High Court allowed numerous criminal appeals against convictions in a corruption case involving embezzlement of scholarship amounts. The court held that investigation was flawed due to failure to collect official records and lack of expert opinion, granting the benefit of doubt.
All criminal appeals were allowed and accused were acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slip: TheAppellant / 4-36was directedto b-e released on bail by the order ;iil;';ii;.'E;;ii;GJr s-bo-ziioi in crt'n'u'p't'to ' s27 or 2007 in crr'A No' 674 of 2007
IN THE HIGHCOURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY ,THESEVENTEENTHDAY OF OCTOBER TWOTHOUSANDAND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICEK.SURENDER
CRIMIN ALAPPEAL Nos : 674 675703715743 7M 749 752755756
790 & 101 IOF 2007
Crl.AppealNo. 674 of 2O07
( Crl.Appeal UnderSection374 (2\ of Cr-P'C' aggrieved by the orderdated 11_06_2007 in ccNo. t or zoog on the fiie of the courtof the SpecialJudge Under the Preventionof CorruptionAci for SpeedyTrialof Casesof Embezzlementof itnorrirniJAmounts in SocialWelfareDepartment' Etc 'at Criminal Courts Complex. NamPally,HYderabad)
Between:
lvlanager, StateBank ot Il V SatvanaravanaPratap, S/o' Late Samba Murthy' Fria'ir. iurr.uii,FJo. Trimulgherry, secunderabad
...APPELLANT/A-36
AND
State of AndhraPradesh,rep.byPublic Prosecutor'High Courtof A-P'' Hyderabad
...RESPODENTS
Counselfor the Appellant:SRI' CH' DHANAMJAYA
Counselfor the Respondent:THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
j i
Bail Slip: The Appellant I A-24 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-06-2007 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 928 of 20O7 in Crl.A.No. 675 of 2O07
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 675 OF 2007
( Crl.Appeal Under Sectron 37 Q) of Cr. P.C- aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trral of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Socral Welfare Department, Etc., at Crimirial Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad)
Between:
D. Swaroopa Rani, W/o D. Shankar Rao, Housewife, R/o Plot No. 131, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase-lll, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad
...APPELLANT
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. K. L. B. KUMAR
Counsel forthe Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Bail Slip: The Appellant / A- 3 & 7 were directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-06-2007 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 970 of 20O7 in Crl.A.No. 703 ot 2OO7
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 703 OF 2007
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (21 of Cr.P.C R/w. Sec. 382 aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No- 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Wetfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad)
Between:
...APPELLANTS/ Accused Nos. 3 & 7
AND
The State of A.P.,, rep- by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P , Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT/ Complainanr
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. V. SURENDER RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 715 OF 2007
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) ot Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad)
Between:
...APPELLANTS
( As per Court Order dated 11-07-2023 in l.A.No. 1 ot 2018 in Crl.A.No. 715 of 2007 L.R. brought on record as Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 ) AND
The State of A.P.,, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. K. SURESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUtsLIC PROSECUTOR
I
CRIMINAL APPEALN o'.7430F2007
( Crl.Appeal Under Section374 (2) of Cr-P Caggrievedby the orderdated 11-06-)007in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special JudgeUnder the Preventionof CorruptionAct for SpeedyTriat of Cases of Embezzlement of SctrotarsnipAmounts in SocialWelfare Department'Etc 'atCriminal Courts Complex,NamPallY, ,HYderabad)
Between:
( All are Rl/o. C- 605, NGO'sColony,Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad )
( Since Respondent No-1 diedRespondenlsNos 2 to 4 are broughton ).Ioio. ,"JgLntedteave to continue this Crl Appeal No' 743 of 2007vide bourt OrOerA"ated6-4-2010in Crl.A-M.P.No. 665of 2010in this Crl.Appeal)
...APPELLANTS
AND
The State of A.P.,rep- by its PublicProsecutor, HighCourt of A'P'' Hyderabad
...RESPODENTS
Counsel for theAppellants: Smt. C. VASUNDHARA REDDY
Counsel forthe Respondent:THEPUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:744OF 2O07
(Crl'AppealUnderSection3T4(2)ofCr.P.Caggrievedbytheorder.dated 11-06-i007 inCC No. '1 of 2003 on the file of the Courtof the Special JudgeUnder the Preventionof CorruptionAct for SpeedyTrial of Cases of Embezzlementof icholarship Amountsin Social welfareDepartment,Etc., at Criminal courts Complex, NamPallY, ,HYderabad)
Between:
Uradi SantoshKumar, S/o.Balaiah,DSWo, R/o' H-No. 3-6-231, Magdhum lvlargh, HimafthNasar,
...APPELLANT/ A.5
AND
The State, through Asst. Commissroner of Police,, CCS . DD., Hyderabad, rep-by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P , Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ENUGANTT SUDHANSHU RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 749 OF 2007
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 37a (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2001 in CC No. 1 of 2OO3 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruplion Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad)
Between:
...APPELLANT/ Accused Nos. 20,22, 41
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cenkal Crime Section, Detective Department, Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT/ Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. a. NALIN KUMAR
