The court found that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case against the petitioners to proceed to trial, emphasizing the necessity of mens rea in criminal prosecution.

ORDER :

Since the issue involved in all these Criminal Revision Cases is same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Revision Cases are filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3071 of 2019, Crl.M.P.Nos.1633 and 1823 of 2021 in C.C.No.19 of 2013 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

The brief facts of the case are that the ESIC works for the Operation Theatre block and Library-cum-Conference Hall at ESI Hospital, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad were irregularly entrusted to the Fisheries Department and to accused No.1, and that advances and payments were made into accounts controlled by accused No.1 yielding wrongful gain and loss to ESIC; after investigation a charge-sheet and a later supplementary charge-sheet were filed naming public servants, including the petitioners/accused Nos.8, 10 and 12, for offences under Sections 120 -B, 201, 409, 420, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(c)/(d) of the PC Act; the prosecution relied on documentary files (notably File No.1156 and other records) showing correspondence, bank transfers and notings and pointed to ban-orders and follow up communications (ban dated 30-04-2007 and related notes) which the prosecution said were not effectively implemented, thereby enabling accused No.1 to continue works and withdraw monies; each petitioner moved to be discharged under Sections 239 /227/228/239 Cr.P.C. (variously) on grounds such as absence of mens rea, absence of material linking them to overt acts, timing (many entrustments pre- dated their tenure), and lack of sanction for prosecution of retired officers, while the trial court after hearing the parties found that the oral and documentary material produced with the charge-sheets raised sufficient grave suspicion, i.e., a prima facie case and therefore dismissed the discharge applications, holding that whether the acts were bona fide or mala fide required a full trial. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Cases.

3. Heard Sri B. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A. Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.775of 2022, Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Rohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.893 and 894 of 2022 and Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the client of the petitioners had been wrongly arraigned and that no prima facie case existed against them and that the original entrustment and most of the material events had occurred before the petitioner assumed the relevant post, so the acts could not be attributed to the petitioner, that only a very small number of documents actually bore the signature or initials of the petitioners (and those entries were attestations or routine official notings, not authorisations), and that the reliance of the prosecution on voluminous documents was irrelevant because the overt acts specifically alleged against the petitioners were confined to a narrow set of files (for A-10, essentially File No.1156 / Documents 90–91). They further submitted that the ban orders (dated around 30-04-2007 / 11-05-2007) had been issued or circulated and that the petitioner had taken steps to implement or communicate the ban; that the conduct, where shown, fell within discharge of official duties and therefore required sanction (or at least did not disclose criminal intent); and that the amendments to Section 19 of the PC Act could not b