Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 1027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
Dammalapati Srinivas - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 16468 and 20077 of 2020 and Crl. Petition Nos. 4422, 4423, 4424, 4425, 4426 and 4427 of 2021
Decided On : 02-09-2021
For the Petitioners: Sri Siddarth Luthra, Learned senior counsel, for Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, Sri Vimala Varma Vasireddy, and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel.
For the Respondents:Learned Advocate-General for Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor Learned Govt. Pleader for Home; Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, and Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 162, 19(1)(f), 31 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 415, 420, 120-B, 409 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – P.C – Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w.13(2) – Criminal Petitions – Criminal Case – Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 – Special Leave to Appeal – Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Whether such Advocate, who is appointed by State and designated as an Additional Advocate-General, is competent to discharge any constitutional duties and statutory functions on behalf of State or whether his role is confined only to appear on behalf of State to conduct cases or to defend State in cases before Court or not, will be adverted to in succeeding paragraphs – Held, Concept of offence of insider trading which is essentially an offence in field of stock market relating to selling and buying securities and bonds cannot be applied to offences under Indian Penal Code and cannot be read into Section 420 of IPC or into any provisions in scheme of Indian Penal Code – It is totally alien to I.P.C. and it is unknown to our criminal jurisprudence under the Indian Penal Code – There is no dishonest concealment of fact in respect of sale transaction in question as contemplated under Explanation appended to Section 415 IPC – So, it does not amount to any deception constituting an offence under Section 420 of IPC – Sellers did not sustain any loss on account of said sale transactions. So, no element of criminal liability is involved in sale transactions – No offence of conspiracy to do any illegal act or to commit an offence is made out from facts of case against petitioners – Criminal Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
1. The two Writ Petitions and the six Criminal Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. respectively seeking quash of the common F.I.R. in Crime No.08/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 of A.C.B. Police Station, Guntur, registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the “P.C. Act”) and under Sections 409, 420 r/w.120-B of IPC.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.16468 of 2020 is accused No.1 and the petitioner in W.P.No.20077 of 2020 is accused No.13 and the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.4423, 4424, 4422, 4427, 4426 and 4425 of 2021 are accused Nos.2 to 7 respectively in the above F.I.R. Therefore, these Writ Petitions and Criminal Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Factual matrix of the prosecution case germane to dispose of these Writ Petitions and Criminal Petitions may briefly be stated as follows :
(a) One Komatla Srinivasa Swamy Reddy is the de facto complainant, who lodged report with the police. He claims to be an advocate from Ongole. He has lodged a report with the D.G., ACB, A.P., Vijayawada on 07.09.2020 stating that A-1 Sri Dammalapati Srinivas was the former Additional Advocate-General and also Advocate-General of the State of Andhra Pradesh. He and some public servants in high positions took advantage of their involvement in the decision making process relating to exact location of the core capital area and purchased lands either in their names or in the name of their binamis or their family members, associates/acquaintances, after sharing the privileged information about location of core capital area as they are privy to the said information and thereby enriched themselves.
(b) It is stated that till the draft of capital region area was approved by the Council of Ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the details of the draft were kept secret. It is only in the month of December, 2014, the Capital Region Authority Bill, 2014 was presented and the names of the villages that would be included in the new capital region became known to the public.
(c) However, the father-in-law of A-1, who is A-3, his brother-in-law-A-4 and his close relatives-A-5 and A-6 and his wife-A-2 and other accused purchased large extent of land in Amaravati capital region and in the villages which are adjacent to the said capital region and the iconic bridge proposed to be built across the Krishna river even before notification was issued in the month of December, 2014 by the State Government notifying the capital region area and the villages included in the said capital region. It is stated that A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6, who are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and relatives of A-1, purchased about Ac.40.25 cents of land and out of the said land, Ac.11.18 cents is in the core capital area and remaining Ac.29.07 cents is adjacent to the core capital region. The aforesaid lands are purchased by them between the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014 even before issuance of notification notifying the capital region.
(d) It is stated that A-1, who worked in a key position as Additional Advocate-General, was privy to the information relating to the location of the capital area and he has divulged the said information to his family members, relatives and close associates and based on the said information furnished by him that aforesaid persons purchased the said lands in and around the capital region. Similarly, the other accused, who got information from the higher officials working in the Government relating to exact location of the capital area prior to its notification issued in the month of December, 2014, have also purchased lands in and around the proposed capital region. Therefore, all the accused have indulged in insider trading.
(e) On receipt of the said report lodged by the de facto complainant, the DG, ACB, AP, Vijayawada, by his order in C.No.82/RE-VGT/2020-S17, dated 08.09.2