CounselJor. the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 752 OF 2007
( Crl.Appeal Under $ection 374 (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Pre\Fntion of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Caies of Embezzlement of Scholarfrip Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, , Hyderabad)
Betwee n
l/alyala Anjaiah, (46), S/o Lateltrl.tVlallaiah, Govt. Servant RJo H No.12-11-1366' Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.( Diedper LR"s )
As per the Court Order dated 18-08-2023inl.A. No. 1 I 2023 in Cd.A.No. 752 of 2007 L.R. Brought on record. )
...APPELLANTS
AND
The State of A.P., rep. by its PublicProsecutor, High Court., Hyderabad,
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl.P. VAMSHEEDHARREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: THEPUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 755 OF2OO7
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on thefile of theCourtof the SpecialJudge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for SpeedyTrial of Cases of Embez-zlementof Scholarship Amounts in SocialWelfare Department, Etc., at CriminalCourts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad)
Between:
Kadimi Venkateswara Rao,, S/o Late K.[/araiah,Superintendent in PAOOffice R/o ...APPELLANT/ B-93, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. Accused No. 4
AND
The State of A-P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court -,Hyderabad. t ..RESP.DENT )
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. T.PRADYUMNA KUMARREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: iHEPUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:756 OF 2OO7
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 37a Q) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06-2007 in CC No. 1 oI 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruplion Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social lVelfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad)
Between:
B.Sudhakar ( died ) (A-35), S/o tVaruthi Rao, Govt Servant R:/o 89-C, Vengalrao Nagtar;Xrderabd,
B. Saritha D/o. B. Sudhakar age , 35 years Occ: House Hold No. 44-14fi , Road No. 6, Srinivasapuram, Gurramguda, 5015010
( As per Court Order dated 18rca12}23 in l.A. No. 2 of 2023 in Crl.A.No. 756 ot 2OOl L.R. Brought on Record.) ...APPELLANT/ Accused 35
ANO
The State of A,P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. H. SUDHAKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 790 OF 2OO7
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 1146-2007 in CC No. 1 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad)
Between:
R.Mothya Naik,, S/o R.Keshya Naik, Warden in Social Welfare Department R/o Flat No.315, Sanali Heavens Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
...APPLLANT/ Accused No. 1
AND
The StaF of A.P-,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ., Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Bail Slip: The Appellant / A-2 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15-06-2007 in Crl.A.M-P.No . 2369 of 2OO7 in Crl.A.No. 1019 of 2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 10't9 OF 2OOl
( Crl.Appeal Under Section 378 ( ) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 11-06'200l in CC No. 1 of 2O03 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department, Etc., at Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad)
Between:
D,Shankar Rao, S/o Ra.jaiah, Rr/o. Plot No.131 ,Phase -lll, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/ Accused AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court , Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH. DHANAMJAYA
Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment
I a
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.674, 675, 7O3, 7 L5, 743.744.749. 752,755,756, 790 & 1019 0F 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
2
471 and Section 1O9 r/w 2Ol of IpC and AS, ,46, A7 & A10 were convicted and sentenced under Sections lO9 r/w 419, lO9 rlw 42O, IO9 r/w 467,IO9 r/w 468, 1O9 r/w 47t lpC; convicting and sentencing Accused No. I for the offences punishable under Sections 419,42O,467,46g,4O9,42 I of the Indian penal Code and A2 is convicted and sentenced ulder Sections 4Og, 4lg, 42O, 467,468 and 471 IPC.
3
Department, etc. at Criminal Courts Complex, Red Hills,Nampally, Hyderabad
4
Form 103. Both A1 and A2 opened bank accounts in the name of 25 fictitious colleges. After having produced the bills in the Pay ald Accounts Ofhce and after processing, cheques were taken and deposited into Bank accounts and money was withdrawn. The tota_l loss to the Government was Rs.26,38,46 .476/-.
5
arrd Accounts Offrcer in Deputy Pay and Accounts Ofhce, A2O worked as Assistant Pay and Accounts Ofhcer in Deput5r Pay and Accounts Ofhce, A22 worked as Superintendent in Deputy Pay and Accounts Offrce, A24 is the wife of A2, A34 and A35 worked as Superintendents 1n Deputy Pay and Accounts Office, A36 worked as Accountant in State Bank of Patiala, R.P.Road branch. A4l worked as Deputy Pay and Accounts Officer and A42 worked as District Tribal Welfare Officer (TDWO), Hyderabad.
6
PAO, A38-Retired Superintendent, pAO, A4O, A43.
Proceedings against A26 to A29 were quashed by High Court.
9 . As already stated, the cnrx of the allegation is that the scholarships meant for SC, ST, BC students were swindled by submitting fake scholarship application forms in the names of hctitious and bogus educational insLitutions with fictitious student narnes as belonging to SC, ST and BC communities, sanction proceedings of schoiarships, stamp receipts, bills etc., were aII fabricated.
