Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.O.B.Prabhakar Babu, Chittoor Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Spl.Pp For Acb., on 17 June, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Revision Case Nos.1639 and1640 of 2016
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners in these two Criminal Revision Cases are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. The two petitions filed by them under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the said case are dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned orders. Therefore, both these Criminal Revision Cases were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1639 of 2016 is accused No.4 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1640 of 2016 is accused No.3 in the above C.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
Facts of the prosecution case relevant to dispose of these Criminal Revision Cases may be stated as follows:
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above C.C. No.25 of 2015 are the leaders of the syndicate formed by them along with other affluent persons. They formed into a syndicate to run benami office to have complete control over the wine shops at Palamaneru and in Chittoor. In the auction that was held for the lease period 2010-2012, in the month of June, 2010, 2 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 accused Nos.1 and 2 have setup some poor persons to submit tenders in the said auction to secure licenses to run the wine shops in the names of benami license holders. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have submitted several forms to participate in the auction in the names of these benami persons. The said forms are attested by the excise officials. Accused Nos.1 and 2 paid the requisite fee payable in the name of the said benami persons to participate in the above auction. Most of the said benami persons are all white ration card holders and they are below poverty line and they do not have the financial capacity to participate in any such auction and to do the liquor business to run the wine shops. Accused Nos.1 and 2 approached them and requested them to co-operate with them in getting the licenses for the liquor shops in their names in Chittoor and Palamaneru towns with a promise to give a meagre share to them in the profits derived from the said wine shop business for doing favour to them. They have taken the said benami persons to Chittoor on the date of auction and got the tender forms submitted by them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have also opened bank accounts in the name of the said persons for doing the business. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 managed to secure the licenses in the said auction in the name of the benami persons to run the wine shops. They have also taken some shops and buildings on lease from the owners of the said premises in the name of the said benami persons. All these 3 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 wine shops are actually run by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Chittoor and Palamaneru in the name of benami persons.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 also used to run the said wine shops by selling the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, they also used to sell loose liquor, they also used to sell the liquor beyond the stipulated time and they also used to run belt shops illegally in violation of the Rules prescribed for doing the liquor business.
Accused No.3 is an employee worked as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chittoor Urban and accused No.4 is an employee worked as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Palamaneru at the relevant time. Both of them colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to commit the above illegal acts of securing the licenses to run the wine shops in the name of benami persons and in running the said wine shops by resorting to illegal means of selling the liquor beyond the M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor, to run several belt shops illegally and in selling the liquor at wine shops beyond the stipulated time in violation of the license conditions. Accused No.3 allowed accused No.2 to run 18 wine shops vide G.Sl.Nos.1 to 18 in the name of benami persons and in selling the liquor beyond the M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor at the wine shops and selling the liquor in the wine shops beyond the stipulated time and also in running 76 belt shops. Accused No.4 allowed accused No.1 4 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 to run 13 wine shops vide G.Sl.Nos.102 to 106 and 108 to 115 in the name of benami persons and in selling the liquor beyond the M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor at the wine shops and selling the liquor in the wine shops beyond the stipulated time and also in running 68 belt shops illegally contrary to the Rules, which are in vogue.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 being the responsible public servants have also used to collect monthly bribes towards illegal gratification from accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to commit the above illegalities and irregularities in running the wine shops. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the above illegalities and irregularities in active connivance with accused Nos.3 and 4. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have grossly misused their office and abused their power to do official favour to accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the above illegalities and irregularities by taking bribes from them towards illegal gratification.
On receipt of reliable information relating to the above illegalities and irregularities being committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in running the said wine shops in the name of benami persons and selling the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, running belt shops etc., the Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range, conducted searches in the offices of the Excise Superintendents, Chittoor and Tirupati Excise Districts on 06.03.2012 and seized the records pertaining to 5 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 the auction of A4 wine shops held for the Excise Year 2010- 2012 under a cover of mediators report. A scrutiny of the records revealed that many successful bidders in the above auction are white ration card holders, who are not financially capable of doing the said business. During the course of investigation, it came to light that out of 458 license holders of A4 wine shops in the District, 192 license holders are possessing the ration cards of below poverty line and 177 are possessing white ration cards and four license holders are possessing temporary coupon cards (TAP), and four license holders are possessing Rachabanda coupon cards (RAP) and seven license holders are possessing Anthodaya Anna Yojana cards (YAP).
