This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2004 on the file of Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore insofar as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act') with reference to the petitioners who are A-1 to A-5 (for short' A1 to A5) in the calendar case.

2. The respondent-complainant (for short 'the complainant) filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477(a) IPC read with Section 109 IPC.

3. The prosecution version is as follows:

On receiving necessary information, concerned officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted regular enquiry basing upon which, the case was registered in Cr.No.11/RCO-NLR/2002 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Sections 120-B and 420 read with 34 IPC on 4.9.2002 and investigated into the matter. In fact, the investigation of the case reveals that Registration Certificates for doing business in sensitive commodities like Pulses, Dhal, Bengalgram, Oils and Oil Seeds should be invariably given and also additional inclusions. of sensitive commodities in the existing RCs should be done only on the orders of the concerned Deputy Commissioner (CT), but one M.A.G.Ranjan, the then Commercial Tax Officer, Ongole who is no more, now connived with A4, A5 and A7 and issued permissions to them for doing business in sensitive commodities like Pulses, Dal, Oil Seeds, Chillies, Turmeric giving an endorsement in the existing registration certificates under APGST and CST Acts without the approval of the Deputy Commissioner and he also issued way bills indiscriminately under those Acts without watching utilisation/tax collection particulars and without scrutinizing A2/CST VI returns properly and without cross verification of exemptions claimed in the returns or in the way bills/utilisation statements in connivance with A 1 to A5 (A1 is the husband of A4 and A2 and A3 are the sons of A 1 and A4) and thereby enabled A1 to A5 to indulge in clandestine trading and evade necessary tax payable by them and consequently caused loss of Rs. 2.33 crores to the State exchequer and accordingly obtained wrongful gain by his criminal misconduct. In fact, A1 to A5 are liable to pay the following amounts with regard to the corresponding losses.

Name APGST CST TOTAL

A1 Amara Krishnamohan Rao 1,95,75.5 19,13,830 21,09,585-00

A2 Amara Bangaru Babu 15,35,182 41,72,224 57,07,406-00

A3 Amara Venkata Subba Rao 12,92,509 42,10,440 55,02,949-00

A4 Amara Satyavathi 11,65,228 36,75,801 48,41,029-00

A5 Kaliki Jali Reddy 10,92,180 40,77,682 51,69,862-00

Therefore, they have committed the alleged offences.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A5 that when it is according to the prosecution that the Commercial Tax Officer namely M.A.G.Ranjan in connivance with A1 to A5 committed the crime punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(I)(b) of P.C. Act along with other offences and thereby A1 to A5 are also liable for punishment under those provisions of law and admittedly the Commercial Tax Officer having been the principal accused died and consequently the entire case was abated insofar as he is concerned by reason of which the question of proving that offence against A1 to A4 has lost its ground, accordingly, the same charge has to be deleted in favour of A1 to A5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision in N.P. Prabhu v. Union of India (1) 2003 Crl.L.J. 2261.

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that prima facie there is clear material that the deceased Commercial Tax Officer involved in committing the said offence under the P.C. Act in connivance with A1 to A5 and even though he is no more, there is a question to be decided as to whether A1 to A5 induced and