SANCTION U lS.L97 Cr.P.C:
7
"Tle offence of cheating under section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to sections 467, 468, 471 and 12O-B can bg no stretch of imaaination bg their uery nah)re be regarded as hauing been committed b1l ary1 public seruant uthile acting or purporting to act tn discharge of official dutu. In such case, offtcial status onlg prouides an opportunitg for commi.ssion of the offence."
' lzoou 1r scc I
8
9
A.Srinivasulu v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police2 clarifred that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prakash Singh Badal's case (supra), held as under:
tso. But the above contention in our opinion is far-fetched. The observations contained in paragraph 50 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal (supra) are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case. If by their very nature, the offences under sections 42O,468, 471 arrd 12OB cannot be regarded as having been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of ofhcia-l du ty, the same logic would apply witJ. much more vigour in the case of offences under the PC Act. Section 197 of the Code does not carve out any group of offences that will fall outside its purview. Therefore, the observations contained in para 5O of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal cannot be taken as carving out an exception judiciaJly, to a statutory prescription. In fact, Parkas h Singh Badalcitcs with approval the other decisions (authored by the very same learned Judge) where this Court made a distinction between all act, though in excess of the duty, was reasonably connected with the discharge of ofhcial duty and an act which was merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. Interestingly, the proposiLion laid down in Rakesh Kumar Mishra (supra) was distinguished in paragraph 49 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal, before the Court made the observations in paragraph 5O extracted above.
'?2023SCCOnline SC 900
10
11
that the ofhcia,ls have fraudulently committed such acts of producing fabricated bills, having knowledge about ttre a-lleged falsity of the bills. The witnesses from Backward Class Welfare Department, Social Welfare Department, Tribal Welfare Department and Pay & Accounts Ofhce, stated that no infirmity was detected in any of the bills and procedure adopted while passing bills.
72
basis of inadmissible evidence, conclusions were drawn in the judgment
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra3, which reads as follows:
"153. A c:lose anal.gsis of this deci.sion uLould sftou.t that the follotoing conditions must be futfilled before a cose against an acatsed can be said to be .fttlh.t established:
(1) the circurn-startces front utltich the condusion of guitt is to be draun should be ftlltl cstctblished. It maA be noted here that this Courl [rtdicated tllot the circumstonces concerned'must or shouLd,, and not "mag be" established. There is not onLy o grammatical but a legal distinction between "mag be proued" and "must be or should be prouecl', as u)as held bg this Court in Shiuaji Sahobrao Bobade u. State of Maharashtro [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC iC41O33 : 1973 Crl LJ 17831 tuhere the obseruations tuere made: ISCC para 19, p. 8O7: SCC (Cn) p. loa7l
"Certainlg, it is a pimary pinciple that the outtsed must be and not merelg maq be guiltg before a court can conuict and the mental distance betueen'mag be'and'must be'is long and diuides uague conjectures fromsur e conctusions."
(2) the Jacts so established should be consisrent onlg uith the hgpothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to saA, theA should not be explainablet on ctng other Ltgpothesis except that the accused is guiltg,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusiue nature and_ tendencA,
'(1984) 4 scc 1 1(r
13
(4) they should exclude euery possible hApothesis except the one to be proued, and
(5) there must be a cLnin of euidence so complete as not to leaue any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of tlrc acansed and must shou that in all human probability tlrc act must haue been done bg the acatsed."
22. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of
Delhil4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"52. Again, oral euidence can be classified as oiginal and hearsag evidence. Original euid.ence is that uhich a uJitness reports him.seU to haue seen or heard through the medium of his oun sen-ses. Hearsag euidene is also colled deiualiue, transmitted, or seand-hand euidence in which a u.titness is merely reporting not uhat he himself saD or heard, and not uhat has come under the immediate obseruation of his ou-tn bodilg senses, but uhat he has learnt in respect of the fact through the medium of a third person- Nonnally, a hearsag u.tttness would be inctdmissible, bul when it is corroborated bg substantiue euidence of other urilnesses, it u.tould be admissible uide Mukhtiar Singh lMukhliar Singh u. State of Punjab, (2017) I SCC 136 : (2o17) 3 SCC (Cri) 607l .
'12023) 4 Supreme Court Cases 731
14
r/itnes.s, the unconoborated euidence of a uholly unreliable testimonA of a tuitncss musl result in an acquittal.
(i) Cerlifre,<t copies @uen under the proubions hereinafier contained;
(ii) Coptes rnade from the oiginal bg mecha.nicol processes ulhich in themselues ensure the acatracA of the apg, and. rnpies compared utith such copics;
(iii) Copies made jrom or compared uith tle ori@nal;
(iu) Counterparls of documents as against the parties ruho did not exes)te lllem; and
(u) Oral accounts of lhe contents of o doanment giuen by some person tuho hcts himself seen tt.
69.()ne oJ tLp- modes thrc;ugh u.tltich a fact cttn be proued- But, thot is not thc ottlq rrrode enuisaqed uncler the Duidence Act. proof of the fact
15
depends upon the degree of probabtlitg oJ it hauing existed. The stondord required for reaching the supposition is thot of a prudent man acting in ang important matter conceming him."
Court held as follows:
'17.Thegist of the offence of anspiracy is theagreementbetu.teentuo and more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act bg illegal means. There must be meeting of minds resulting in on ultimnte dectsion taken bg the conspirators regarding ammission of the crime."
Supreme Court held as follows:
"9.---...- An offencn of conspiracy cannot be deemed to haue been established on mere suspicion and sunnises or inferences uhich are not supported bg cogent euidence.
'(2011)1O Supreme Court Cases 768
'(1995)1 Supreme Court Cases 142
16
the accusc:d tuho tuere parties to the alleged anspirocy. Inferences fromsuch prouedcircumstancesregarding tfle guilt may be dratun onlg when such ciranm-stances are incapable of ong other reasonable explanatiort. From the aboue disanssion it can be seen that some of the circumstances relied upon bA the prosea)tion are not established bg cogent and rellable euidence. Euen othenuise it cannot be said. that thost: ciranmstances are in.capable of anA other reasonable interpretation- "
Supreme Court held as follows
"9. Hauirtq gone through the judgment of the High CourT----.-ln our optnion, Lhe contention raised by the counsel for the appe ant is uell-foun ded and must preuail. With due respect what the High Courl see-ms to haue missed ts that in a case like this tlhere tlere uas seious defalcation of the properties of the Sangh, unless the proseattion proued thnt there was a close cohesion and collusion betueen all the acatsed u.thich fonned the subject matter of a consplracry, it tuould be dilJiatlt to proue the dual chctrges pttrtlatLarly aqainst the appellant (A-1). he charge of conspiracg hauing failed, the most mateial and integral part of the prosea)tion storll ogainst the appellant disappears...."
Court held as follows:
"22,. In the instant appeals before us, the prosea ion hr;'s failedlo link the clutin of ciranm^stances so as to dispel tfle cloud of doubt about the culpabllity of the respondent-accused. It is a uellsetlled pinciple that a suspicion, houeuer groue it maA be cannot take place, of proof i.e. there is a long distance betueen "may be" and "must be", uthich must be trauersed by tlte proseantion to proue il.s case beqond reasonable dortbt [see Narendra Singh u. State of
'1984(Supp)Supreme Court Cases 207
' (20t9l 2 SCC 3O3
€t
11
M.P. lNarendra Singh u. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 : 2OO4 SCC (Cri) 189s1 l.
"44- The prosecution, it i,s oxiomatic, must establish its case against the auttsed by leading euidence tLn tis ae.epted by the standards that are knoun lo crimind juri-sprudence regardless of uhether tlrc cime is committed in the aurse of @mmunal dbturbances or otherube. In short, th.ere <:an onlA be one set of rules and standards u.then it comes to tials and judgment in cimtnal cases unless tLLe statute prouides for angthing speciallg applicable to a particular case or class of cases-"
Supreme Court held as follows:
"20. It is settled lanu that the suspicion, houteuer strong, it may be, cannot take the place of proof begond reosonable doubt. An accused cannot be conuicted on th.e ground of suspicion, no matter law strong it is. An accttsed is presumed to be innotnnt unless proued guilty begond a reasonable doubt.
21 . In the preset case, ue lind tnt tle proseantion Fas utterlg fai\edto establish the chai.n oJ euentsu-thich cs.n be said to exclusiuelg lead to lhe one and only conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the acansed-..."
Policelo, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
'(Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2Ol2 dated ll.Oa.2O22l
18
"50. Bul the above contention in our opin[on is far-fetched. The obseruations conlained in paragraph 5O of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal (supra) are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio Jlowing out of tlrc said case. If by their uery nature, the offences under sections 420, 468,471 and 12OB cannot be. regarded as hauing been committed by a public seruant uLhile acting or purporting to act in the dischorge of olficial duty, the same logic tuould apply tuith much more uigour in the cose of offenccs under the PC Act. Section 197 of the Code does not carue out anA group of offences that uLill fall outside its puruieu. Th.erefore, the obseruations contained in para 5O of th-e decision in Parkash Singh Badal cannot be taken as caruing out an exception judiciatly, to a statutory presciption. In fact, Parkash Singh Badal cites u.tith approual the other decisions (outhored bg tle uery some leorned Judge) u.there this Court made a distinction betu.teen an act, though in excess of the dutA, uas rea-s,onablg connected uith the discharge oj olficiat dutg and an act tuhich uos merelg a cloak Ior doing the objectionable act. InterestinglA, the proposition laid doun in Rakesh Kumar Mtslua (supra) u.tas disttnguklLed in paragraph 49 of the decision in Parkash Singh Badal, before the Court made the obseruations in parograph 5O exlracted aboue.
51 . No public seruanl A appointed utth o mandote or authoitA to commit an offence. Therefore, if the obseruations
contained in paragraph 5O of tlrc decision in Parkash Singlt Badal are applied, any act u.thich mnstitutes an offence under any statute u.)ill go out of the puruieu of an act in the dischorge of official dutg. The requtrement of a preuious sanction uLilt tfuts be rendered redundant bg such an interpretation."