The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2005 (for short, the "2005 Rules") do not permit more than one shop in the name of a person. Rule 9 thereof says that no person shall submit tender on behalf of any other person unless he holds a power of attorney for such person.
Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 in violation of the above Rules, submitted tenders on behalf of several benami persons and managed to secure licenses in their names. Accused Nos.3 and 4 helped them in the said process.
During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has examined the benami license holders. LWs.5 to 6 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 19 and LWs.24 to 27 stated that accused No.2 Konda Reddy approached them with a request to help him to run the wine shops in their names with a promise to pay money to them in the profits derived from the said business and he got the forms submitted through them in the auction and that he used to run the wine shops business. They also stated that they are the white ration card holders.
LWs.20 to 23 and LWs.28 to 33 stated that accused No.1 Nagabhushana Rao approached them with a request to co-operate with him to run the wine shops in their names and that he got the applications submitted in the auction in their names and got the licenses in their names and that he used to run the said wine shops.
The Investigation Officer, during the course of investigation, also examined the employees worked in the said wine shops, who got Nowkarnamas. LWs.34 to 50 stated that accused No.2 used to run the said wine shops in which they are working and that accused No.2 also used to sell the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, sell the liquor beyond the stipulated time and also used to sell loose liquor etc. They further stated that accused No.3 the Prohibition and Excise Inspector used to come to the office of the benami group and collect monthly bribes to allow them to commit the above illegalities and irregularities.
7
CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 Similarly, LWs.51 to 64 stated that they are working in the wine shops run by accused No.1 and he also used to sell the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, sell loose liquor and sell liquor beyond the stipulated time and that accused No.1 used to pay bribe to accused No.4 the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and that accused No.4 used to come to the office of benami group and collect monthly bribes to allow them to commit the above illegalities and irregularities.
LWs.66 and 67 are the house-owners who stated that accused No.2 has taken on lease the said premises to run the wine shops in the name of the benamis.
Thus, after completion of investigation, as the investigation revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 managed to obtain licenses in the name of benami persons in the auction and have been in fact running the said wine shops in the name of benami license holders and that they are also selling the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor and selling liquor beyond the stipulated time and running belt shops etc., with the active connivance of accused Nos.3 and 4 the excise officials and as the investigation also revealed that accused Nos.3 and 4 being excise officials have allowed the said illegalities and irregularities to take place deliberately and received bribes towards illegal gratification from accused Nos.1 and 2 to do an official favour to them by their omissions and commissions, the Inspector of Police, 8 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 A.C.B., Tirupati Range, filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 12 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "P.C. Act") and Sections 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and Section 41 of the A.P. Excise Act r/w. Rule 9, sub-rules (8) and (10) of Rule 14 of the 2005 Rules against accused Nos.1 and 2 and under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and (d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and under Section 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and Section 41 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 9, sub-rules (8) and (10) of Rule 14 of the 2005 Rules against accused Nos.3 and 4.
The charge-sheet was filed after obtaining sanction against accused Nos.3 and 4 from the Government as required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. The Government also simultaneously ordered to entrust the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for regular enquiry against them for the acts of misconduct committed by them as public servants as per Memo. dated 21.12.2012.
The charge-sheet that was filed by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range, was taken on to file by the trial Court. Thereafter, accused Nos.3 and 4 filed two separation petitions under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the case on the ground that there is no material evidence against them to frame charge against them and that the 9 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 sanction order issued by the Government to prosecute them is not valid.
The trial Court, by the impugned orders, dated 25.04.2016, dismissed the said two petitions.
Aggrieved thereby, assailing the legality and validity of the impugned orders, accused Nos.3 and 4 preferred these two Criminal Revision Cases before this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Standing Counsel for ACB Cases for the respondent- State.
