Allowed

Sri v.Venkateshwara Rao, Hyd., and Anr., v. Cbi, Rep. by Spl.Pp., High Court of A.P.

Telangana HC27 Sept 2018CRLRC/1853/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, holding that the material on record did not disclose grave suspicion or fraudulent intent. The prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of cheating or conspiracy. The impugned order dismissing the discharge petition was set aside, and the accused were discharged from the offences.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 14.09.2012 dismissing the discharge petition set aside; petitioners discharged from charges under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13 of PC Act.

Sri v.Venkateshwara Rao, Hyd., and Anr., Vs Cbi, Rep. by… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{TWENTYTHIRD DAY OFI,4ARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE G.SRIDEVI}

¶5

CRIMINAL REVI^{SION CASENO: 1853 OF 2012}

¶6

criminal Revision^{caseUndersection397 & 101 o1' crirninalProccdttre} Code against^{the Orcler dated14'09-2012 Passedin Crl lVP No '157 of} 2012 in c.c.No.^{34 0f 2OO7 0n the file of the court of the lll Additional} Special Judge^{for C.B.l' cases at Hyderabad'}

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

1 Sri V.Venkateshwara^{Rao,S/o V Balraj,Hindu, aged about 55 years' Occ:} Business, R/o 6-3-630/A,^{Anandnagar. Hyderabad'}

¶9

2 I,4/s [,4anirai Constructions,,^{H.No. 11-5-427,AyodhyaHotelComplex'} Fq^bY ;i; N,i;;;;;ilFl,rt'""i^{V.V.jhxuteshwara Rao, s/o v.Balrai, hindu, ased about} ss v"irs]Od., Business,^{R/o. 6-3-630/4, Anand Nagar, Hyderabad}

¶10

...PETITIONERS/^{PETITIONERS/ACCUED No'1 & 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

Central Bureau^{lnvestigation} ,^{Rept. by Special PublicProsecutor' High Court of} A.P., at Hyderabad,

¶13

...RESPONDENT/^{RESPONDENT/COMPLAI NANT}

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO:^{2810 0F 2012}

¶15

petition under section 482 CPC praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be-pleased to} Stay all further^{proceedings in C C No 34 of 2OO7^o n the file of the Court of the} lll ndditional Special^{Judge for C.B.l.casesCourt at Hyderabad'pending} disposal of the^{main criminal revision petltlon'}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRl.P HEMACHANDRA}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Respondents:K SURENDER( SPLP P FOR CBI )}

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

t{oNout(AULL JUSTICE G.SRt D[Vr

¶20

CRL.R.C. No.1853 of 201,2

¶21

ORDE R:

¶22

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of the Ill-Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, passed in Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2012 in C.C.No.34 of 2007, dated L4.09.2012, whereby the learned Special Judge, dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2, under Sectiort 23g of Cr.p.C., seeking to discharge thern fo. the alrcgecl offences punisr.rabre r-rncier se'ctio.s 120-lJ a.ci 420 of Lp.C. anr{ section 13 (2) rcart rvitrr sectio' 13 (1) (d) of the l)rcvention of Corruption Act, 19gg.

¶23

Blief facts of tl-rc case arc. as untler:-

¶24

A charge sheet has been filecl against the revision petitioners and another for the aforesaid offences alleging that A_1 representing A-2-company and A-3-commissioner of customs and Centrar Excise, conspired together with dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat the Central Excise Department, Government of Inctia, in the matter of purchasing of 30 Flats and 13 Car parkings at VBG Gardens, Navodaya Colony, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, from A-2 company

¶25

¶26

and A-3 deliberately abused his official position as pubiic servant by corrupt or illegal means and recommended the proposal submitted by A-2, fol purchasing 30 Flats and 13 Car par.kings to the Custonrs a.d Central Excise Departme,t for Rs.3.6E Crores ir-r^.1997, r.vhich were alrearly mortgaged to M/s. FIUDCO Lintitecl, I IyderaLracl, out of '"vhich, A-.1 alrcacly solcl 6 Flats to others and tl'rereby the Central Excise Deparhnent sustained a huge loss of Rs.3.68 Crores. The saicl charge sheet was taken on file as C.C.No.34 of 2007. During the pendency of the proceedings, the revision petitioners/A_1 and A_2 filed Cr1.M.P.No.157 of 2012 seeking to discharge them for the aforesaid offences. By an order, dated'1.4.09.2012, the learned Special Judge^{for CBI} Cases, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the recorcj.