29 In Teni Yadav v. State of Biharlr, the Hon'lcle Supreme
Court held as follows:
"11. ...... The burden is aluags on th.e prosea)tion to proue ils case begond reasonable doubt on the basis of legallg ad.missible euidence and uhen the offence charqed is gntesome or diabolic, much higher,
'2023 SCC Online SC 900
"2023 SCC Online Pat 2239
19
degree of assurance is required to tnfer the guilt of the accused. This pinciple is succinctlg explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mousam Singhn Rog u. Stole of W.B. reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377, parograpts 27 and 28 of uthich reads as under:-
"27. BeJore ue conclude, u-)e must place on reard the fact that ue are not unaluare of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the societg in general and the families of the uictims in parlicuLa4 ba the fact that a heinous cime like this goes unpunished, but then the latu does not pernit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conuiction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a ciminal tial neuer shifis, and it is aluags tle burden of the prosecution to proue its case begond reo-sonable doubt on the basis of acceptable euidence. In tle similar cirarnstance this Court in the case of Sarutan Singh Rattan Singh u. State of Punjab(AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus (AIR p.645,para 12)
"lt is no doubt a matter of regret that o foul ald-blooded and cruel mttrder should go unpunished- There mag also be an element oJ truth in the prosecution story against th.e acansed- Considered as a uhole, tlrc prosecution story mag be true; but betueen'mag be true' and 'musl be true' there is ineuitablg a long distance to trauel and the who[e of lhis distance must be couered bg the proseaiion by legal, reliable and unimpeachoble eutdence before an accused can be conuicted.
Bogus Colleges:
30, As per Ex.P763 report submitted by P.W. 133 to the ACP
the following Colleges were not in existence.
20
to the ACP the followingColleges were not in existence.
Ex.P763 has mentioned both Al-ameenJunior College and A1-
27
Ameen Degree College as the non existing Colleges though in his Ex.P237 letter the Reglstrar, Osmania University has mentioned that Al-Ameen Degree College was in existence.
22
23
bogus colleges. He further stated that he was not aware about the list of recognized colleges prior to hisjoining the Intermediate Board. The witnessjoined in the year 2OO2 and the alleged bogus claims were prior to year 2OO2. The witness further admits that every year colleges will be deleted and new colleges will be added and he is not aware about the colleges prior to his joining in the year 2OO2.
24
given as to why the said official records were not collected by the police or handed over by the witnesses.
" 114((g) That evider-rcc which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfzlvourabie to tJle person who withholds it;"
25
worked as District Socia-l Welfare Ofhcer. She admitted in her examination that the list of colleges enclosed to Ex.P4O2 was for the year L99O-2OOO. In the said list, the narnes of the 25 alleged bogus colleges find p14ce. It is brought on record that A17 had prepared Ex.P4O2, and addressed to the Deputy Pay and Accounts Officer on 2L.1O.1999 even prior to the registration of crime in the present case. In this case, crime was registered on 13.05.2OO2. In fact, A17, who died during trial addressed Ex.P4O2 and lodged a complaint with Jubilee Hills Police on 13.05.2002, stating that she found two forged bills in the name of DVR college, Jubilee Hills and the said bills were submitted ald signatures of staff members of Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department were fabricated. The said complaint of Al7 was registered as crime No.151 of 2OO2 and later investigation was handed over to the CCS, DD, Hyderabad. During the course of investigation, Al7 was added as accused. No evidence is placed by the prosecution in the Court below that A17 had fabricated Ex.P4O2 in conspiracy with the other accused. There is no evidence to that effect either by the Investigating Officer or any other witness. The
26
said document is not disputed by the prosecution, in which the names of 25 alleged bogus colleges names find place. The witnesses do not say that trxP4O2 was false and fabricated.
27
concluded that the colleges were not existenton the basis of uncorroborated testimony of witnesses. Burden is always on the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving a fact by reliable evidence.
Bills
| Sl.No | Nameofthe witness |
Exhibits marked |
Detailsof Exhibits |
Againstaccused |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SathinagiReddy, PAO(P.w.2) |
Pl3-P81 | Bills | A3,7,rO,34,39,22,35 |
| P82-P116 | Cheques | A20, ro,39 | ||
| PllT-Pl31 | Billscopies | A4,39,34,20,4t | ||
| D4 | GOMs.No.88 | |||
| D5.D8 | PAO manua,ls |
|||
| D9/rO | Proceedirgs |
28
| 2 | Y.Annapurna, Auditor(P.W.4) |
tv20-23 | Bills | .A43 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P2831 | Bills | 44,34, 39 | |||
| DLa l'7 | Bills | f.4,39,34,20,4t | |||
| P45 | Bills | 44,39,34,20,41 | |||
| P56-P61 | Bills | A4, 34, 39 | |||
| P68P75 | Bills | 44,34,39 | |||
| P80 | Bills | A4,A39 | |||
| Pl9 | Bills | A4 | |||
| P67,6a | Bills | F.4,A34 | |||
| Pt33-196 | Bills | F.4, 34,39 | |||
| 3 | P.SrinivasRao, Asst.Auditor (Pws) |
||||
| 4 | Raghavendra Chary Asst.PAO(PW6) |
||||
| 5 | V.Ambigekar, Auditor(P.W-8) |
||||
| 6 | K.Jaiswan, AssistantAuditor (Pw10) |
P2t5-224 | Register Bills |
of | 431 |
29
30
the said officers, who are the salctioning authorities were examined as PWs.32, 33,41, 42,46 ald 1O5 in the case. The said witnesses have denied their signatures on the documents which are sanctioning orders in the bilts.