Although facts of the case are already dealt with in- extenso at the outset, it is expedient to recapitulate few relevant facts to better understand the role attributed to these two petitioners in commission of the offence. Precisely, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.3 while working as the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Chittoor Urban and accused No.4 while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Palamaneru, colluded with the liquor syndicate groups, who formed into a syndicate headed by accused Nos.1 and 2 to have complete control over all the wine shops in Chittoor and Palamaneru and allowed them to secure licenses to run A4 wine shops in Chittoor and Palamaneru in the name of benami persons who are not financially capable of doing any such business and helped 10 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 them to run wine shops in the name of benami persons and also helped accused Nos.1 and 2 in resorting to illegal activities of selling liquor in the said wine shops beyond M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor in the wine shops and selling liquor beyond the stipulated time in the wine shops and in running 76 belt shops in Chittoor and 68 belt shops in Palamaneru contrary to the rules in vogue and collected monthly bribes from accused Nos.1 and 2 towards illegal gratification to do official favour to them in not taking any action against them for committing the above illegalities and irregularities in running the wine shops and in doing liquor business. This is the substratum of the prosecution case against accused Nos.3 and 4.
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4 excise officials, sought discharge from the case primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that there is no material evidence collected against these petitioners to prove their complicity in commission of the above crime as per the allegations set out against them by the prosecution. So, there are no valid legal grounds to frame any charge against them for the alleged offences to try them for the said offences. Therefore, the charge that may be framed against them would be wholly groundless. Secondly, it is their case that after charge-sheet is filed, the Government has considered the same and as per Memo. dated 21.12.2012 the Government has only decided 11 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 to entrust the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for regular enquiry to be conducted against them into the said allegations and as such, it amounts to refusing to grant sanction to prosecute accused Nos.3 and 4 for the said offences as required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. However, subsequently, the Government again issued G.O.Ms.Nos.197 and 198 dated 16.05.2014 granting sanction to prosecute accused Nos.3 and 4 and the said sanction is not valid under law. It is their contention that once the Government has refused to grant sanction earlier, it cannot change its opinion subsequently without there being any fresh material emanating from the record and grant sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the order dated 16.05.2014 granting sanction under Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act is not valid and legally unsustainable. These are the two principal grounds on which the petitioners sought discharge from the case.
As regards the first ground that there is no material evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioners by the prosecution and to prove the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the aforesaid offences and as such in the absence of any such material evidence that there are no grounds to frame charge against them to try them for the said offences, is concerned, at the very outset, after considering the entire gamut of evidence 12 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 that is collected by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that there is ample legal evidence on record to substantiate the allegations ascribed against the petitioners and to prove their complicity in commission of the aforesaid offences.
This Court has meticulously gone through the entire evidence that is collected by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation to examine whether prima facie case is made out against accused Nos.3 and 4 from the facts of the case and the evidence on record to frame charge against them and to try them for the said offences or not. The witnesses examined in the process of collection of evidence by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation can be conveniently segregated into two sets of witnesses. The evidence of first set of witnesses pertains to the offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in securing the benami persons to help them in obtaining licenses benami in their names in the auction with a promise to pay money to them out of the profits derived from the said liquor business and thereby filing the tenders in their names by paying money on their behalf and securing the benami licenses in their names in active collusion and collaboration with the excise officials-accused Nos.3 and 4 and thereafter in running the said A4 wine shops in the names of the 13 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 benami license holders and in running the said business by resorting to illegal activities of selling the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, selling loose liquor, selling liquor beyond the stipulated time and running several belt shops illegally etc. in active connivance with accused Nos.3 and 4. One set of witnesses examined by the Investigation Officer stated about the aforesaid offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. They are LWs.5 to 19 and LWs.24 to 27, who gave evidence against accused No.2 and LWs.20 to 23 and LWs.28 to 33, who spoke against accused No.1. All these witnesses are the benamis of accused Nos.1 and 2. LWs.5 to 19 and LWs.24 to 27 stated that accused No.2 Konda Reddy approached them, who are all white ration card holders, with a request to help him in running wine shop business in their names and offered to pay money to them out of the profits derived from business and that he got the tenders filed in their names and obtained PAN Cards in their name. They also stated that he used to pay the money by way of demand drafts and collect the stock from A.P.B.C.L. Depot and sell the same in the wine shops and that accused No.2 Konda Reddy used to obtain their signatures on the forms as and when required. They also stated that when ACB officials raided the shops and conducted searches that he asked them to sit in the wine shops as owners. LWs.20 to 23 and LWs.28 to 33 gave similar statements against accused No.1 K.Nagabhushana Rao @ Sharma.
