.7 is wholly vitiated. It is further submitted that the Chief Secretary has not only perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nherent jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also to look to the admitted documents. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. Relying on the above decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court to find out as to whether the allegations made against the petitioner are prima facie correct or not can take into consideration the correspondence made by the petitioner and also the documents processed by the petitioner in that regard. Learned counsel in that regard referred to the minutes of the Review Meeting of the Chief Minister on IT C Department Activities on 20.10.2005 and para d of the same reads as under : As regards the cost of land for allotment in Hardware Park area, VC MD stated that the present rate being charged by APIIC is ₹ 26.00 lakhs per acre considering the fact that internal infrastructure need not be developed by APIIC for allotment to be made to developers and major companies where more than 100 acres is allotted, it was decided t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner conspired with the A.5 company would not arise and the same is baseless. It is further contended by the petitioner that A.5 company submitted application for allotment of land for development of SEZ in IT and the same was returned to the A.5 company to fill up the enclosed application specially furnishing the information as per the criteria/check list. Thereafter A.5 company has submitted an application in the proforma and the same was received on 17.12.2005 with a certificate of experience of A.5 company in executing projects at various places in India. Learned counsel further referred to the copy of th Draft Minutes of the 34 Meeting of the Consultative Committee on IT Industry held on 21.12.2005 at 3.30 pm. in the IT C Conference Hall, which indicates that the petitioner and 18 other officers have attended the meeting. It was stated therein that the applications as to allotment of land to develop IT Parks may be examined by the APIIC keeping in view the parameters evolved for selection of IT park developers. Following are the parameters. Parameters for Selection of IT Park Developers: As per NASSCOM-McKinsey Report 2005 between the year 2005 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e referred to APIIC to examine the parameters fixed by the CCITI committee, therefore the allegation that the petitioner singled out A.5 company is false and baseless. Learned counsel further stated that it is pursuant to the applications came relying on the D.O. Lr.No.1954/IT C/Prom2/2005 dated 3.1.2006 addressed to Sri B.P Acharya, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APIIC Ltd, Hyderabad, whereunder the petitioner being the Secretary to Government, IT C Department stated that the applications from M/s.Maven Park (Visakhapatnam), M/s.Indu Projects Limited (Hyderabad), M/s.Brahmani Infratech Pvt Ltd ( Hyderabad) and M/s.K.Raheja Corp Pvt Ltd ( Hyderabad Visakhapatnam) for allotment of th land to develop IT Parks/SEZ were discussed in the 34 CCITI Meeting on 21.12.2005 and it has been decided that APIIC may examine those applications, keeping in view the parameters evolved for selection of IT Park developers; that the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APIIC was asked to take further action in the matter. Thereafter, it is submitted, the Vice Chairman and MD of APIIC submitted proposals dated 30.1.2006 to the Principal Secretary to the Government CIP Industries and Commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent filed chargesheet against the petitioner without obtaining valid sanction order from the competent authority, therefore the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS v. M.K. AIYAPPA AND ANOTHER 2013(12) SCALE 283 In ANIL KUMAR s case (3 supra) the Special Judge referred the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against a public servant without a valid sanction order. In a writ petition the High Court quashed the order passed by the Special Judge while holding that the Special Judge could not taken notice of the private complaint unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order, irrespective of whether the court was acting at a pre-cognizance stage or the post-cognizance stage, if the complaint pertains to a public servant. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the High Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect a public servant. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition and the same is dismissed. Per contra, Sri Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the investigation into the allotment of 250 acres of land in favour of A.5 company by the IT and C Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad headed by the petitioner revealed that she played a dubious role in allotment of lands to an otherwise unqualified and ineligible company M/s. Indu Techzone Pvt. Ltd owned by M/s. Indu Projects Ltd. Therefore a charge sheet has been filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 17.9.2013 against the accused including the petitioner. He also submits that the trial Court took the cognizance as the criminal conspiracy u/s.120-B, cheating u/s.420, and criminal breach of trust u/s 409 IPC relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court of India. He submits that becoming party to a criminal conspiracy and committing the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust do not form part of official duties of the public servants and therefore the protection contemplated under section 197 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the petitioner herein. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner facilitated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r even during the pendency of the trial, therefore charge sheet filed against the petitioner without obtaining sanction orders from the competent authority is not illegal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER v. P.P. SHARMA 1992 Supll (1) SCC 222 , STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTEHR V. MOHD. KHALID AND OTHERS (1995) 1 SCC 684, A.K. SINGH AND OTHERS v. UTTARAKHAN JAN MORCHA AND OTEHRS (1999) 4 SCC 476, K.KALIMUTHU v. STATE BY DSP (2005) 4 SCC 512, ROMESH LAL JAIN v. NAGINDER SINGH RANA AND OTHERS (2006) 1 SCC 294 STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER v. PASTOR P. R A J U (2006) 6 SCC 728, GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING RASHTRIYA RIFLES v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANTOEHR 2012(6) SCC 228. Relying on the above decisions of the Supreme Court, Sri Wilson submitted that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not condition precedent for taking cognizance against the petitioner and that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required to be obtained only when the offence complained against the public servant is attributable to the discharge of public duty; and that the investigation agency is competent to file charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression State Government occurring therein, the expression Central Government were substituted. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression Central Government occurring therein, the expression State Government were substituted. (3A) 1[ Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , or to be inseparably connected with discharge of his official duty, he is entitled to protection of sanction. When, where court proceeds against public servant without sanction, he can raise the issue of jurisdiction of court. Sanction can be obtained even during trial depending upon facts of individual case. In that view of the matter, the respondent investigating agency is competent to file chargesheet even without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Therefore the first issue is answered against the petitioner. Issue No.2. Coming to the next issue as to whether any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as per the material placed by the prosecution agency warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Adverting to this issue, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for counsel for the respondent however submitted that the petitioner has played active role in allotment of 250 acres of land in favour of A.5 company, which is unqualified and ineligible for the said allotment. He also submits that after thorough investigation, and after recording the statements of the witnesses and after scrutinizing the documents the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS 2011) 12 SCC 437, wherein the Supreme Court has considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings and has summarized the legal position by laying down several guidelines to be followed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint or a charge sheet. It was further held by the Supreme Court that in a proceeding instituted on a complaint exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous or oppressive. In AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Supreme Court held that the factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied the Court will not either dismiss the complaint or quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent or original jurisdiction. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings particularly after charges are being framed, should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the land by not following the regular transparent procedure; therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings by this Court. It is the main contention of the petitioner that the investigating agency s allegations that the State assigned to the IT C Department several duties and that the petitioner had changed her stand inexplicably, that she acted in a unilateral and opaque manner and that the respondent is sitting over the decisions of the Cabinet, are all surmises of persons directly not connected with the issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that APIIC is the nodal agency in respect of the allocation of land, fixation of price, preparation and finalisation of MOUs with the intending entrepreneurs and securing the works of execution and establishment of IT Parks, thus respondent agency acted in its blissful ignorance of the role of CCITI and the Department of IT C in the entire gamut of event insofar petitioner A.7 concerned. The IT C Department is a single officer oriented department intended to give thrust to IT Department and no other role relating to allocation of lands etc and that the actions or the proposals of the petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Administration Department and that in the event of the Chief Secretary noticing any semblance of the deviation of the movement of the file in accordance with the Business rules he is obligated and empowered under Rule 28 of the Rules to call for any file and report about this deviation to the concerned Minister, which was not adopted by him at any point of time, therefore his version in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement cannot be made basis for implicating the petitioner in the impugned proceedings. It is further brought to the notice that the respondent failed to notice the conduct of the petitioner