Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Juvvadi Sridevi, J.
Azmeera Kailas – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.10711 of 2024
Decided on 26.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel rep. Mr. C. Sunil Anand
For the Respondents:Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB for respondent No.1-State.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known source of income – Any error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction does not vitiate proceedings, unless it results in failure of justice.
(2) Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and findings in one do not automatically conclude other, particularly when standard of proof and nature of evidence differ.
Headnote:
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 19 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 [Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] – Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known source of income – There was no delay or inaction on part of ACB – ACB has exercised due diligence and consistently pursued the matter with competent authorities to ensure that sanction was obtained, after which case is being proceeded without undue delay – Delay in obtaining sanction and filing of charge-sheet is purely administrative in nature and cannot be attributed to any negligence or dereliction of duty on part of ACB – Delay, in absence of any other substantive illegality, does not entitle petitioner to relief claimed – Any error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction does not vitiate proceedings, unless it results in failure of justice – Liability of a Government servant under Conduct Regulations is individual in nature and non-compliance by others cannot be a valid ground to absolve petitioner of his statutory obligations. (Paras 8.2, 8.4, 9.3 and 10.10)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 [Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] – Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known source of income – In departmental proceeding petitioner was absolved of charges on technical grounds alone and not on merits – Exoneration of petitioner in departmental proceedings, being based on limited and incomplete consideration of material, does not have any bearing on criminal proceedings – Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and findings in one do not automatically conclude other, particularly when standard of proof and nature of evidence differ – Case on hand involves disputed questions of fact relating to acquisition of assets, sources of income and compliance of statutory requirements, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage – Truth or otherwise of allegations can only be determined upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during a full-fledged trial – There are no grounds to quash proceedings against petitioner. (Paras 10.10, 10.14 and 11)
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) by the petitioner-accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.39 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’).
2. Heard Mr. C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.Balamohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On receiving credible information that one Dheeravathu Koteswara Rao, Assistant Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income by indulging in corrupt practices, a case in Crime No.33/ACB-CR2/2010, dated 21.12.2010 was registered against him.
3.2. During the course of investigation, the house of the petitioner, who is a friend and colleague of the said Koteswara Rao and had purchased certain assets jointly with him, was searched on 22.12.2010 after obtaining a search warrant from the competent Court. During the search, documents relating to assets, income and expenditure were seized under inventory, for the purpose of investigation.
3.3. On analysis, it was found that the petitioner worked as a public servant from 25.01.2002 to 22.12.2010 and he acquired assets in the shape of a residential building and agricultural land worth Rs.67,39,652/- (Rs.70,26,744/- as per the charge sheet) in his name and in the name of his brother-in-law. His income from known sources was Rs.33,14,000/- (Rs.46,84,451/- as per the charge sheet) and his expenditure during the relevant period was calculated at Rs.12,77,801/- (Rs.16,61,741/- as per the charge sheet), leaving likely savings of Rs.20,36,199/- (Rs.30,22,710/- as per the charge sheet). Thus, he was found in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.47,03,453/- (Rs.40,04,034/- as per the charge sheet), for which he could not satisfactorily account for it.
3.4. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.14/ACB-CR-2/2011, dated 24.06.2011 was registered against the petitioner. After obtaining sanction, the Investigation Officer had filed a charge sheet on 31.01.2025, which was taken cognizance of by the trial Court and numbered as C.C.No.39 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences.
4. Following are the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in no way concerned with the offences alleged.
4.2. A house search was conducted at the residence of the petitioner on 22.12.2010, however, a case in Crime No.14/ACB-CR-2/ 2011 was registered against him on 24.06.2011 i.e., nearly six months after the said search.
4.3. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer issued a notice, dated 15.06.2013 calling upon the petitioner to explain the disproportionate assets possessed by him. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 12.08.2013. Further, he also submitted an explanation to the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad on 08.12.2014, explaining all his assets and sources of income.
4.4. After submission of the petitioner’s explanation, there was no progress in the investigation for several years. Aggrieved by the abnormal delay of 14 years in completing the investigation, the petitioner approached this Court in the year, 2024 by filing the present Criminal Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. Only thereafter, in a hurried manner, the Investigation Officer obtained sanction on 15.10.2024 and mechanically filed the charge sheet on 31.01.2025 without any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay of 14 years in c