14
CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 The other set of witnesses gave evidence both against all the accused i.e. accused Nos.1, 2 and accused Nos.3 and
4. LWs.34 to 50 are the employees of accused No.2 and working in his wine shops under Nowkarinamas. They stated that they are working in the wine shops of accused No.2 and he is running the said wine shops in the benami names. They also stated that accused No.2 has been selling the liquor beyond M.R.P. rates and resorted to sale of loose liquor and selling liquor beyond the stipulated time and that he also used to run belt shops. Similarly, LWs.51 to 64 gave statements against accused No.1 stating that he used to run the wine shops in benami names and they used to work in his wine shops as per the Nowkarinamas and accused No.1 used to sell the liquor beyond M.R.P. price, sell loose liquor, sell the liquor beyond the stipulated time etc. LWs.65 and 66 stated that at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2, they used to take demand drafts from liquor shops to A.P.B.C.L. Depot to release the stock and thereafter they used to distribute the same at all the wine shops. They also stated that they have seen accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively visiting benami office to collect monthly bribes.
LWs.67 to 71 are the house owners who spoke about paying rents by accused No.2 to the said premises in which wine shops are being run.
15
CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 Thus, the aforesaid evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie bears ample testimony of fact that accused Nos.1 and 2, as the leaders of the syndicate formed to run wine shops in benami names, have managed to obtain licenses illegally in the name of the benami persons and running the wine shops and doing the said business illegally by selling the liquor beyond the M.R.P. prices, selling loose liquor, and running illegal belt shops etc. Therefore, more than a prima facie case has been made out to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the aforesaid offences. There is sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2.
The above discussed evidence of second set of witnesses also prima facie establish the complicity of accused Nos.3 and 4 excise officials in commission of the offences alleged against them. LWs.34 to 50 and again LWs.51 to 64, who are the employees working in the wine shops, being run by accused Nos.1 and 2, categorically and unequivocally stated in their statements that accused Nos.1 and 2 used to pay monthly bribes to accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively to allow them to commit the above illegal activities in conducting the said liquor business. LWs.34 to 50 clearly and unequivocally stated that they have seen accused No.3 who is an excise official visiting benami group office in Chittoor several times and collecting monthly bribes for not 16 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 taking any action against the culprits. Similarly, LWs.51 to 64 stated in their statements that they have seen accused No.4 who is an excise official visiting the benami group office and collecting monthly bribes for not taking any action against the culprits in committing the said illegal activities on several times. Even, LWs.65 and 66, who are also employees of accused Nos.1 and 2, who used to take demand drafts from them to get the stock released and distribute the same at the wine shops stated that they have seen accused Nos.3 and 4 visiting benami group office and collecting monthly bribes for not to take any action against the said illegal activities, on several times.
The prosecution has also collected evidence that many of the said benami license holders are white ration card holders and other cardholders, who are below the poverty line, who have absolutely no financial capacity either to participate in the auction or to do the liquor business and to run the wine shop, which clearly indicates along with the evidence of LWs.5 to 33, that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been running the wine shops in the names of benami license holders.
Thus, there is ample and abundant evidence on record collected during the course of investigation to substantiate the allegations against excise officials - accused Nos.3 and 4 that they have colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 the 17 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 leaders of the benami group to enable accused Nos.1 and 2 and the members of their group to obtain licenses in the auction in the name of benami persons and also to enable them to do illegal liquor business by resorting to sale of liquor beyond M.R.P. price, sale of loose liquor, running illegal belt shops and doing liquor business in wine shops beyond the stipulated time etc. by accepting monthly bribes from accused Nos.1 and 2, to do the aforesaid official favour to them. The said evidence also prima facie establishes that accused Nos.3 and 4 as excise officials have grossly abused their power and misused their office in deliberately colluding with accused Nos.1 and 2 to allow them to carry on the said illegal activities and to commit the aforesaid offences. So, there is a strong prima facie case established against the accused including accused Nos.3 and 4 to presume that they have committed the aforesaid offences. There are sufficient grounds and evidence on record to frame appropriate charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 and to try them for the said offences. A clear case under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) & (d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and for other offences as mentioned in the charge-sheet is made out against accused Nos.3 and 4 from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the evidence on record. LWs.34 to 50 and again LWs.51 to 64 and LWs.65 and 66 have in unison and in one voice clearly and unequivocally stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 used to visit the benami group office to collect their 18 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 `monthly bribes from accused Nos.1 and 2 which evidence is sufficient to presume that accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed the aforesaid offences.
