An inordinate administrative delay in granting prosecution sanction or an exoneration in departmental proceedings based on technical grounds does not justify quashing criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as these matters involving disputed questions of fact require a full-fledged trial to reach a final determination.

: O R D E R :

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