Allowed

T.Rama Rao (a-22) v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC14 Aug 2014CRLP/5539/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice T. Sunil Chowdary allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against two accused officials. The court held that a prima facie case was not made out and ruled that consistency with previous quashing orders against similarly situated individuals demaded similar relief.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 59 of 2007 are quashed.

T.Rama Rao (a-22) Vs State of A.P. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5539 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A22 and A23 in C.C. No.59 of 2007 on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offences. He further submitted that this court quashed the criminal proceedings against some of the accused, who are placed on the same footing of the petitioners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint constitute the alleged offences.

¶5

The petitioners are accused of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 466, 468, 471 and 420 read with 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, along with others in C.C.No.59 of 2007.

¶6

At the relevant point of time, the first petitioner worked as Personal Assistant to Special Collector, S.R.S.P., Tarnaka, Hyderabad from 01.4.2001 to 31.3.2003 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The second petitioner joined as Personal Assistant to Special Collector, S.R.S.P., Tarnaka, Hyderabad on 04.7.2003.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners in collusion with A1 and other accused processed Land Acquisition

¶8

cases on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. It is further alleged that they fabricated appellate judgments and decrees, processed the same and thereby misappropriated the money causing loss to public exchequer.

¶9

A perusal of the record reveals that A1, who was working at the relevant point of time as Senior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Karimnagar prepared the fake appellate judgments and decrees as if those cases were disposed of by this court. A5, who at the relevant point of time was working as Superintendent in the office of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Karimnagar had intentionally removed necessary papers from the concerned file and inserted fake judgments and processed the file. There is no specific allegation that the petitioners have colluded with A1 and A5 in fabricating appellate judgments and decrees. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they have not properly verified the files and placed the same before the Special Collector, S.R.S.P., Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶10

A perusal of the record reveals that originally the files were placed before the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Karimnagar. After processing of the files by the Special Deputy Collector, the same were forwarded to the Special Collector, S.R.S.P., Tarnaka, Hyderabad. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have colluded with A1 and A5 and misappropriated public money and caused loss to State Exchequer. The then Special Collector conducted departmental enquiry in the month of May, 2007. In the report, involvement of lower staff suspected and with regard to double payments A5 was found responsible and

¶11

he misled the higher officials intentionally and deliberately by removing sanction orders from the file and tampered relevant records. Even as per the report, A1 and A5 are responsible for the misdeeds.

¶12

Even as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, these petitioners have not properly processed the files. Whatever the files received from the Office of Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar, the petitioners placed them before the Special Collector, S.R.S.P., Tarnaka, Hyderabad. It is not the case of prosecution that the petitioners removed the previous sanction orders or placed fabricated appellate judgments and decrees in the files.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this court has quashed the proceedings against some of the accused, who are similarly situated with that of the petitioners. The allegations made against the petitioners are identical to that of the allegations made against A13. A perusal of the record reveals that this court allowed Crl.P.No.7821 of 2007 and Crl.M.P.Nos.628 and 1408 of 2008 filed by A20, A21 and A13 respectively and quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.59 of 2007 against them. This court also allowed Crl.P.No.3696 of 2009 and quashed the proceedings against A12 and A14 in C.C.No.59 of 2007. It is not out of place to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the order in Crl.P.No.3696 of 2009.

¶14

In this criminal petition, this Court is not undertaking any appreciation of evidence collected by the investigating agency by way of a pre trial. This Court had already an occasion to consider complicity of a similarly placed person like A-13, who worked in the same capacity as that of A-12 and A-14 in the same office for a different period and came to the conclusion

¶15

that the prosecution could not make out the allegations against the A-13. Consistency is bedrock of the judiciary. The law of precedents is also developed on the need of consistency. When this Court allowed the Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2008 by order dated 24.03.2009, quashing proceedings against A- 13, consistency demands that the petitioners/A-12 and A-14 shall be entitled to similar relief in this petition. Otherwise, it would lead to anomalies situation opening the gates for comment against the judicial consistency.

¶16

It is stated by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that even though the previous common order was passed on 24.03.2009 in Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2008 and batch by this Court, the prosecution did not choose to question the same before the Apex Court and that the said order had become final. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out complicity of the petitioners/A-12 and A-14 for the offences with which they were charged in C.C.No.59 of 2007.

¶17

The allegations made against accused Nos.12, 13 and 14 are almost identical to that of the allegations made against the petitioners/A22 and A23.

¶18

Prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the allegations made against these petitioners will not attract the provisions of Sections 120B, 201, 466, 468, 471, 420 read with 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A22 and A23 in C.C.No.59 of 2007 on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

¶20

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A22 and A23 in C.C.No.59 of

¶21

2007 on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶22

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J August 14, 2014. YS

T.Rama Rao (a-22) v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Rama Rao (a-22) v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satti Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandham Krishna , Puvvula Krishna Vs The State of A.P.

Thummanapally Vanaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valliveedu Babu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Soma Dayanad Vs Soma Shiva Lingam

Dhatla Sivasubrahmanya Varma , Siva, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh