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
(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.
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
Harischandra Prasad Mani Vs. State of Jharkhand
Subramanium Swamy V. Man Mohan Singh and another
State of W.B. Vs. Mohd. Khalid
Anil Kumar and others v. M.K. Aiyappa
Sabitha Rama Murthy V. R.B.S. Channabasavaradha
Keki Hormusji Gharda V. Mehervan Rustom Irani
Standard Chartered Bank V. Director of Enforcement
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.
National Small Industries Corporation V. Harmeet Singh (2010)3 SCC 330
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc
Aneeta Hada (II) V. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd.
Aneeta Hada(I) V. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd.
Anil Hada V. India Accrelic Limited
State of Madras V. C.V. Parekh
Anil Gupta V. Star India Private Limited
Poojari Ravinder Devi Dasani V. State of Maharashtra
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust V. India Infoline Limited
Gunmala Sales Private Limited V. Anu Mehta
State of Orissa V. Debendranath Padhi
Rukmini Narvekar V. Vijaya Satardekar
V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I.
Madhulimaye v. State of Maharashtra
Mohit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sunitha Jain V. Pavan Kumar Jain
State of Orissa V. Saroj Kumar Sahu
Punjab National Bank V. Surender Prasad Sinha
Rajib Ranjan and Ors. v. R. Vijaykumar
Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal
Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitulh Chanchani
Chandran Ratnaswami V. K.C. Palanisamy
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
Muthu Naicker and others v. State of Tamilnadu
Rangaswami v. State of Tamilnadu
V.P. Srivastava V. Indian Explosives Limited
Medchal Chemicals & Pharma (P) Limited V. Biological E. Ltd.
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati V. C.B.I.
Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur
Om Prakash V. State of Jharkhandand & Kailashpathi Singh V. Rajiv Ranjan Singh
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh
Vimala V. Delhi Administration
Jagdish Sahai Mathur Vs. State(DA)
M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana
Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Asoke Basak Vs. State of Maharashtra
Maksood Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat
Everest Advertising Private Limited Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi
Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate
M/s. Thermax Ltd. & Ors. vs. K.M. Johny & Ors.
State of Maharashtra Vs. J.L. Wankhede
Common Cause Vs. Union of India
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay
Popular Muthaiah Vs State rep. by Inspector of police
Nawabganj Sugar Mills Vs. Union of India
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque
CBI Vs. Dunkans Agro Industries Limited
Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijay Satardekar
State of Karnataka vs. L. Munnniswamy
Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Limited
Uma Shanker Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar
Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar
S.W. Palanitkar Vs. State of Bihar
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede
State of M.P. Vs. Sheetla Sahai
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. T.K. Raju
State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable
State through C.B.I. Vs. Parameswaran Subrahmani
Balakrishnan Ravi Menon Vs. Union of India
Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab
Habibulla Khan Vs. State of Orissa
L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Abhay Singh Chautala Vs. State of Haryana
Kalicharan Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa
Lalu Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI, New Delhi
P.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkam Rep. by the CBI
Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Vs. Bhushan Chander
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.