who made field inspection long prior to filing of the writ petition nos.794 of 2011 and batch and her recommendations as reflected in the note file dated 10.3.2011 and marking the same to the Minister for IT on 10.3.2011 recommending for resumption of the balance land restricting the allotment of land to A.5 to 25.00 guntas of land only, the factors which establish the manner in which the petitioner discharged her official duties consciously and in the interests of the State alone. The petitioner also refuted the allegation that the petitioner has signed the MoU. In W.P.Nos.794 and 66 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C and u/s 9,11,12,13(2) (1)(c) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 and this court taken cognizance on 10.10.2013 as follows : COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 10-10-2013. Perused the charge sheet, office note and record. The charge sheet is taken on file for the following offences against the accused : A.1 - Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy u/s 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 9 of P.C. Act, 1988 A.2 V. Vijay Sai Reddy U/s 120-B, 420 IPC Section.9 of P.C.Act 1988 A.3 I. Syam Prasad Reddy u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12 PC Act. A.4 M/s. Indu Projects Ltd u/s 120-B, 420 IPC rep. by I.Syam Prasad Reddy, M.D. A.5 M/s. Indu Techzone P. Ltd u/s 120-B, 420 IPC rep. by I. Syam Prasad Reddy, M.D. A.6 M/s. SPP Properties P.Ltd u/s 120-B, 420IPC rep by I. Syam Prasad Reddy, M.D. A.7. Smt. K. Ratna Prabha u/s 120-B, 420, 409 IPC A.8 Smt. P. Sabita Reddy u/s 120B, 420, 409 IPC Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C. Act. A.9. B.P. Acharya u/s. 120B, 420, 409 IPC A.10 - D. Pardhasaradhi Rao u/s 120B, 420, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c ) (d) P.C. Act. A.11 Nimmagadda Prasad U/s 120B, 420 IPC. A.12 M/s. G2 Corp. Service Ltd u/s 120-B, 420 IPC Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDRAOJIRAO ANGRE AND OTHERS (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Supreme Court held that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. The court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL 1992 Supp (1)) SC 335 a question came up for consideration as to whether quashing of the FIR filed against the respondent Bhajan Lal for the offences under Sections 161 and 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was proper and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint. In HAMIDA V. RASHID (2008) 2 SCC 705 the Supreme Court inter alia held that it is well established principle that every court has inherent power to act ex debito justitia to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In the above mentioned backdrop, now it is to be seen as to whether any ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioner are prima facie established as per the material placed by the investigating agency. It is relevant to extract relevant portions of the charge sheet insofar as accusations against the petitioner are concerned. It was mentioned at page 20 of the charge sheet insofar petitioner as follows : Smt. K. Ratna Prabha is an IAS officer of 1981 Batch and belongs to Karnataka Cadre. During the relevant peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y been submitted by them and forwarded to Government of India. The Charge sheet further reads that: Letter sent to M/s. Indu Projects Ltd: Investigation revealed that in furtherance of said conspiracy, on 13.12.2005 Smt. K. Ratna Prabha, IAS Secretary, IT C Department has directed Sri P.S. Murthy JD (Promotion), to write letter to M/s.Indu Projects Ltd (A.4), Hyderabad to submit application in the prescribed proforma along with the requisite information in the checklist/criteria before 11.12.2005. This signifies a sudden and inexplicable shift in the stand adopted by Smt. K.Ratna Prabha (A.7). Earlier APIIC was asked to develop the SEZ on its own and accordingly an application in the prescribed proforma was already submitted to the Board of Approval, Government of India. However, applications from private companies are solicited without there being any justification recorded in the file. This clearly indicates unilateral opaque manner in which Smt. K. Ratna Prabha (A.7) has operated and took decisions. CCITI Meeting on 21.12.2005: 54. Immediately on the next day on 21.12.2005, Smt. K. Ratna Prabha (A.7) Secretary has conducted 34 th meeting of CCITI, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arked to CMO. 76. Investigation revealed that Sri B.P.Acharya in the note file stated that M/s.Indu Projects Ltd A(.4) has proposed to form consortium with M/s.IDFC (Financial Member ) and M/s.Golf Links Software Park Pvt Ltd (Technical Member) and the information furnished by the company satisfied the requirement as fixed by the Government. He has further stated that during a review meeting on 20.10.2005, the CM has directed to allot land at a rate of ₹ 20.00 lakh per acre. 79. Moreover, Sri B.P. Acharya (A.9) is well aware of the fact that he only suggested the rate of ₹ 20.00 lakh per acre in the CM s meeting held on 20.10.2005 only in the context that APIIC on its own develop the SEZ. Therefore, his efforts or assertions on the applicability of the rate of ₹ 20.00 lakh per acre for private companies also shows his dishonest intentions. 80. It many not be out of context that the minutes of 20.10.2005 have not been formally approved. Further, at a subsequent stage, while placing the proposals before the Council of Ministers, Smt.K. Ratna Prabha (A.7) has stated that the rate of ₹ 20.00 per acre was acceptable to APIIC which is the custodia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipal Finance Secretary. 