Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 76
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Dr. Vinodini Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP Rep by Its Spl PP Hyd. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1706 of 2006
Decided on : 12-06-2020
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Ss. 409, 201 - Appeal against conviction - Whether the Accused Officer using her official position as a public servant, misappropriated the amount dishonestly and fraudulently and also committed criminal breach of trust? (ii) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused Officer under Sections 409 IPC and 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable factually and legallyAppellant-Accused Officer at Hyderabad worked as Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and in such capacity she was entrusted with Rs.1,75,000/- by New Hope Leprosy Rural Trust, Muniguda, Orissa, to provide consultancy services to the financial agency i.e., New Hope Leprosy Rural Trust in respect of the project on consultancy services of vitamin A Project, Muniguda, Orissa. It is also alleged against her that she had submitted statements of expenditure incurred in connection with the said project on the said dates to the said Agency showing an amount of Rs.1,36,342.20ps., and thus the appellant-Accused Officer has claimed the said amount as TA/DA to the field staff which includes scientists and technical staff for their visit to Muniguda.
Finding of the Court:
It is also relevant to note that PW.5 - Accounts Officer, NIN, did not depose about misappropriation of the said amount of Rs.40,973/- and on the other hand, he has deposed that the accounts were not maintained at the Institute and were handled directly at Director’s Office. In his reply, he has stated to the Director that on 09.10.1995, the accounts relating to the said Project i.e., Vitamin ‘A’ Leaf Concentrate, with financial support cum IVRC through new Hope Rural Leprosy Trust, Muniguda, were not available at the Institute and the same were obviously handled by Director’s Office. In view of the said deposition of PW.5, the finding of the trial Court is contrary to record and evidence and, therefore, the said finding is unsustainable -Further finding of the trial Court that the fact remains that was charged to WHO Project maintained at NIN while the same amount was collected as spent from ‘Vitamin ‘A’ project of New Hope Rural Leprosy Trust, Muniguda, on this aspect, evidence of PW.5, the then Accounts Officer and his report Ex.P12 supports the prosecution case is contrary to evidence on record, both oral and documentary - It is relevant to note that Ex.P12 was Photostat copy of confidential note of PW.5 which was marked subject to objection -
Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 15.12.2006, passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No.4 of 2001, the appellant - Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the appellant-Accused Officer guilty of the charges under Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and, accordingly convicted her of the said charges by sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) days under each count. However, the trial Court acquitted her of the charge under Section 201 IPC.
3. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant-Accused Officer on or about 15.06.1993 and 30.02.1994 at Hyderabad worked as Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and in such capacity she was entrusted with Rs.1,75,000/- by New Hope Leprosy Rural Trust, Muniguda, Orissa, to provide consultancy services to the financial agency i.e., New Hope Leprosy Rural Trust in respect of the project on consultancy services of vitamin A Project, Muniguda, Orissa. It is also alleged against her that she had submitted statements of expenditure incurred in connection with the said project on the said dates to the said Agency showing an amount of Rs.1,36,342.20ps., and thus the appellant–Accused Officer has claimed the said amount as TA/DA to the field staff which includes scientists and technical staff for their visit to Muniguda.
4. It was further alleged that during the said period, even though TA and DA of Rs.40,973/- which forms part of Rs.1,36,342.20ps. was already claimed from National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) from the funds of W.H.O. Rich Foods, and thus, the appellant - Accused Officer dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the said sum of Rs.40,973/- and thereby she has committed an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act.
5. It is further alleged against the Accused Officer that during the period from 1st November to 3rd November of 1989 at Hyderabad while she was working as Director of National Institute of Nutrition (for short NIN), she has received an amount of Rs.3,36,200/- from the World Health Organization (WHO) Workshop on Food Safety and she has opened an account on 14.10.1989 in her name as ‘Dr. Vinodini Reddy, Director, NIN in SBH, Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad’ without routing through the account section of NIN. It was further alleged that she has given a self-cheque No.00476422 dated 28.11.1989 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the amount was received by Dr. Madhavi Reddy, who is no other than the daughter-in-law of the Accused Officer who was working as Ophthalmologist at Lions Eye Hospital, Secunderabad and who has agreed to carry out a collaborative research project on ‘Corneal Vascularisatin’. The said amount was returned by her to the Accused Officer as she could not carry out the said project as she had gone to USA to join her husband and, thus, the Accused Officer has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount and punishable under Section 409 IPC.
6. It is also alleged against the Accused Officer that on or about 28.02.1995 which is Accused Officer’s date of retirement, knowing or having reason to believe that certain offence to wit criminal breach of trust punishable with imprisonment of ten (10) years under Section 409 IPC, has been committed and caused certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit did not hand over (09) files mentioned in the charge to her successor Dr. M. Mohan Rao in spite of his request with an intention to screen herself from legal punishment and, thereby the Accused Officer committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.
7. The CBI on receipt of reliable information, register
