Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
B. Gunasekhar Babu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. Rep. by Standing Counsel for SPE & ACB Cases – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1582 of 2016
Decided On : 09-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda.
For the Respondent: Udaya Bhaskara Rao.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(a) and (d) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 34 and 120-B - Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 239,161,277,209,160 to 173 and 228 - Petitioner is the Inspector of Police, who is none other than Accused in an outcome of Crime No. 15/RCO-ACB-KNR/ registered on for the offences punishable under Sections and of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections of IPC which is based on occurrence report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) from a surprise check conducted on by intercepting a TATA Victa vehicle belonging to the officials of Excise Department and - seized from them under the cover of and the source of money could not be explained by the officials as that was suspected to be the amount collected towards bribe for favouring the owners of Wine Shops, in registering the above crime and from the investigation, including on the searches conducted and seizures effected the ACB officials filed the final report that was taken cognizance for the offences referred supra by the learned Special Judge - Accused and in the course of hearing on charges, the petitioner filed. M.P. No. of in under Section seeking for his discharge saying that the investigation and the cognizance order of the Special Judge are unsustainable and baseless for there are no grounds to frame any charge against him, in particular - Impugned order dated M.P. No. of in C.C. No. the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition and the same is the subject matter in the present Criminal Revision Case - Held, petitioner/A.8 from A.1 to A.7 and handing over the same to the petitioner what he stated was the purpose he does not know by then and it is later he came to know of the same is an illegal gratification/bribe in the form of monthly - If he deposed the same, it is a part of appreciation of evidence on admissibility, for nothing shown prima-facie inadmissible - There is nothing even from said version to say the police granted him immunity to save any of his complicity to apply the ratio in case there is no basis to say that LW.19 is an accomplice or co-accused and could have been charge sheeted, as what he stated is he simply collected the amount at the instance of the petitioner and handed over the same to the petitioner without knowing the purpose and the consequences, but only later he came to know of the same. If that is the issue, it is difficult to say that he is an accomplice or co-perpetrator of the crime - relevant and admissible leave about the evidentiary value of it, as held by the learned Special Judge all these constitute prima-facie-accusation to frame charge - Contention that all those are with no basis and are ultimately insufficient to sustain the accusation if put to trial are premature to decide - There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned discharge dismissal - Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
1. The revision petitioner is the Inspector of Police, who is none other than Accused No. 8 in C.C. No. 98 of 2013, an outcome of Crime No. 15/RCO-ACB-KNR/2011, registered on 14.12.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) and Sections 34 and 120-B of IPC, which is based on occurrence report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Kurnool, from a surprise check conducted on 13.12.2011 by intercepting a TATA Victa vehicle belonging to the officials of Excise Department and Rs.3,62,640/- seized from them under the cover of panchanama and the source of money could not be explained by the officials as that was suspected to be the amount collected towards bribe for favouring the owners of Wine Shops, in registering the above crime and from the investigation, including on the searches conducted and seizures effected, the ACB officials filed the final report that was taken cognizance for the offences referred supra by the learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Kurnool.
2. It is thereafter on supply of copies to the accused and in the course of hearing on charges, the petitioner/A.8 filed Crl. M.P. No. 254 of 2015 in C.C. No. 98 of 2013 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking for his discharge, saying that the investigation and the cognizance order of the Special Judge are unsustainable and baseless for there are no grounds to frame any charge against him, in particular.
3. It is after contest, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2015 in Crl. M.P. No. 254 of 2015 in C.C. No. 98 of 2013, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition and the same is the subject matter in the present Criminal Revision Case.
4. Before coming to the contentions in the grounds of revision vis-à-vis oral submissions of the learned counsel for revision petitioner/A.8 impugning the discharge petition dismissal order, it is needful to mention the facts that are all covered by revision petition vis-à-vis the discharge petition before the Court below.
5. As per the prosecution version from the investigation of the crime supra, A.1 – K. Dayakar Reddy is the leader of a Liquor Syndicate of Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, and he conspired with A.2 to A.7 (viz., A.2 – C.V. Raghava Reddy; A.3 – G. Ravi Kumar; A.4 – K. Sankar Reddy; A.5 – K. Virupaksha Reddy; A.6 – Y. Sreenivasulu Goud and A.7 - C. Sidda Ramappa) and operated the Syndicate that was running 8 Wine Shops, out of which 7 are situated in Yemmiganur Town and Mandal and one is at Divandinne Village Yemmiganur Mandal. On 13.12.2011, the aforesaid vehicle belonging to the Excise officials, on a surprise check conducted in Kurnool Town, was intercepted and a sum of Rs.3,62,640/- was seized by the ACB officials, who registered a case and the investigation disclosed that Wine Shop Syndicate leaders, who developed illegal nexus with the officials of Excise and Police and others to win over the Law Enforcing Agency and to overlook various omissions and commissions done by the Liquor Syndicate and in the course of search on 17.12.2011 by the Dy. S.P, ACB, Kurnool, at the office of Liquor Syndicate, bearing Door No. 1-1589, Gandhinagar, Yemmiganur, two Registers i.e., Books of Accounts of Liquor Syndicate for the period from 01.12.2011 to 14.12.2011 and 29.10.2011 to 16.12.2011 when seized under Mediators Report, and on verification it disclosed that A.1 to A.7 made payments to the Government officials, including the Excise officials and that the Excise officials received a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- towards mamool and the Police officials received Rs.95,000/- towards mamool. The revision petitioner/A.8, who worked as Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur, at that time, was paid Rs.20,000/- by the Liquor Syndicate as monthly mamool, as disclosed from the said two seized Registers, particularly entry in page-12 of Register No. 1, and the same is also supported by oral evidence of one Sri B
