SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 202

In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
K. Ratna Prabha & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana rep. by its Special Standing Counsel ACB & Others - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 143, 290, 291, 272, 273, 279 & 262 of 2016
Decided On : 20-06-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:T. Niranjan Reddy, T. Nagarjuna Reddy, T.S. Anand, T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Siddartha Luthra, N. Naveen Kumar, P. Sri Raghu Ram, P. Sri Ram, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate.

Important Point—Trial judge has no power to review previous dismissal or closed order in view of specific bar.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) read with Sections 420 and 409 read with 34 IPC—Huge defalcation of public money—Cognizance—There is nothing to attribute any criminal common intention, breach of trust and cheating against A1-4 & 7 and there is no criminal misconduct as public servants and there is no willful acts on their part to cause any loss to Govt.—None of offences made out against them either under Sections 420 & 409 R/W.34 or even under section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of PC Act—Even so far as against A5 & 6 for none of offences made out against them either under Sections 420 & 409 R/W.34 or even under section 12 of the PC Act for there is nothing to show any abetment by A.5 or A.6 inducing de facto complainant to commit any of offences under P.C. Act and there is nothing on record even if they induced any of A1-4&7 much less to accept any bribe etc., by instigation or aiding—Impugned cognizance orders passed by Special Judge in toto are since otherwise also unsustainable, to sub serve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, same are quashed.

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 362—Review of order—Trial judge has no power to review previous dismissal or closed order in view of specific bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C.—Order of Special Judge in suo-moto reopening the matter, for not a mere correction of any clerical or arithmetical or typographic mistake so to do even if at all only on an application, for it has no inherent powers saved under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

       (C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 19—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 197—Sanction for prosecution of public servant—Taking cognizance of all offences against the A.1, 2, 4 & 7 and for IPC offences against A3 even, for very protest petition allegations taken on its face value are that they were in discharge of their official duties committed alleged acts, from mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 19 of PC Act and 197 of Cr.P.C. that are respectively lacking, proceedings are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed without necessity of going into other merits.

       Result—Criminal Revision Petitions allowed.

ORDER :

1. The respective revision petitioners in the Crl.R.C.Nos.143, 290, 291, 272, 273, 279 & 262 of 2016 are the accused Nos.1 to 7 respectively of C.C.No.21 of 2015, by names Smt. K.Ratna Prabha, IAS, the then Principal Secretary, I T & C. Dept., Hyderabad (A.1), Sri M.Gopi Krishna, IPS, the then Special Secretary, I T & C. Dept., Hyderabad(A.2), Sri P.Satyanaraya Murthy, the then Joint Secretary, I T & C. Dept., Hyderabad(A.3), Sri B.P.Acharya, IAS, the then M D & V C, APIIC, Hyderabad(A.4), Sri Neil Raheja, M D, M/s. K.Raheja I T Park Pvt. Ltd.,(A.5) and Sri B.Rabindranath, Head, Raheja Mindspace, Hyderabad(A.6) and one Sri L.V. Subrahmanyam, IAS, the then M D & V C, APIIC, Hyderabad(A.7), the predecessor in Office to A.4. A.1 to A.4 and A.7 are all in service, but for A3 since retired.

2. The accused supra maintained the revisions by impugning the orders dt.30.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.447 of 2014, passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Special Judge’) by rejecting the closure final report dated 14.07.2014 against all the six accused of FIR, (A1-6 in crime No.6/CAN.CIU/HYD/2011, ACB, Hyderabad), and taken cognizance of the offences punishable against A1-4 and one Sri L.V. Subrahmanyam, IAS as A7 under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act and under Sections 420 and 409 read with 34 IPC and so far as against A5&6 under Section 12 of the PC Act and Sections 420 and 409 read with 34 IPC.

3. The crime No.6/CAN.CIU/HYD/2011,ACB, Hyderabad (supra), was registered on 22.02.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 12 & 13(1)(i)(d)(i),(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’) and Sections 420, 409, 427 read with Section 34 IPC based on a private complaint 31.01.2011 filed by the defacto complainant by name Sri T. Sriranga Rao, Advocate by profession of Barkatpura, Hyderabad, before the learned Special Judge, against A.1 to A.6 only. Same was referred by the learned Special Judge, u/s. 156(3) CrPC, on 19.02.2011 to the D.G. ACB, Hyderabad, with a direction to entrust the same to the concerned officer having jurisdiction and to submit a report.

4. The gist of the allegations in the original complaint in CCSR.No.108 of 2011, needful to refer is that:

4(a). The Govt. has allotted an extent of 110 acres at S.No.64(P) at Madhapur, Serlingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District to M/s. K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (for short Raheja), for development of Mind Space Hyderabad Project under a joint venture between Raheja and Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation,(for short ‘APIIC’). A Memorandum of Undertaking, (for short MOU) dated 19.05.2003, was entered between the Govt. through Information, Technology and Communications Department (for short ITCD) and Raheja. As per the MOU, a joint venture company,(for short JVC), was to be formed between the two parties in which the Govt., through APIIC shall hold an equity share of 11% and Raheja shall hold the balance 89%. As per the joint venture agreement(JVA) dated 23.08.2003, the authorized capital of the JVC shall be Rs.1crore, out of which both the parties contributed their respective shares. The APIIC transferred land admeasuring 890.31 square meters to the JVC towards its share contribution of 11%. The Govt. through APIIC transferred land to an extent of 109 acres at rate of Rs.50 lakhs per acre in favour of JVC. As per MOU, the JVC is entitled for rebate of Rs.20,000/-per every job created in the Mindspace Cyberabad Project either by the company directly or any of its occupants or its tenants and the duration of the project is for 10 years and at the end of 10 years, if the rebate amount to be paid is equal or more of the land cost, in that case the JVC is not required to pay any amount towards the cost of the land. The Govt. at the same location in the year 2003 allotted land to software companies at price ranging from Rs.1.5 crore to Rs.2.5





























































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top