APHC010598312022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1022 and 1042 of 2022 Between:

Moram Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V.Sai Kumar Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S.Syam Sunder Rao SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

2. Public Prosecutor (AP)

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1042/2022 Between:

Sri Vadapalli Adinarayana Murthy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K B Ramanna Dora Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S.Syam Sunder Rao SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

2. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of one calendar case, albeit filed by two accused, namely Accused Officer Nos. 6 and 7.

2. Criminal Revision Case No.1022 of 2022 is filed by Accused Officer No.7 and Criminal Revision Case No.1042 of 2022 is filed by Accused Officer No.6, challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1027 of 2013 (filed by Accused Officer No.7) and Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2014 (filed by Accused Officer No.6) in C.C.No.15 of 2023 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (for brevity, “the Trial Court”), whereby petitions filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”) seeking their discharge in Crime No.9A/2001/ACB/VJA/2001 were dismissed. The aforementioned crime was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, “the PC Act”) and Sections 418, 420, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the IPC”).

3. The respondent/complainant laid a charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused alleging that they colluded with Accused Officer No.4, the then MRO, Ponnuru, in issuing land enjoyment certificates certifying that each beneficiary had Ac.0.75 cents of land under their enjoyment, thereby cheating and causing wrongful loss to the Government exchequer. It is submitted that the petitioner/Accused Officer No.6 was not competent to issue land enjoyment certificates, as only the MRO was empowered to do so. The District Collector, Guntur, appointed the MRO, Ponnuru, as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner/AO6 in the year 2000. Pursuant thereto, the MRO, Ponnuru conducted the enquiry and submitted a report recommending action against the petitioner. However, the District Collector removed the Petitioner/Accused Officer No.6 from service, even though he had no role in issuing the enjoyment certificates.

4. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner/AO7 submits that the petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as Accused Officer No.7, even though the entire criminal proceedings originated from a vigilance enquiry based on a newspaper report and a subsequent report of the District Collector, in which the petitioner was not even named. It is contended that the FIR registered in Crime No. 9/ACB-VJA/2001 was initially closed in 2005 due to non-filing of charge sheet within time, yet a charge sheet was filed belatedly in 2013, long after the alleged incident, when several accused officers had either retired or passed away.

5. The petitioner, who was working only as a Village Development Officer, had no authority to issue land enjoyment certificates and merely acted in accordance with the instructions of his superior officers. There is no allegation of receipt of any bribe, pecuniary advantage, or misappropriation of funds by the petitioner, and even the charge sheet attributes no substantive role to him except a vague procedural lapse.