95. IT is revealed that the Principal Secretary,Finance vide his Note dated 28.3.2006 remarked that IT C Department may prepare an enabling policy on commercial lines without any financial commitment to Government or Government agencies and ensuring prevailing market value is recovered in a competitive, open and transparent process. 96. Investigation revealed that Dr.V.P. Jauhari,the then Special Chief Secretary, Revenue vide his Note dated 13.4.2006 suggested to incorporate a clause in the MOU that in case of any violation of the conditions the Government and APIIC will be at liberty to resume the land. He further remarked that it was presumed that selection process has been done in a transparent and impartial manner. The cost of the land at ₹ 20.00 lakh per acre is extremely low. The current price may be over a crore per acre. However, in order to provide incentive to IT companies and achieve the objective of the IT Hub Development, Government may take its own view to provide land at concessional rate and suggested that the Cabinet approval be obtained before taking any further action. He has further observed that the suggestions of Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of MOU conveyed vide Council Resolution No.146/2006 dated 10.7.2006. Role and Responsibility of the Secretary, Smt. K.Ratna Prabha (A.7) and the Minister Smt.P. Sabita Reddy (A.8) in the facts of the present case : 190. During the course of investigation, the Chief Secretary at the relevant time referring the relevant records, stated that the IT C Department/APIIC has not followed a transparent method of inviting IT companies in an open and competitive manner which was categorically laid/emphasised by the Finance and Revenue Departments and duly endorsed by him in the capacity of the then Chief Secretary vide his minutes recorded. 191. He further opined that the Cabinet Memorandum prepared by Smt. K. Ratna Prabha (A.7) the then Secretary, IT C Department is silent on the minimum financial and technical criteria prescribed by the CCITI for selection of the IT developers. The original MOU as approved by the Cabinet has been sought to be diluted without incorporating inbuilt safety mechanism to ensure that the government land should not go into the hands of parties which do not fulfil the criteria as laid down by the CCITI. 192. The draft Memorandum was appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CCITI. 325. These facts clearly proves the criminal conspiracy among the accused persons and dishonest intentions of Smt. K. Ratna Prabha (A.7), Secretary, IT C Department and Sri I. Syam Prasad Reddy (A.3), MD of M/s. Indu Techzone Pvt. Ltd., (A.5) in inclusion of such enabling clauses in the MOU through the revised proposals placed before the Cabinet on 7.7.2006. As to fixation of rate for the land to be allotted to the company that in the minutes for the review meeting of the Hon ble the Chief Minister on IT C Department activities on 20.10.2005 at 12.30 p.m. and again at 4.00 pm it was stated that : d) as regards the cost of land for allotment in Hardware Park area, VC MD stated that the present rate being charged by APIIC is ₹ 26.00 lakhs per acre considering the fact that internal infrastructure need not be developed by APIIC for allotment to be made to developers and major companies where more than 100 acres is allotted, it was decided to charge a rate ₹ 20.00lakhs per acre for the present. During the review meeting on allotment of lands at Harware Park, the Hon ble Chief Minister has agreed to the proposal to allot around 250 acres in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s.Stargaze (Raheja), M/s.Indu Projects and M/s.Brahmani Infotech for allotment of 250 acres of land each, as mentioned in (i) above. It is the decision of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.11 to invite applications from the reputed IT company; that APIIC shall act as nodal agency for allotment of land and fixation of land value; that as per the counter averments of the respondent at para 53 that subsequent to the CCITI meeting the petitioner forwarded the applications of M/s.Indu Projects Ltd (A.4), M/s.Brahmani Infratech Pvt. Ltd., M/s.K. Raheja Corp. Pvt Ltd and M/s.Maven Park to APIIC with a direction to examine the applications keeping in view the parameters evolved in the CCITI s meeting on 21.12.2005 for selection of IT park developers. The counter further runs that vide para 57 that in a clear deviation from the established procedure, APIIC has not published any tenders/notification in the instant case, even though the CCITI under the chairmanship of Smt. K. Ratna Prabha, Principal Secretary (A.7) in their meeting held on 21.2.2005 has decided to adopt transparent and short duration method . It is also stated by the respondents in para 64 of counter itself that on 30.01.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... APIIC, while marking copies to the IT Department. In fact M/s. Indu Projects made an application in the month of October,2005 and further requested for the same on 16.11.2005 to the APIIC, the nodal agency as well as marking a copy of the same to the IT C Department. However, as the same was not in the prescribed format it was asked to file the application in the prescribed format. Similar three applications of the entrepreneurs were filed on 17.12.2005 and that the Department of IT C, in a single note circulated the same to the Cabinet in a single file proposing the clearance of the said three files. On 3.1.2006, the Department of IT C communicated to the APIIC the minutes of the CCITI which had decided to direct the APIIC to examine the applications keeping the parameters of the selection criteria for IT Park Developers. The