Thus, a glance at the evidence produced by the prosecution with an assiduous effort to ferret out the facts pertaining to the role played by accused Nos.3 and 4 in perpetrating the offence would clearly show and prima facie establish the complicity of these accused in commission of the said offences.
Therefore, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that there is no material evidence on record to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners or to prove their complicity in commission of the said offences and that there are no valid grounds to frame charge against them and to prosecute them for the said offences. In fact, as already held supra, there is ample legal evidence on record, which is sufficient to frame charge against them and to try them for the said offences.
It is now well-settled law that at the time of framing charges, the evidence that is collected by the prosecution cannot be subjected to any judicial scrutiny to appreciate the said evidence to test the veracity of the said evidence. So, the contention of the petitioners that as the witnesses did not give the details of the amount of money that was collected by accused Nos.3 and 4 towards monthly bribe that 19 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 their evidence is vague and cannot be relied on to frame charge against them cannot be countenanced.
When the Court finds that there is sufficient and prima facie evidence to prove the complicity of the accused to try them for the said offences, the Court has to frame a necessary charge against the accused for the said offences and try them for the said offences, leaving the aspect of appreciation of evidence to be considered after conclusion of the trial and in the final adjudication of the case.
Therefore, the first contention of the petitioners lacks merit and it is liable to be rejected. The learned trial Judge, while considering the relevant case law on this aspect, has arrived at a right conclusion that there are no grounds to discharge the petitioners from the case.
Apropos the second contention relating to the validity of sanction order passed by the Government is concerned, again this Court has no hesitation to hold at the very outset that the said contention is also legally unsustainable. No doubt, after completion of investigation by the ACB officials, after considering the record relating to the investigation conducted by the ACB authorities relating to the aforesaid offences committed by the excise officials accused Nos.3 and 4 and after examination of the final report filed by the Director General of ACB in the matter, the Government has by its Memo. dated 21.12.2012 decided to entrust the case 20 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 against accused Nos.3 and 4 to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for regular enquiry to be conducted under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules r/w. Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 and placed the above excise officials on their defence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on the allegations of their involvement in the illegal activities committed by liquor syndicate leaders and directed the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conduct enquiry as per Rules and submit report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 16.05.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 16.05.2014 granted sanction to prosecute accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively for the aforesaid offences after considering the final report, the evidence enclosed thereto, and after applying its mind to the facts of the case and after finding that it is established from the evidence collected by the prosecution that accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed the aforesaid offences.
Now the main contention of the petitioners is that at the first instance the Government has decided only to entrust the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to take appropriate action against them on the said allegations and at that time no sanction was accorded to prosecute them for the said offences and as such it amounts 21 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 to rejecting the request to grant sanction to prosecute accused Nos.3 and 4 for the aforesaid offences. It is their case that it amounts to implied rejection. Therefore, they would contend that subsequently the Government cannot grant any sanction under the aforesaid two G.Os. by changing its opinion without there being any fresh material emanating from the record. The said contention is absolutely devoid of any merit. In fact, the legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been authoritatively settled by this Court.
This Court in the case of K.Rama Krishna Raju v. Govt. of A.P.1 while dealing with the similar issue where initially the Government has decided to entrust the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring officials to conduct enquiry into their acts of misconduct and to submit a report and subsequently, granted sanction to prosecute the erring officials for indulging in corrupt practices, this Court held at para.8 as follows:
"8. The mere fact that the petitioner's case has been referred to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings does not necessitate the conclusion that the 1st respondent has decided not to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The nature and scope of a criminal case is different from those of a disciplinary proceeding. (Nelson Motis v. Union of India : AIR 1992 SC 1981). The approach and the objectives of 1 2012 (2) ALT 12 = 2012 (2) ALD 425 = 2012(2) ALT (Cri) 127 22 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. (Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh :
(2004) 8 SCC 200). Pendency of the proceeding before the criminal court does not bar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority. The criminal court hs no such power. The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in criminal proceedings. (Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath : AIR 1969 SC 30). Ordinarily, proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously. (Kendriya Vidyala Sanghthan v.