31
| S1.No. | Name ofthe witness | Exhibits marked |
Details exhibits of |
Against accused |
|---|
</
32
| I | K.AshokKumar (P.W.1) DBCWO |
P1 | GOMs.No.42 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P2 | List ofhcers of |
||||
| P3_P8 | Signatures | A6 | |||
| P10-P12 | Bills | A6 | |||
| D1_D3 | 161Cr.P.C | ||||
| 2 | E.V.Narsimha Reddy (P.w.32)DBCWO |
P46-P50 | Sanctions | Denies signature |
his |
| P473-P477 | Sanctions | Denies signature |
his | ||
| P47B-l47B | Listof students |
Denics signature |
his | ||
| 3 | Sunki Srinivasulu (PWrOs)DBCWO |
P32-P34 | Bilis | Denies signature |
his |
33
complaint was received from the Pay ald Accounts Office about any forgery comrnitted. The witnesses only identihed the writings and signatures of the accused. However, they have admitted that there was nothing wrong with the bills. Though P.W.32 and P.W. 1O5 denied their signatures on documents, the documents ought to have been subjected to hand writing examination test and opinion by an expert. No reasons are given why the documents were not subjected to expert opinion. As seen lrom the documents hled, there are'Q' markings of signatures indicating that all the disputed documents such as cheques, bills etc., were sent to a hand writing expert but no opinion was produced by the prosecution. No reasons are given by the prosecution for such non filing of opinion.
Welfare Department.
| Sl.No Nameof | the Exhibits |
DetailsofExhibits | Against |
|---|---|---|---|
| witness | marled talks about |
accused |
34
| 1 | R.V.Prasad Raju (P.w.3) |
Service records |
Of accused | 1'1,2,5, t7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | G.Anantha Reddl' (P.w.21) |
P385/386 | Endorsement/Records | 41,2,5, 17 |
| P387- P400 |
A2 | |||
| P401 | A5 | |||
| P402-401) | Listofcolleges | AT7 | ||
| 3 | N.Yadialr (P.w.2e) |
P402 P409 |
Letter | Al7 |
| 4 | Dhara Chandraiah (Pw33) |
P480- P488, D5z1 |
Sanctions | Denies his signature |
| 5 | J.Roopa Kalpana (P.w.3e) |
P402- P409 |
Listof Collegesetc | 1^17 |
| 6 | M.Vijaya (P.w.40) |
P402 P409 |
Listof Collegesetc | A77 denieshis signature |
| 7 | A.ViiayaKumar [Pw41) |
P533- P542 |
Salctions | A5 |
| B | M.S. R.Bharath Kumar{P.W.42|P543- P547, D67 |
Sanctions | Denies his signature |
|
| 9 | K.Chandra Shekar(P.W.43) |
P547 | Letter | A17 |
35
| 10. | C.Sridhar | P550 |
|---|---|---|
| (P.w.46) | P557, | |
| D63 |
36
regarding the signatures. As already stated relevant documents were sent for hand writing examination by arl expert but opinion is not filed
37
is suspicious and not based on actua,l records and registers available in the department maintaining the list of colleges.
BANK ACCOT'NTS OPENED IN THE NAMES OF'COLLEGES:
by the prosecution witnesses pertaining to the opening of various Bank Accounts.
