Responding to a question posed by the high court on the issue of ‘valuable security’ based on which the CID included section 467 of IPC, VV Satish, the counsel for the petitioners, said the alleged NOC which is said to be fabricated or forged does not confer any valuable security to the petitioners. The NOC is for construction of house in the property which belongs to the petitioners, he said, adding that when there is no additional benefit to the petitioners by way of NOC, section 467 cannot be applied to the case.
Satish further argued that the CID intentionally did not inform the high court on Oct 31 about the ongoing investigation which is nothing but suppression of facts. Either there was no case at all prior to Oct 31 or they have suppressed the facts, which is only denying the right of the petitioners to exercise their legal remedies but also contemptuous in nature, he said.
Arguing on behalf of CID, additional advocate general P Sudhakar Reddy said whether the petitioner obtained any valuable security or not, his action of fabricating a document by forging the signature of an executive engineer ranked officer itself constitutes a crime under section 467. He said the FIR was registered only on Nov 2 and even the CID would not know on Oct 31 that they are going to register a case. Considering the arguments, Justice R Raghunandan Rao reserved the judgment. Directing the respondents to file counters, the high court posted the matter for further hearing to next Thursday.