note which was circulated was for all the three IT parks mentioned above after the recommendations and observations of the various officers in the IT C Department including the Joint Director, and the Special Secretary, IT, (IPS Officer). After obtaining the comments of Law, Finance, Revenue, the Cabinet Note has been prepared and circulated to the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decided to charge a rate of ₹ 20.00 lakh per acre. The record further reveals that A.1 MD of M/s.Indu Project Ltd submitted applications for allotment of land apart from two other companies to APIIC. That three applications of the enterprises were forwarded by APIIC and as they were not in prescribed format, they were returned by the petitioner for presentation in prescribed format. Thereafter the APIIC forwarded the application stating that they satisfy the norms and thereafter petitioner processed the applications after receiving the same in prescribed format from the three entrepreneurs and circulated the note in single note to the various departments. It is apt to refer to the remarks of the Additional Secretary (Law) made on the note file: 20. The department shall ensure that the reliefs and concessions being extended to the Developers are as per the ICT policy of the State. 21. Subject to above, the alternations indicated in pencil on the draft MOU may be made. After circulation to the Law Department again the file was circulated to the petitioner herein who endorsed on the file at para 22 that noted observations will be incorporated in the MOU. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as circulated to concerned Minister for IT. According to the petitioner observations of all the departments have been taken into consideration and that no remarks as to deferring or contrary remarks were made; and that the concerned IT Minister also approved the file and it was referred to the Chief Minister and it was endorsed by the then Chief Minister on 15.4.2006 to place it before the Cabinet for approval before the Cabinet it was placed at item no.8 and it was also approved by the Cabinet. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot be attributed any of the accusations levelled by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the letter dated 17.10.2005 sent by the VC MD of APIIC to the petitioner wherein it is stated that land can be allotted to the IT Software companies at the rate of ₹ 2600/- psm without development which is prevailing for undeveloped land in Hardware park. It is also relied on the copy of the CS approved the notefile for placing the item in Agenda to the Cabinet and the approval of the CS got further approval by the Chief Minister for placing the same before the Cabinet, therefore contention that the petitioner e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments etc., and the said fact is clearly ignored to be taken note of by the investigation agency. The decision as to allotment being policy decision was taken by the Cabinet and therefore accusations levelled by the CBI cannot be attributed to the petitioner, more so in view of the fact that upon being reposted as Principal Secretary IT C on 23.3.2010, the petitioner having noticed the lack of progress in the project of A.5 has recommended for resumption of the lands after filed inspection as a remedial measure for the deviation of the terms of the agreement by A.5. the said proposal after sent to the Minister IT C and is pending consideration even this date is a factor which was lost sight of by the CBI to test the bona fides of the petitioner. In the Memorandum of Council of Ministers submitted by the IT and C Department in C No.1954/IT C/Prom2/2005, M284 for development of integrated town ship/parks/IT SEZs allotment of land of 250 acres each to M/s Brahmani Infotec, M/s Stargaze, and M/s Indu Projects in Mamidipalli and Kancha Imarat Villages, near new International Airport. The petitioner has incorporated the opinion of the Finance Department and the opinion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (53). In view of the position indicated by the Secretary IT C Department at para 52 ante and in view of ICT Policy 2005-2010 as envisaged at paragraph 36 f. of G.O.Ms.No.11, IT C Department, dt.21.3.2005, there is no objection to take action as proposed at paragraph 47 ante. However the scope and specific purpose of the power of Attorney may be specified. The note file further states that: (54) As per the endorsement of Law Department at 53 nt para above, the remakrs of Law on the Power Attorney shall be specified in the MoU at appropriate place. (55)The file is therefore circulated for placing this before the next council of Ministers meeting, for consideration of the amendments/modifications to the terms and conditions of MoU as proposed at para 47 nt. Ante. . (65) In view of what has been stated earlier at paras 42 -64 n.f. ante, the file is circulated for placing the proposed/modifications/amendments to certain terms and conditions of MoU with the three IT Park Developers before the next cabinet meeting on 7.7.2006 along with DRAFT MEMORANDUM FOR THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS for consideration approval. The above note file was fully approved by the Chief S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered necessary by Special Director, Additional Director, Joint Directors, DIGs, Director of Prosecution, Direction, CFSL and other senior officers. In particular the following matters should be referred to him. .. 34. We, accordingly, direct CBI to place the evidence/material collected by the investigating team along with the report of the SP as required under Section 173(2) CrPC before the court/Special Judge concerned who will decide the matter in accordance with law. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA s case (24 supra), it is contended that formation of opinion by the officer as per Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C is required insofar as petitioner is concerned while forwarding the charge sheet to the court and the same is lacking in this case. It is seen from the record that vide G.O.Ms.No.8 IT C Department dated 15.3.2005, it was stated that Government of Andhra Pradesh are keen to significantly increase the levels of employment being generated in the IT sector, by attracting leading and large multinational IT companies to establish their operations in the State by proving investments friendly climate, physical infrastructure of internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them including approving allotment of lands to the ICT industry. b) to resolve the problem in implementation of the ICT Policy for speed realization of the goals set forth c) to prescribe the procedures and to issue guidelines and clarifications in the implementation of the ICT Policy. 4. The term of the CCITI shall be coterminous with the ICT policy. The CCITI can approve/reject applications for incentives at its sole discretion. In the said G.O., itself application proforma for allotment of land to IT industries was annexed vide Annexure-IV. From the above G.O. 11 it is manifest that the Government has taken a policy decision to boost the IT industry and to invite applications from the IT companies and that APIIC was directed to act as nodal agency for development of IT parks: that CCITI committee was constituted to act as single window for granting incentives under ICT policy and for approving for allotment of land. It is to be noted that allotment of land is kept with the APIIC vide para no.36 referred above. As per the material placed by the prosecution, the Chief Minister on review of IT C Department meeting held on 30.9.2005 it was stated that : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls were on to call for EOI/tenders for development of IT parks. Vide C.No.1954/IT C/Prom.2/2005 it was stated by the petitioner that three applications were received the same were not in correct proforma. Vide letter dated 3.1.2006 the APIIC was directed to examine the applications keeping in view the parameters evolved for selection of IT parks developers by enclosing copy of 34 CCITI meeting minutes held on 21.12.2005. According to the petitioner, it is basing on the report given by the APIIC on fulfilment of eligibility as per the th criteria laid down as per the 35 CCITI minutes meeting held on 2.2.2006, note was prepared for allotment of land to three IT Park developers, wherein Additional Secretary (Law), Principal Finance Secretary, Spl. Chief Secretary Revenue, and the Chief Secretary have made endorsements as referred supra. After getting the noting of the Chief Secretary the circulation was interrupted by the petitioner stating that as per the observation of the Chief Secretary the observations of the departments will be taken note of in the MOU and then sent the same for approval to the concerned IT Minister and thereafter to the Chief Minister and the same were also app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows that the petitioner has not taken any independent decision in allotment of land or to fixation of price of land. Even otherwise, the charge sheet or the material does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less an offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and 409. As observed by the Supreme Court, to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential that prosecution must prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. It has to be established further that in respect of the property so entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriate or dishonest use or disposal in violation of a direction of law or legal contract by the accused himself or by someone else which he willingly suffered to do. Normally, power to quash the Criminal Proceedings should be exercised sparingly and cautiously by looking into the allegations made in the charge sheet as to whether any offence is prima facie made out or not. So far as the petitioner is concerned, as discussed supra, the respondent has not made out any offences levelled against the petitioner including the offences under the provisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Cabinet. As stated above since APIIC pursuant to the observations of CCITI forwarded the applications stating that it has satisfied the norms, the applications were thereafter processed. Thus the contention that in the charge sheet as though the petitioner has processed the file of accused company single handedly in isolation as part of the conspiracy and is a figment of imagination. Further the expression in para 47 of the charge sheet that This signifies a sudden and significant shift in the stand of A7 is without reference to the true and correct factual matrix. In instant as discussed above, from the counter averments and also the contents of the charge sheet itself the respondent investigation authority categorically stated that it is the APIIC which is the nodal agency for allotment of land and fixation of land value; and that after receiving the applications from three companies note was sent by the APIIC pursuant to the decision of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.11 inviting applications from the companies for establishment of IT companies, that the APIIC which was authorised in that behalf, pursuant to the recommendations of the CCITI has forwarded the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
