Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 458
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
K.o.b. Prabhakar Babu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1639 of 2016, 1640 of 2016
Decided On : 17-06-2020
A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate, S.M. Subhani, Advocate
1. The mere fact that the government initially decided to entrust the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioners did not amount to a refusal to grant sanction to prosecute them. 2. The government could subsequently grant sanction to prosecute the petitioners after considering the final report and the evidence enclosed thereto.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - DISCHARGE FROM CASE - CORRUPTION - EXCISE OFFICIALS - COLLUSION WITH LIQUOR SYNDICATE - SECURED LICENSES IN NAME OF BENAMI PERSONS - ILLEGAL LIQUOR BUSINESS - SALE BEYOND MRP, LOOSE LIQUOR, BELT SHOPS - BRIBES FROM SYNDICATE LEADERS - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - CHARGE FRAMING - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Nos.1 and 2 formed a syndicate to run benami wine shops in Chittoor and Palamaneru. They secured licenses in the name of poor persons who were not financially capable of running the business. Accused Nos.3 and 4, excise officials, colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to commit these illegal acts. Accused Nos.3 and 4 collected monthly bribes from accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners, accused Nos.3 and 4, filed discharge petitions, claiming no evidence against them and that the sanction order to prosecute them was invalid. The trial court dismissed the petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was ample evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners and to prove their complicity in the offences. The evidence of witnesses established that accused Nos.1 and 2 had secured licenses illegally and were running the wine shops in benami names, selling liquor beyond MRP, selling loose liquor, and running illegal belt shops. The evidence also established that accused Nos.3 and 4 had colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to commit these illegal activities and had accepted monthly bribes from them. The court held that there were sufficient grounds and evidence on record to frame appropriate charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 and to try them for the said offences.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners and to prove their complicity in the offences? 2. Whether the sanction order to prosecute the petitioners was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was ample evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners and to prove their complicity in the offences. The evidence of witnesses established that accused Nos.1 and 2 had secured licenses illegally and were running the wine shops in benami names, selling liquor beyond MRP, selling loose liquor, and running illegal belt shops. The evidence also established that accused Nos.3 and 4 had colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to commit these illegal activities and had accepted monthly bribes from them. The court held that there were sufficient grounds and evidence on record to frame appropriate charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 and to try them for the said offences. 2. The court held that the sanction order to prosecute the petitioners was valid. The court noted that the government had initially decided to entrust the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioners, but this did not amount to a refusal to grant sanction to prosecute them. The court held that the government could subsequently grant sanction to prosecute the petitioners after considering the final report and the evidence enclosed thereto.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both criminal revision cases and held that the petitioners were not entitled to discharge from the case and were liable to face trial after appropriate charges were framed against them.
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - The petitioners in these two Criminal Revision Cases are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. The two petitions filed by them under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the said case are dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned orders. Therefore, both these Criminal Revision Cases were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1639 of 2016 is accused No.4 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1640 of 2016 is accused No.3 in the above C.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
3. Facts of the prosecution case relevant to dispose of these Criminal Revision Cases may be stated as follows:
4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above C.C. No.25 of 2015 are the leaders of the syndicate formed by them along with other affluent persons. They formed into a syndicate to run benami office to have complete control over the wine shops at Palamaneru and in Chittoor. In the auction that was held for the lease period 2010-2012, in the month of June, 2010, accused Nos.1 and 2 have setup some poor persons to submit tenders in the said auction to secure licenses to run the wine shops in the names of benami license holders. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have submitted several forms to participate in the auction in the names of these benami persons. The said forms are attested by the excise officials. Accused Nos.1 and 2 paid the requisite fee payable in the name of the said benami persons to participate in the above auction. Most of the said benami persons are all white ration card holders and they are below poverty line and they do not have the financial capacity to participate in any such auction and to do the liquor business to run the wine shops. Accused Nos.1 and 2 approached them and requested them to co-operate with them in getting the licenses for the liquor shops in their names in Chittoor and Palamaneru towns with a promise to give a meagre share to them in the profits derived from the said wine shop business for doing favour to them. They have taken the said benami persons to Chittoor on the date of auction and got the tender forms submitted by them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have also opened bank accounts in the name of the said persons for doing the business. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 managed to secure the licenses in the said auction in the name of the benami persons to run the wine shops. They have also taken some shops and buildings on lease from the owners of the said premises in the name of the said benami persons. All these wine shops are actually run by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Chittoor and Palamaneru in the name of benami persons.
5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 also used to run the said wine shops by selling the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, they also used to sell loose liquor, they also used to sell the liquor beyond the stipulated time and they also used to run belt shops illegally in violation of the Rules prescribed for doing the liquor business.
6. Accused No.3 is an employee worked as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chittoor Urban and accused No.4 is an employee worked as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Palamaneru at the relevant time. Both of them colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to commit the above illegal acts of securing the licenses to run the wine shops in the name of benami persons and in running the said wine shops by resorting to illegal means of selling the liquor beyond the M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor, to run several belt shops illegally and in selling the liquor at wine shops beyond the stipulated time in violation of the license conditions. Accused No.3 allowed accused No.2 to run 18 wine shops vide G.Sl.Nos.1 to 18 in the name of benami persons and in selling the liquor beyond the M.R.P. price, selling loos
