Partly allowed

Guglavath Nandya v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022WP/11319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a charge sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, arguing lack of documentary evidence and contradictory witness statements. The High Court rejected the claim, holding that prima facie material from witness affidavits sustains prosecution and quashing the charge sheet was inappropriate as factual credibility is for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the charge sheet against the petitioner was confirmed as maintainable in view of prima facie material.

Guglavath Nandya Vs State of Telangana — Corruption | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

[^325e 1

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11319 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Guglavath Nandya, S/o Kasiram, Aged.about 51 years, OCC:: Forest Section Officer, Khanapur Section, Khanapur Range Nirmal Division, Adilabad District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Director General (ACB), Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶12

Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB), Karimnagar Range, Adilabad Telangana State.

¶13

Chinna Sathyanarayana S/o. Peddanna, Proprietor of Timber Depot, R/o. Rajeevnagar, Khanapur.

¶14

Samala Prabhakar Sio. Kistaiah, age 40 yrs, OCC: Carpentor, R/o. Shanthinagar, Khanapur.

¶15

Kalakuntla Gangaram S/o. Kistaiah, age 34 yrs, OCC:Tractor Driver, R/o. Rajeevnagar, Kamanpur, R/o. Ambaripet Village of Kadam Mandal.

¶16

Kamaji Raviteja S/o. Gangaram , age 27 yrs, OCC: Carpentor, R/o. Vidyanagar, Khanapur.

¶17

B. Chikyala Karunakar Rao, Sio. Hamanthraoi, age 52 yrs,OCC: Business, R/o. Shanthinagar, Khanapur.

¶18

Balyala Ramesh S/o. Nagalingam, age 44 yrs, OCC: Carpentor, R/o. Tharlapad Village of Khanapur Mandal.

¶19

l0.Thinikl Devendaer S/o. Beemanna, age 40 yrs OCC: Carpentor, R/o. Surjapur Village of Khanapur Mandal.

¶20

ll.Padakanti Raju S/o. Bheemanna, age 34 yrs, OCC: Carpentor, R/o. Shanthinagar, Khanapur.

¶21

Sunkaripalli Komuraiah Sio. Narsiah, age 52 yrs, OCC: Agriculture R/o. Ghandhinagar, Khanapur.

¶22

Bhukya Jeevan S/o. Sarya Naik, aged 26 yrs, OCC: Agriculture, R/o. lqbalpur, Khanaur.

¶23

l4.Gugklavath Prakash S/o. Sarya naik, age 26 yrs, OCC: Agriculture, Rl/o. lqbalpur, Khanaur.

¶24

(RR 4 to 14 are impleaded as per Cou( order dated 1711212019 in LA.No. 1/19)

¶25

...RESP.NDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to a) call for the records pertaining to CC 1312017 on the file of the SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE AND ACB CASE-CUM-V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

¶27

SESSIONS JUDGI:. AT KARIMNAGAR, and quash the same. c) by issuance of Writ of Mandamus.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶29

Petition und :r Section 151 CPC praying that in the c,rcLmstances stated in the affidavit file< in support of the petition, the High Cour: may be pleased to stay for all further proceedings in pursuance ol CC. 1312C17 on the file of the SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE AND ACB CASE.CUM.V ADDITI(]IIAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGt.. AT KARIMNAGAR

¶30

Counsel for the Pe titioner:SRl. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Rr spondent No.'l :GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Rr spondent NO.2&3: SRI.CH.VIDYASAGI,R Counsel for the Rr spondent No.4to14:NONE APPEARED The Court made tl e following: ORDER

¶31

I //

¶32

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶33

1VRIT PETITION No.11319 OF 2018

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed challenging the charge sl-reet filed in Crime No.9/ACB-KAD/2OLS filed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶36

The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under;

¶37

a. The petitioner worked as a Forest Section Officer, Forest Range, Khanapur from 05.06.2013 to 23.04.2015 arrd thereby he is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. On a complaint given by Chinnam Satyanarayana and eight others, the DG of ACB has ordered regular enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted in respect of allegations of corruption arld a detailed report was submitted to the DG, ACB, Telangana on 20.04.20 15 with a request to accord permission to register a case under

¶38

Section 1l (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Ac: agzJnst the petitioner. 'Ihe DG, ACB, Telangana, l.r ls granted permission on 22.04.2015 to register RCO rgziinst the petitioner. Accordingly, a case in Crimr: No.9/RCOKNR/2015 was registeredon23.04.20 15 and issur:d FIR.

