The court held that the responsibility for validating farmer identities in cotton procurement lies with CCI officials, and allegations of fraud were supported by sufficient prima facie evidence, rejecting claims for discharge.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Revision Cases are one and the same, the Criminal Revision Cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.10 challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.528 of 2023 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

3. Crl.R.C.No.498 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2022 in C.C.No.2 of 2017 by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Hyderabad, into the large-scale irregularities in procurement of cotton under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) Scheme by the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) during different cotton seasons in Telangana. This Court, while disposing W.P.No.22056 of 2008, had directed the CBI to enquire into allegations that officers of the CCI and officials of the Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) had permitted purchases of cotton from private traders and commission agents in the names of fictitious or non-existent farmers. Pursuant to the said directions, the CBI registered several cases including RC.23(A)/2014 and RC.22(A)/2015, relating to procurement at centres in Karimnagar, Vemulawada, Gangadhara, Choppadandi, and Jammikunta. The petitioner, who was then working as Senior Cotton Purchase Officer of the CCI, Warangal Branch, and had acted as Centre In-charge at the above procurement centres during the relevant cotton seasons, was shown as an accused in both the charge-sheets i.e., accused No.10 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 and accused No.1 in C.C.No.2 of 2017. The CBI alleged that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with private traders and others, accepted false and fabricated check memos and takpatties as genuine, and purchased cotton from non-farmers in violation of the CCI circulars, thereby causing wrongful loss to the CCI and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and other accused persons.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.528 of 2023 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2022 in C.C.No.2 of 2017 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge, contending that he had been falsely implicated and that the allegations were baseless. He stated that the duty of identifying and verifying the genuineness of the farmers lay solely with the officials of the Agricultural Market Committees and the revenue authorities, who were required to scrutinize the pattadar passbooks and issue verification memos before the CCI could purchase the produce. The petitioner submitted that he, as a Centre In- charge, had acted only upon such verifications and instructions issued by the CCI and Government authorities, and had no authority to question the genuineness of farmers or check memos once certified by the AMC officials and that the CBI itself had admitted in para 32 of the charge-sheet that no specific guidelines had been issued by the CCI restricting purchases only from farmers during the 2004-05 season, and therefore, the allegation of violation of circulars was misconceived. The petitioner also relied upon the closure report filed by the CBI in another case, RC 03(A)/2018/CBI- ACB/HYD, which was accepted by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, where similar allegations were found to be only procedural lapses without any criminal intent or loss to the CCI.

6. After hearing both sides examining the material on record the trial Court dismissed the petitioners holding that there exis