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioncrs submits that the petitioners, after. submission of the tender, brought to the notice of the Customs a.d Central Excise L)epartrnent that the property was already mortgaged to the HUDCO and obtainec.l loar.r and that the HUDCO by its letter dated 30.08.1996 addressed to the

¶29

¶30

Commissioner and Collector, Central Excise and Customs Department, informed that the petitioner's company was granted loan as the property was mortgaged to it. He further submits that there was no deceitful intention on the part of the petitioners nor there rvas anv suppression regarding the mortgage of the propertv in favour of the HUDCO. It is further submitted that as per thc contr.1ct, the rerrision petitioners completecl the construction ancl rielrvered possession of the flats to the Central Excise Department by vr'av of registered sale deeds rvay back in 1997 and the Central Excise Department is in possession and enjovment of the^f Ia ts till toclal' rvithout any interruption and they are the absolute owners o( the property without any hindrance and, therefore, there is no wrongful loss to the Centrai Excise and Customs Department. It is further submitted that the letter addressed to the Central Excise Department is a crucial document which would clearly established that everything was open and each party had information about the mortgage and that there is no false representation whatsoever anrl, therefore, the basic ir-rgreclient is lacking to constitrite the offence uncler Section 420 of I.P.C. and that having satisfiecl about the structural safety arrc'l other conditions, the flats rvcre purchascd^bv

¶31

¶32

the Department and thereby^{there is no inducement at all.} It is further submitted that since^{the revision petitioners are not public} servants, they cannot be charged^{under Section 13 (1) (d) read with} Section 13 (2) of the^{Prevention of CorruptionAct. It is further} submitted that from 1,997^{t1l| today M/s. HUDCO never initiatcd} any legal proceedings against thc Central^{Exciscand Custotls} Deparhnetnt, because of the^{fact that the rcvisionpetitioners gave;r} collateral security to M/s.^{HUDCO more than the loan amount} advarrccd to them for the^{pur'pose of construction of flats and} theleby, M/s. HUDCO^{is not claiming anythil-rg against the Central} Excise and Customs Department.^{It is furthersubmittedthatthe} learned Special Judge has completely^{ignored the scope of Section} 239 of CI.P.C.; that the Apex Court^{and this Court, while rendering} the^judgments and explaining^{the scope of Sections227,228 and 239} of Cr.P.C., held that^"the Court^{is required to evaluate the material} and documents on record with a view to^{find out ifthe facts} ernerging there from taken at^{their facevaluedisclosethe existence} of all tl.re ingredients constituting^{the allegcdof fence".It is iurther} submittecl that the rvitnesses exatrined^{bv tl-re lnvestigatingAgencl'} would also support the version of the Petitiolret's^{and, therefore, it}

¶33

¶34

cannot be comprehended^{that there is any offence allegedto have} been committecl bY^{the revisionpetitioners. The following} juclgments were reliecl upon^{by the iearneciCounselfor the revision} petitiorre't's

¶35

'l . Irrternational Arlaanced Research Cettre f o' P outder Metalhtrgy rtud^{Ne:ruMaterials (ARCI)and otlrcrs a' NIMRA} Cerglnss Techrrics^{Prioate Linritedarul anothert}

¶36

Ranesh Dutt and^{others zt. State of Puniaband others2}

¶37

librial Diwan^{tt. State of Maharashtra3}

¶38

Central Bureau^{of lnaestigatiottzt. K.Narayatallaoa}

¶39

Leamed Standing^{Counselfor the C.B'I'cases appearing for} the respondent/complainant^{submits that A-2 company represented} by A-1, being a^{Managing Partner of the company, has alreadysold} 30 ready made built up^{flats and 13 car parkings in VBG Gardens'} Navoclava colony,^{Mehadipatnarn, Hyderabad,in Sy Nos 371 to 373'} 375 lo 377 anci^{379 uncler 31 sale deeds duringMarch, 1997 to the} Custotns ant'l^{Central ExciseDeparlment for an amountof Rs 3'58} crores, w,hich h'ert'^{alre'ac1Ymortgagetlto N4/sl IUDCOlimitt'c1'}

¶40

'(2016)^{I scc 348}

¶41

'^{(2009) l5 scc429}

¶42

'(1997)^{6 scc 499} '^{(20r2)9 scc 5 t2}

¶43

¶44

¶45

Hyderabad, for having taken a loan of Rs.3.30 crores in the year, 7996 for consh'uction of 160 flats in VBG Gardens, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, in two phases; that A-2 company represented by A-1 clearly mentioned in the sale deeds that the entire property along with land and building is free from all encumbrances and charges and that they are the exclusive and absolute owners of the property. He further submits that A-1 and A-2 company in coilusion with A-3 cheated the CenLral Excise Department and obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt means and thereby committetl the afor.esaici offences. IJe furtl-rer suLrmits that tlre involvcrnent of rcvisjor.t petitioners irr the commission of of fer-rce is primn fncie made ou t and that there are no grounds to discharge the revision petitior-rers from the offences alleged against them at this stage.

¶46

In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is "Whether the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are entitled for discharge of the offences alleged against them?,,

¶47

The principles for framing of charge and discharge under Sections 227,228,238 and 239 CI.P.C. have been summarized by the

¶48

¶49

Suprc,me Court in its jucigrnent in State 2,. S. Selois, n herein it has bee. helcl that if on the basis of material on recorci, thc Court pri,rn ,ftcie^{forms an} opinion that the accusecl may have committecj the offence, it can frame charges. At the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to proceed on presumption that the mater.ial produced by the prosecution is true. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant conviction. In paragraph Nos.6 and 7 the Apex Court held as under:-

¶50

"6. It is weli settied by this Court in a catena of judgments including Union of India v. prafulia Kumar Samal v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, Dilawar Balu Kurane r,. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135 : Sajjan Kur.r-rar.v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, Stare v. A. Arun Kunrar' (2015) 2 SCC 417, Sonu Gupta r,. Deepak Cuota (201 5) 3 SCC 421, State of Orissa v. Dr:ben1ly3 \3111 i']atthi (2003) 2 SCC 711, Niranjan Singh Kar.arr Singh Punjabi v. Jitendr.a Bhimraj Bijjaya (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 that the judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 oI the eofie in sessions cases (which is akin

'1zors;r3scc+ss

to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to,"varrant cases) has thc undoubtecl polver to sift and weigh the eviclence ior the limited pu rpose of finding ou t rvhe ther or not a prirn.r facie case against the accusecl has been nracie ouU rvhere the r-r-ra teria I placecl Lrefore tlte court rliscloses qrave suspicior-r against the accusecl which has not bcen properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the statements ar-rd tl-re documents protlucccl Lrefore tht court, al1' basic ir-rfirmitics appc6r'i11g in tht c.rse.rrrr.l srr o11.'IIris horvever cloes not ntean that thc'Judgc. shoulcl rnake a roving er-rquiry into thc pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he r,r, as conducting a rri a l.

¶55

¶56

ln Sajjan Kurnar a. CBl6, the. Suprerne Court, or-t consideration of the various c'lecisions about the scope of Sections 227 ttnd.228 <>i the Code, laid down the following principles:

¶57

"(i)^The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CIPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

¶58

(ii) Where the rnaterials placecl before the court clisclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properlv explairretl, the court n'ill be fullv iustified in framing a charge anrl proceetiirlg il',rth the trial.

¶59

(iii) The court carurot act merelv as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents proCuced before the court, any basic inJirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

¶60

"^(loro)9 scc i68

¶61

¶62

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge., though for conviction the conclusion is r.equired to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has cornmitted the offence.

¶63

(v) At the time of framing of tl-re charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot [-re gonc into Lrut before framing a charge the court must apply its juclicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

¶64

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and. 2Zg, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the eviclence as it cannot be expectecl even at that initial stage to accept a)l that tl.re prosccution states as gospei tr.uth ever-r rf it is opposec{ to corrlrrlon sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

¶65

(vii) If tn,o views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the

¶66

¶67

accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.,,

¶68

The Supreme Court further in the case of Asim Shaiff o. NIAz, has dealt with the scope of Secti on 227 olthe Cr.Ir.C. for discharge of an accused. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that ,,in exercise of power under Section s 227 and, 228 Cr.p.C.,in the Sessions Court (Section 239 Cr. p.C. pertaining to warrant cases), the tr.ial Court has power to sift anci weigh the evidence for the limitecj pul'pose of fincling out whether or not a prittro frtcic case against the, 'rccLisec{^{rras bec.} matie ou t. if trre nratc.rial pracecl berore trre Co,rt cliscloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properiy explained, the Court is justified in framing the charge. It has also been held that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the hial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.,,

¶69

In the instant case, the material piaced on record reveals that the revision petitioners/A_1 ancl A_2 are being prosecuted for the olfences punishable under Sections 120-ts ancl 420 of I.p.C. anc_l Section 13 (2) react r.vith section 13 (1) (1) of the prevention of (2019) 7 SCC' l.l8

¶70

¶71

¶72

Corruption Act' The alregation is that M/s. Maniraja Consrructions represented by A-1 have soid 30 ready built flats and 13 car parkings in VBG Gardens, Navodaya Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad in Sy.Nos.371 to 373,375 to 377 and Z79 vide31 sale deeds registered at the office of the Sub_Registrar, Golconda, during March, 7997 to the Customs and Central Excise Department for an amoullt of Rs.3.6g Crores, which were already mortgaged to lvl/s. HUDCO LtLl., Hyderabad, for rraving taken roan of Rs.3.30 Crores in tr-rc year r 99(r for constructiotr of 160 flats in VBG Garcler_rs, N,fehclipatr_rarr, Flyderabad, irr two phases. Further, A_2 company rel.rrcsenterj bv A-1 clearly mentioned in the sale deeds ancl have decrared that the entire property along with the land and building is free from all encumbrances and charges. It is also mentioned that they are the exclusive and absoiute owners of the property in question ancl no other person or persons whatsoever are right to titre or share or titre or any interest in the said property.

¶73

A perusal of the record reveals that that the Customs ancl Central Excise Departme,t having come to knon, that the flats *..erc. r.nortgagecl to M/s. FIUDCO .is indicated ir-r thc Ietter, daterl 30.08.1996, communicated to the commissioner and Collector,

¶74

¶75

,:, ,

¶76

Central Excise and Customs, purchased the aforesaid flats including car parkings from A_2 company represented by its Managir_rg Partner (A-1) by way of registered sale deeds in the month of March, 1997. Therefore, there is no suppression or concealment of any fact b_r, the revlslon petitioners and similarly there is no false reprc.sentation

¶77

Further, as prcr the contriict, the revision petitioners have completed the construction and delivered possession of the flats to the Centrai Excise Department by way of registered sale deeds way back in 1997 and the Central Excise Deparknent is in possession and enjoyment of the said flats till today without any interruption ancr they are the absolute owners of the property without any hindrance. Therefore, there is no wrongful loss causeci to the Central Excise and Customs Depar.tment and the revision petitioners never gained ar-rvthi.g. HUDCO has not filecl a.y co'r_rplai.t against tl_re 'r-rrther, re'rsion peritioners ancl it ne'er stipulatecl a conclition that the Centrai Excise and Customs Department should obtain no ob.jection celtificate for purchase of the flats including car parkings. From 7997 till date M/s, HUDCO never initiated any proceedings against the Central Excise and Customs Department, because the revision

¶78

¶79

petitioners gave a collateral^{securityto HUDCOtnore thanthe loan} amount advanced to^{them for the purPose of construction of flats} and thereby HUDCO is not^{claiming anythingagainstthe Central} Excise and Customs DePartrnent.

¶80

Insofar as the offence^{punishableunder Section 13 (2) read} with Section 13 (1) (d) of the^{Preventionof Corruption Act, is} concerned, the grievance^{of the revision petitioners is that they are} not the public servants^{as defined underSection 2(c) of P C Act and,} therefore, they cannot^{be charged under the said Section. In the} complaint, it is no where^{mentioned that the rcvisiot'l} Petitioners^arc the public servartts. In^{this case,A-2 is a} 1-rrivate^iirtn, '"r'hich^{n as} represented by A-1 .^{Sir-rce the petitioners are 11ot thc putrlic scrvan[s,} they cannot be prosecuted^{and charged underthe provisions of the} Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶81

lnsofar as the offence punishable^{underSection 120-8of I'P.C.,} the essential ingredients of^{the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i)} an agreement between two^{or more} Persons;^{(ii) an agreementmust} relate to doing or causing to^{be done either (a) an illegalact; (b) an} act which is not illegal in itself but^{is dor.reby illegal means.}

¶82

¶83

¶84

Condition precedent for holding the accusecl persons to be guilty of a charge of crirninal conspiracy must, therefore, be. consiclerecl on the anvil of the fact which must be establishecl Lry the prosecution, r,iz., meetii-rg of r-rrinrls of tn,o or more persons for tloing or causing to tre clone an illegal act or an act by illegal means.

¶85

In CBI o. K. Narayana Rao (4 supra), the Apex Court held as

¶86

under:-

¶87

"24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire ancl the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself r.r.ray not be ille,gal. In other words, the esscnce of crir-nirral consl'rilacv is an agreement to clo an ille-gal act antl such an.1g1L'L'rrellt carn be proved either bl,rjircct evidr:rrce or b_y circumstantial evidence or by both ancl in a matter of common experience that direct evicience to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accorc.lingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrences have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed/ it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the

¶88

¶89

accuse d persons who were pa rties to tl-rc a llegccl conspirs6y. Inferences fi'om such prorred circurnstarrces regarding the guilt may be drawn only .,r,hen such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence."