¶39

Durir g the course of investigation, sttrtements of witnesses rere recorded under Section 1t5 1 Cr.l:'.C., certain documents were seized from the oflice of the prr:i-itioner and also coliect:d certain documents from the ofirce of DFO, Nirmal, per taining to disciplinary proceedingr; a.gainst the petitioner. Further, the statements of LWs.l, 2, 4 and 5 were recorrled under Section 164 Cr.['.C., tl-Lro'-rgh the learnecl Ma1 ;istrate. According to the evirlenct^r. ol1:cted by the ACB it was found that the petitioner ha s demanded and acceptt d the bribe. He has collected Rs. 1 lakh from Kaiakuntla 3angaram as monthly mamools @) Rs.1O,00O/per month. Rs.6,000/- from Samala Prabha-l<ar Rao and Rs.23,000/- from Kamaji Raviteja. Rs. 15.Ot)Or- from Padekanti Ilamu, Rs.5,000/- as bribe liom '[' De,vender, Rs.5,O0O/- rrs bribe from Balajah $5mesh, Rs.1 1al<h from

¶40

Chikayala Karunakar Rao, Rs.2,000/- from Sunkarapalli Komuraiah as bribe. The petitioner has violated the existing forest rules and abused the officia-1 position, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(i)(a) and (d) of the Act.

¶41

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has accorded sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.03.2017 for prosecuting the petitioner and hence, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner alleging that he has committed offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Act.

¶42

Aggrieved by taking of cognizance of charge sheet against the petitioner in C.C.No.13 of 2Ol7 by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashment on the following grounds:

¶43

a. The de-facto complainant/Chinna Satyanarayana and the witnesses are the forest offenders and the petitioner has booked cases against some of them, thereby

¶44

¶45

¶46

they bore 1;rudge against the petitioner. On :,t3.02.20 15, the de-fact ) complainant has attacked the :.r.,use of the petitioner a nd man handled petitioner's wife thereLry a case was regist(red against him in Crime No.19 r.rf 12015 on 23.O2.'2015 and the same is pending.

¶47

b. There u'as no trap, no case of demand or' :rcceptance, no evidencr with regard to corrupt practices a nd without any eviden )e only basing on statements ol ,lisgruntled offenders a rd their henchmen, a false case has b,:en hled against th: petitioner by ACB, which lr:;rd to his suspension and subsequently, he was reinstat.ed into senrlce.

¶48

C As pe thr: charge sheet there is no malt:r'ial against the pet-ition:r. Even the documents stated to have been seized by DIO Nirmai, Adilabad, pertaining tc cLisc:ipiinary proceedings of the petitioner in a departmental enquiry and pending del rartmental enquiry cannot be basis for filing a case under he Act.

¶49

¶50

d. ACB is giving helping hand to the criminals and thereby the case has been registered against the^petitioner. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the charge sheet.

¶51

Director General of Police and DSP of ACB have fi1ed counter denying the allegations levelled in the writ petition opposing the prayer of the petitioner to quash the charge sheet. The contents of which in brief are as under:

¶52

i. The petitioner while he was working as Forest Section Officer, Adilabad, one Chinnam Satyanarayana and others resident of Khanapur village approached DG ACB and lodged a complaint dated 08.04.2015 signed by nine persons against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner ever since joined as FSO at Khanapur, Adilabad started collecting illegal gratification from timber depots, carpenters, tractor drivers, thereatening them to involve in false cases. Basing on the said complaint, an enquiry was launched following which the statements of about 11 persons were recorded and submitted detailed report on which as per the directions of DG ACB a case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.9/ROC-ACB\

¶53

¶54

¶55

KNR/2015 for the offence under Sections 7, 1312) read with 13(1)(a) an I (d) of the Act.

¶56

Durir g the course of investigation, ttrt: lrCB has examined rbout 50 witnesses and hlecl char'1;e sheet on 18.06.201? before the learned Sessions .ludge . The case is now postec for framing of charges and the inr"t stigation of the ACB v ould show that the petitioner hzLs cc mmitted offence unc er Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(;t) and (d) of the Act.

¶57

Char6 es rvere framed against him in a J^r, partmental enquiry irL proceedings Rc.No.1668,r21115-\6, dated 22.04.2015 of DFO Nirma-l alleging that he c,o.lutled with villagers an I allowed the illegal timber. Enqui:1 relort was submitted ' ide Rc.No.05 lVrg.l/2ola, dated 211.()1.2015 by Forest Ran 3e Officer for his corruption anc arge scale destruction of forest etc.