T. Srinivas : (2004) 7 SCC 442)."
Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment in K. Rama Krishna Raju1 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Srinivasulu v. Govt. of A.P.2, this Court, again in W.P.No.46248 of 2016, dated 25.10.2019, rejected the contention that entrusting the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings amounts to refusal to grant sanction and it renders the subsequent sanction given under Section 19 of the P.C. Act invalid, and held the sanction is valid and thereby dismissed the Writ Petition.
Again in another case, this Court, very recently, following the judgments of this Court in K.Rama Krishna Raju1 and also K.Srinivasulu2, in W.P.No.16176 of 2014, 2 2010 CriLJ 3229 = 2010 (2) ALT 672 = 2010 (3) ALD 452 23 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 dated 26.02.2020, arising out of the identical facts held that the mere fact that the memo was issued earlier recommending disciplinary action cannot lead to an inescapable conclusion that the sanction of prosecution cannot be granted later.
Therefore, from the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, the legal position is now abundantly made clear that the mere fact that earlier the Government issued memo entrusting the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry and report for the alleged acts of misconduct committed by the erring officials will not make the subsequent order granting sanction under Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act to prosecute the erring officials for the offences committed by them under the said Act, an invalid sanction.
Even otherwise, the legal position is also well-settled that when a particular act or acts committed by a public servant constitutes both an act of misconduct in discharge of his duties and also constitutes an offence of indulging in the acts of corruption, punishable under the P.C. Act, he is liable both for disciplinary action for the acts of misconduct committed by him and he is also liable for prosecution for the offences committed by him under criminal law. Therefore, initiation of proceedings to conduct enquiry, in relation to his acts of misconduct committed in the course of 24 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 his employment by itself will not come in the way of the Government to grant sanction as required under law to prosecute the said employee for the offences committed by him which are made out from the facts and evidence of the case and render the sanction given to prosecute the employees invalid.
As per settled law, it is only when after considering the final report and the evidence enclosed thereto, the Government takes a decision not to grant any sanction and thereby refused to grant sanction, then the Government subsequently cannot change its opinion and grant sanction, without there being any fresh material emanating from the record. If, after declining to grant sanction, the Government subsequently grants sanction without there being any fresh material dehors the record, then it would render the sanction order invalid. The mere fact that initially memo was issued entrusting the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings cannot be construed as implied refusal to sanction as contended by the petitioners in this case. In fact, the said contention was already answered by this Court and it was rejected in K. Rama Kriahna Raju1. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Lakshmi Kanth Shinde @ L.K. Shinde v. State of 25 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 Telangana3; D.Gopalakrishna v. The Govt. of A.P. & Ors.4 and in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen5 have absolutely no application to the present facts of the case. They are the cases where sanction was initially refused by the Government and subsequently without there being any fresh material available for further consideration, the Government reviewed its earlier decision and granted sanction. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the cases, it is held in the said cases that the subsequent sanction without there being any fresh material, after refusal of the earlier sanction, is not valid.
The other judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Birendra K. Singh v. State of Bihar6; State of Karnataka through CBI v. C. Nagarajaswamy7 and State of Punjab v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti8 are totally distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, they do not come to the succour of the case set up by the petitioners.
So, the said contention of the petitioners is also hereby rejected holding that the sanction granted under the 3 2016 (1) ALD (Cri) 472 4 Order dated 25.04.2016 in W.P.No.25903 of 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P. 5 (2010) 14 SCC 527 6 (2000) 8 SCC 498 7 (2005) 8 SCC 370 8 (2009) 17 SCC 92 26 CMR,J.
Crl.R.C.Nos.1639 & 1640 of 2016 aforesaid two G.Os. to prosecute the petitioners for the said offences is perfectly valid under law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the Criminal Revision Cases fail. The petitioners are not entitled to discharge from the case and they are liable to face the trial, after appropriate charges are framed against them on the basis of the material available against them.
In fine, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:17-06-2020.
cs