¶90

In the instant case, the ingredients of prima facie commission of offence of criminal conspiracy have not been found on perusal of the evidence collected by the prosecution.

¶91

Now, the only charge remalns is under Section 420 of I.p.C,

¶92

To constitute the offence of cheating (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person bv deceiving hirn; (b) the person so induced should be intentionallv inclucecl to clcliver any property to any person or to consent that anv Lrcrson shall retajn any property, or the person so inducecl shoulcl be intentionalll. induced to do or to omit to do anything which, he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; (c) the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. A fraudulent or

¶93

¶94

¶95

tJis.r'est ircrr:ct'rre.L is,r, cs.'s('.ti.rl i.greciir,r'rt o1 ihe .fl.e ace l\ pL'l'sor1 tvho dishonestly inc-luces another person to cieliver any property is iiable for the offence of cheating.

¶96

In Internationa.l Ad"ztanced Research Centre For pouder Metallurgy And Nezo Materials (ARCI) And Others os. Nimra Cerglass Technics prktate Limited And Another (1 Supra) while considering when a breach of contract would constitute cheating, the Apex Court held as foilows:_

¶97

"16.^'fhe distinction between rnere breach of contract ancl thc cireating r,r'ould tlepcntr upon the intr.ntion of the accuscci trt thc time trf allegctl inducemcnt. lf it is establishccl tl.rat thc rntention of the accusc.d lvas {-lishonest at the vcry time rvhen he matle a promise ancl entereti into a transaction .,vrth tl-re complainant to part with his property cr lnoney" then thc liability is cr.irninal ancj the accused is guilty ol the offence oI cheating. On the other jrancl, if all that is established is that a representation macle by the accused has subsequently not been kept, criminal liability cannot be foisted on the accused and the only right which the compiainant acquires is the remedy for breach of contract in a civil court. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unress fraudurent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transactior-r. In S.W. palanitkar v. State of Bihar this Court heltl as under: (SCC p. 250, para 27) ,,21 In order to

¶98

¶99

¶100

constitute an offence of cheating, the^{intention to deceive} should be in existence at the time^{when the inducement was} rnade, it is necessary to show that a^{person haci frauduient} or clishont-'st intention at the tinrc^{of making tllc pror.t.tisc,ttl} say that l-rtr co,, mittecl an act of chcaiing.^{A rl'lL'l'c failulc to} keep u1-r promisc subseclucntlv cannot^{trc prcsutnctl as alr} act leading to cheating,'

¶101

In tlre case of Centrnl Bureau of Inaestigatiott^{a. K.Narayatta} Rao⁽⁴ supra), the Apex Court^{held that "if two viewsare possilrle} and one of them gives rise to suspicion^{on1y, as distinguishedfrorn} grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be^{empoweredto dischargethe} accused and at this stage, he is^{not to see whether the trial will end} in conviction or acquittal

¶102

In the instant case, as stated above, the documents^{seized bv} the Investigating Agency would indicate that^{much prior to} purchase of flats, a letter has been addressed^{to the Central Excise} Departn-rent, which would clearly established^{tl-rat evervthingn'as} open and each party hacl ir-rforrnation about^{tl-re mortgaqe. So, tl-rere} is no Ialse replcsentation whatsoevel on tl-re palt oi^{tl-re revisiorr} petitioners and, therefore, the basic ingreclients^{uncler Sectiolr'120 of} I.P.C is lacking. Similarly, there is no inducement whatsoever^frorn

¶103

¶104

the revision petitioners since the Central Excise Department has purchased the aforesaid frats including car parkings having satisfied about the strucfural safety and other conditions. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the revision petitioners have made out a case for discharge in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-8 and 420 of i.p.C. and Section 13 (1) (d) react \f ith Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Cor.r.uption Act.

¶105

F-or the aforesaicl reasons and havir-rg regarcl to tl-re lar.r, laicj ilown by the Apex Court in the aforesaic-l clecisions, the Cr.iminal llevision Case is allow,ed and the orcler, datecl 14.09.2012, passecl in Cr1.M.P.No.157 of 2072 in C.C.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the lll_ Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside and the revision petitioners/A -1, and, A_2 are discharged for the offences punishable uncler Sections 120_B and.420 of I.p.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶106

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, prencling shall stancl closed

¶107

Sd/-K.SREENIVASA RAO JOTNTF.EGTSTRAR ,TRUE COPY// srcnEforrrcen

¶108

To,

¶109