¶58

B. The p :titioner was also placed under st.:;;rerLsion on 06.06.2007 by DFO Nirma-l alleging that rvfrile he was working as Kubeer Section of Nirmal Divisiorr c ollected

¶59

¶60

bribes of Rs.40O/- to Rs.5O0/- per house without booking any case.

¶61

The petitioner \vas censured vide Rc.No.5575/2006/N6, dated 05.01.2009 by the DFO, Nirmal for destruction of forest at Sathanapalli beat of Khanapur Range. The petitioner was also awarded with punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect for large scale destruction of forest resulting loss to the Government. The petitioner was a.lso censured for his unauthorized absence from duty on the night of 04.12.2006 resulting lot of inconvenience caused to the forest department and a-lso for dereliction of duties in forest protection and maintenance of base. The petitioner was charged by the DFO, Nirmal for collecting illegal gratifications from the carpenters and an arnount of Rs.64,564/- was recovered from his salary @ Rs.1,5OO/per month in 43 months towards the value of destruction of forest and the petitioner was a-lso imposed with punishments for destruction of large scale forests.

¶62

¶63

A cas e was also registered against the petir-ioner in Crime No.l6O of 2014 under Section 384 rr:rr1 with 511 IPC, where n it was alleged that the petitiont:: threatened one Sriniv rs and Narayana and extorted rr:oney, who participate( in timber auction.

¶64

Now, the point for determination is s helher the charge she :t against the petitioner in Cl.C.N,r. L3 of 2017 ca-n be qua:,hed?

¶65

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶66

Learn :d counsel for the petitioner has st.b nilted that in the char ge sheet the ACB has brought. tnt issues in respect of departmental enquiries which rrr: no $ray connected 'vith the allegations levelled in the corr:rplaint. The conclu sion in the investigation like :rllowing the smugglers for deforestation, causing wrongl'ul to the Govemmen , violating the existing forest r;l : ',r,,i11 not attract any of the offences punishable under tiections 7, 13(2) read v ith 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Act.

¶67

¶68

The ACB officia-1s have not filed any document/exhibits or evidence except the statements of 9 persons, who gave the complaint on 08.04.20 15. Out of the said 9 persons, 4 statements were recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that when there is no materia-l except the statements of the witnesses, there is no case against the petitioner. It is a-1so submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner even the statements of witnesses which are the only basis for filing the charge sheet are contradictory to each other arld they refer to a-lleged demand and giving of bribe much longer than the date of the complaint. Further, on perusal of the entire charge sheet, it is clear that the prosecution has examined as many as 50 witnesses. There is a prima facie material against the petitioner.

¶69

It is further submitted that as per the complaint, the petitioner has demanded bribe in the year 2013, 2074 and 2015 and the same was paid to him. The said statement is incorrect, as during the years 2012 to 2015 the petitioner

¶70

¶71

was facinp three departmental enquiries. A tret son who was facing three departmental enquiries rvoul,l never put his job in j:opardy and again demand the briLrr' during the same perio I

¶72

On pr :rusal of the submissions of the leeu'rred counsel for the pet tioner, it is clear that the petitiont:r' is seeking quashmenl of the charge sheet on four rouncls F'irst arld foremost gound is that there is no docllment:rry evidence to show thr t the petitioner has demanded and .a.ccepted the bribe. The petitioner is charged only on the l:asis of ora-l statements of the witnesses, who are disposed of in inimical ter ls to him, as he has filed cases agiri:-rst some of them as thr y are the smugglers of the forest goorls

¶73

The q rest.ion whether the de-facto compl,rinant and others han,e been exploiting the forest goods, al1-1.1es etc., is altogether ;r different aspect. If reaily thel' have been violating th : lorest laws, certainly the 1aw w,il1 ha'ze to be enforced aE ainst them. However, merely be.ciruse there have been^, )ases pending against some of thr:nr either in respect of^,ioiation of forest lqws or any o tl: er offence

¶74

¶75

under Indian Penal Code, including the alleged attack on the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot say that the statements of the witnesses have to be discarded summarily.