38
| Sl.No | Nameof witness thc |
Name collcge of |
of Name account holder |
Exhibits Pseries |
Natureof Exhibits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ASN Murthy, Andhra Bank, Mehdipatnam (P.w.r4) |
SD college | K.Raju ReddyA12 |
P278 | Account opening form |
| Sapthagiri College |
G.Srilakshmi (A13) |
279 | Account opening form |
||
| Alekhya Junior Collcge |
K.Rajender | 2ao | Account opening form |
||
| DVR College |
P.Rajashekar | 281 | Account opening form |
||
| Chanakya College |
P.N.Swamy | 282-286 | Account opening form |
||
| RSM College |
247-289 | Statement etc., |
|||
| 2 | DVSV Andhra (P.w.r7) Prasad, Bank |
McscoJr. College |
Latha | 358-362 | Account opening form |
| Global college |
P.Balaiah | 363-368 | Account opening form |
||
| RSM College |
B.RamaRao | 366-368 | Account opening form |
||
| Dasi Paulson, Andhra Bank, Karvan(PW18) |
Mesco Jr college |
Latha | 3s8 | Account opening form |
|
| Global college |
P.Balaiah | 363 | Account opening form |
||
| RSM College |
B.RarnaRao | 366 | Account opening form |
39
| 4 | M.Lakshmi Nrayana, SBH, Raidurg(PW22) |
Al-Ameen Jr-Collegc |
PrincipaJ | 4to-4t6 | Account opening form |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apex College |
Principal | 4t7-422 | Account opening [orm |
||
| Al-Ameen Degree College |
Principal | 423-430 | Account opening form |
||
| Oxford College |
Principal | 431-433 | Statement ledger |
||
| Royal College |
Principa-l | 434-439 | Account opening form |
||
| BNS college |
B.P.Rao | 440-444 | Account opening forrn |
||
| Gabriel College |
Principal | 445-449 | Account opening [orm |
||
| RedRose college |
Principal | 450-455 | Account opening form |
||
| 5 | KVS Raja,SBH, Raidurg(P.w.23) |
Al-Ameen Jr.College |
Principai | 4to | Account opening form |
| Apex College |
Principal | 4t7 | Account opening form |
||
| A1-Ameen Degree College |
kincipal | 423 | Account opening form |
||
| Royal college |
Principal | 434 | Account opening [orm |
||
| Gabriel college |
Principal | 445 | Account opening [orm |
||
| RedRose college |
Principal | 451 | Account opening |
40
| form | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Ashoklvlohanlal, SBH,Rardurg(PW 27) |
Apex College |
Principal | 4t7 | Account opening form |
| BNS college |
B.P.Rao | 440 | Account opening form |
||
| Royal college |
Principal | 434 | Account opening form |
||
| Gabriel college |
Principal | 445 | Account opening form |
||
| RedRosc Collegc |
PrincipaJ | 451 | Account opening form |
||
| Oxford College |
PrincipaJ | 432 | statement |
47
Principals of those colleges. None of them stated that the Bank Accounts spoken to by them are Bogus or impersonated AS Accounts of non-existing colleges alleged by the prosecution. They have a,lso stated that a-ll the cheques of vanous colleges would have been honoured only after the signature appearing on them tallied with thespecimen signatures available in their Bank. Except makinga vague statement that Al and A23 operated all the allegedcollege accounts, none of them stated specifically that A1 orA23 had hlled up any vouchers or credit slips. No such documentswere collected and sent to a hand writing expert. None of the witnesses have direct knowledge of the accused openingthe accounts.
42
the signatures on them with the specimens available, who made the respective entries in the ledger boks and who made payments arising out of these self cheques and as to who returned such tokens arrd actually received the amounts thereof. With regard to Account payee cheques, all these Bank Witnesses through whom such cheques are marked sirnply state in their cross-examination that all such cheques whether self cheques or account payee cheques were passed and cleared only after the signatures appearing on them were tallied with the specimens available in their Bank.
43
Exs.P278 and P279. Witness says that A1 introduced the account holders of Ex.P278 and P279 to the Bank. However, A1 was operating the Accounts. In the cross-examination he says that he was giving evidence only on the basis of records. A1 signed as an introducer marked as Ex.P278(a) and P279(al which is identical to the signature of A1 in Ex.P322 which is account opening form in Canara Bank, Kothur Branch. He further admits that the signature and photograph of A12 and A13 are there in Ex.P278 and P279 respectively as Account Holders. P.W. 114 having admitted that he was deposing on the basis of record, one fails to understand how the witness can identify the handwriting of Al2 and A13. Sending the documents Ex.P278(a) and 279(al would have determined the operation of accounts. Both A 12 and A 13 were acquitted.
44
having personal accounts of himself and his family members ald as such he knew him as a valued customer.
45
"P.W.17 did not giue te name of thE account holder 389 os Laxmi. P.W.18 also stated that the introducer for the aboue said three accounts couered bg Exs.P358 ond P365 uas A/c.No.389. P.Ws.17 and 18 did not state before me that the signotures of ttte introducer in Exs.P358, P363 and P366 is different from ttrc signature of the account hotder of 389 in their bank. The occount opening date i.s not noted at the top tn Exs.P358, P363 and P366 but the date stamp is afftxed and it indicates 21.11.2001, as the date of opening of those accounts, Ex.P358, P363 and P366 do not contoin ang signature of the bank oJficial but at the right top there are
46
initials uhich could be the initials ofbankolJiciaLs. Idid not LrU to rrind out as to tuhicholficictL ofthe bank put those initials."
47
Exhibits P28O to P289, P358, P363, P366, P4lO, P417, P423, P431,P434,P44O,P445, P451 and as an introducer in respect of Ex.P278 and P279.
CHEOUE TRANSACTIONS IN THE COLLEGE ACCOUNTS:
48
49
ttrereon. No other witness stated anything against A1 in respect of these two cheques. However the Principal of the college was examined to speak about the account and the was cheques. Except denial of the transactions, nothing attributed to A1. It cannot be assumed that A1 issued the cheques only for ttre reason of the Principal of the college denied the cheques.
.--.--'-..-:.
50
said entry was made on l5l4/99 and Ex.P428 is dated 27l4lee.
51
P.W.31 admits that when E,x.P429 was honoured he was not in that Branch and he has no personal knowledge about the presentation of the said cheque in their bank.
52
failed to connect A 1 with the transactions in the college
accounts by adducing direct evidence.
"44. TLeprosectttion, it is o-xiomotic, must establish its ca-se ogainst the accLtsed bg leading euidencet that is accepted by tlLe standards that are knou.tn to ciminal juisprudence regardless of uhether the cime is(nmmitted in the course of communal d.isturbances or othenuise. In shor7, there can. onlg be one set of rules and standords uhen it comes to tials and judgment in ciminal cases unless the statute prouides for angthing speciallg opplicable to a portiatlar case or class of cases.
BO. The alleged scarn is enormous in the context of
involvement of ofhcials/accused in fabrication of documents and the way the Government was cheated. However, the investigation has not collected direct evidence which was available arrd based investigation on assumptions and presumptions. Even during tht: course of trial, the prosecution has merely marked documents without connecting the links.
"(2O).2) 2 SCC 34
53
The evidence is circumstantia-l in nature and the circumstances so elicited during evidence has to form a complete chain without there being any missing links or doubts that would be created when the case is viewed as a whole. The prosecution has resorted to marking documents through witnesses who had no knowledge about the execution of the said documents and deposed based on their information from others. It is not known as to why the said persons who had direct knowledge about the transactions were not examined. Merely marking documents will not suffice to read into the contents of the said documents and infer that the accused were responsible. The basis for the scam being floating of fake schools and fake nzunes of students, however, the direct evidence available regarding details of schools in the departments, which witnesses admit as available, was not produced.
54
prosecution has placed heavy relialce on the alleged transactions in banks. The said bank ofhcials had no direct knowledge and none of the witnesses said about withdrawal of the amounts by the accused or depositing of the cheques by the accused. The said cheques originated from the Pay and Accounts Offrce and en-cashed in the Bank. Serious doubts arise in the absence of proof of documents and absence of witnesses to speak about handing over of the cheques to the accused or the accused transacting business in the account. For the reasons best known, none of the documents were subjected to handwriting expert examination and no reasons are given why the said procedure which could aid in concluding the guilt or otherwise of the accused was not followed. The specimen signatures of sanctioning ofhcer of bills were avajlable in the Pay & Accounts Ofhce but not collected during investigation. The register of tokens given to persons who present bills and collect chequcs wcrc availablc but not seized for reasons best known to the investigating ofhcer.
55
I I
56
| 87 | Crl.A.No.7O3of2OO7filedby.A3&A7isallowed |
|---|---|
| 88. | Crl.A.No.715 of2OO7filedby A42isallowed |
| B9 | Crl.A.No.743of2OOZfiledbyA10isallowed. |
| 90. | Crl.A.No.744 of2OO7frledbyA5isa-llowed |
| 91. | Crl.A.No.749of2OO7frledbyA2O, A22& A41isa,llowed |
| 92 | Crl.A.No.752 of2OO7filedby A6isallowed. |
| 93 | Crl.A.No.755 of2OO7filedby.A4isallowed. |
| 94 | Crl.A.No.756 of2OO7filedbyA35isallowed |
| 9.5 | Crl.A.No.790o{2OO7filedb1,A1isallowed |
| 96 | Crl.A.No.1Ot9of2OOZ fil,edbyA,2isallowed. |
Sd/- K. SRINIVASRAO, JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER
One Fair Copy tothe Hon'ble Sri Justice K. SURENDER (For His LordshiPs KindPerusal)
To
Kul
, I
HlGH COURT
KSJ
DATED:17l1012023
NOTE . L.R Copy to be marked
e STA TF
q
?1 NU! ?0?3 o
r)
O€sp
Common Judgment
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos : 674 675 703 715 743 7M 749 752 755 756
790 & 1019 0F 2007
ALLOWING THE ALL CRL.APPEALS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accumulation of investigative lapses regarding non-collection of official records and failure to obtain expert opinions justifies acquittal of the accused.
Whether the prosecution successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused opened bank accounts and issued cheques using forged documents.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused given the lack of direct evidence linking them to the specific fraudulent transactions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶186
A.Srinivasulu v. State rep. by the Inspector of PoliceFollowed¶6
State of Rajasthan v. Babu MeenaRelied on¶214
Sherigon v. State of KeralaRelied on¶229
P.K. Narayanan v. State of KeralaRelied on¶233
Jethsur Suranghai v State of GujaratRelied on¶240
State of U.P. v. Wasif HaiderRelied on¶243
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P.Relied on¶250
Kailash Gour v. State of AssamRelied on¶251
Ramnivas v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶254
A.Srinivasulu v. StateFollowed¶258
Temi Yadav v. State of BiharRelied on¶265
Mousam Singh v. State of W.B.Relied on¶271
Sarwan Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶273
Shiuaji Saherao Bobde v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶275
Manager, State Bank of India, Satyanarayana Pratap
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor
D. Swaroopa Rani
Ratilal Praveen Chander
State of Andhra Pradesh
Uradi Santosh Kumar
K. SURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