¶76

As per the statements of witnesses, the petitioner has demanded bribe once in three months from Chinnam Satyanarayana for running sawmiil and timber depot, the petitioner has warned the said Satyanarayana that if demand was not full-filed his licence would be cancelled. In order to avoid confrontation, he paid Rs.50,000/- ln March, 2015, Rs.50,000/AS monthly mamool in the presence of one Gangaram. In June, 2015 when the said Satyanarayana has refused to pay the money, the petitioner has intentionally delayed the forest permits. On going through the statements of the complainants, it is clear that they have specifically given the details like quantum of amount given to the petitioner as bribe and as to when it was given etc.

¶77

When there are clear allegations leveiled against the petitioner by the de-factc-cseplainant and other members, '"_l

¶78

¶79

this Court cannot quash the charge sheet fik::l against the petitioner rn the ground that except the stat€,r:lents of the complaina rt errd others, there is no evidenr:e with the prosecutio r. Whether the evidence of the u,itr-esses alone would cons titute offence is the subject matter ,t'trial. it is true that ,rn going through the statements ol r,l'itnesses, there are :ertain contradictions. However, r,,hether the contradicti, rns will effect the case of the pro:recution, is purely the ob of trial Court.

¶80

While considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thi ; Court will not conduct mini trial and ,rompare the statemr :nts and give a finding that the stz: tements of the witness:s are not trustworthy. It is the jotr of the triai Court. Thir Court would interfere only irr a c.r,:runlstance, where ever: if all the statements of the rvit:resses are accepted to be correct, still there should not hzrve been any offence aga nst the petitioner. Therefore, thr: contention that there are only the statements i:r far,,: lr of the prosecution and that the statements of the prosecution

¶81

¶82

witnesses are self-contradictory cannot be the basis to exonerate the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶83

The other submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vigilalce wing of the forest department has initiated enquiries against the petitioner during the years 2OI3 Lo 2015. Some of the enquiries were also alleging that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a person, who has been facing disciplinary proceedings on the ground of taking bribe and other violations, would not venture again in demanding and accepting the bribes detrimental to his service.

¶84

It is not clear whether all the departmental enquiries ended in exonerating the petitioner. Even if all of them are ended in giving clear chit to the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, the question would arise whether a person, who has been facing the disciplinaqz proceedings would venture of demanding and taking the bribe. The only answer to this question is the individual choice of the

person. E ven for a moment, if there €rre n ) disciplinary proceeding s, still the petitioner or any other polsor-r, lr,ho is placed in s imilar circumstances, should not lrave accepted the bribe.

¶89

Therrfore, the question whether the pt-.litioner has demanded and accepted the bribe, as statea bv the defacto comp lainant and other persons, whose st€rtements are record:d is a question of fact. If t-ire de-facto complainar t and other witnesses depose befort, the Court, then the tr ia,l Court should appreciate the s;ir d evidence arld decide as to whether there is any m;rterial lo trold that the accuse l/petitioner has demanded and a.ccepted the bribe.

¶90

There bre. because there were departmerLt:rl enquiries pending ur der CCA Rules against the petitioner at the relevant tirne when he was allegedly demeLnded and accepted tlre bribe, it carnot be conclud,:cl that the allegation against the petitioner by the de-facto complainan. is false and thereby, this Court catrnot quash the charge sheet on that ground.

¶91

¶92

The Honble Supreme Court in a ceiebrated judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch, Bhajan Lal and othersl, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal

¶93

case. The guidelines are:

¶94

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not pima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶95

(b) where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,^justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶96

(") where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶97

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶98

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶99

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶100

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused

'^{t99zAtn oo+}

*+' r'

and w th a view to spite him due to private an(l personal grudge "

¶106

It is t r be examined whether anyone of thr: guidelines can be applied to the facts of the case. 'lhe ab,rve referred CASE is ari ting out of questioning the charE;e sheet filed under Prer ention of Corruption Act, which is similar to that of the case on hand. The Apex Court l:ri,,.s r>bserved that quashing of charge sheet/FlR has to tre used very sparingly vrhen there is no prima facie c:ase at all, even if the entire :har:ge sheet is accepted to be c olret:t. The petitioner a lmits that there is a material against him in the charge shr et in the form of statement of witnesses. However, h: tried to contradict and convinc:r: the Court stating tha : since the de-facto complainan t and other witnesses a re ctisposed of inimical agajnst th e petitioner, their staterr ents have to be disbelieved.

¶107

27 . So far as this petitioner is concerned, this Court will look in to the allegations levelled in the srt.rLtement of witnesses ir charge sheet and since prima facie material is there againrit the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the pei itioner cannot seek quashment oj' t he charge

¶108

¶109

sheet by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

¶110

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶111