Telangana High Court
Kancharla Srihari Babu , Baabji vs The State Of Telangana on 13 June, 2023
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36485 OF 2021
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Declaring the action of the Respondent registering four separate FIR's bearing Nos.08/RCO-CIU- ACB/2019, 10/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019, 13/RCO-CIU- ACB/2019 and 04/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional and in violation of the Fundamental rights.
B. Directing clubbing/consolidating of the later three FIRs bearing No.10/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019, 13/RCO- CIU-ACB/2019 and 4/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 with the first FIR No.08/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019 to be investigated as one case."
2.1. The case of the petitioner is that four (4) different First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against him on the same set of facts arising out of the same regular enquiry pertaining to the same alleged transaction. The allegation against the petitioner is that during the period of 2015-16 to 2017-18, there were financial discrepancies to the tune of Rs.15,05,18,962/- under 2 the Joint Director, Medical, Hyderabad and Rs.11,86,166/- for the period of 2015-16 to 2017-18 under the Joint Director, Medical, Warangal. The Government vide Memo No.1539/EMP- Vig/A3/2018 dated 28.06.2019 of Labour Employment Training and Factories (Emp & Vig) Department, Telangana, Hyderabad ordered the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad to take up inquiry into the allegations and report. Based on the news published in respect of purchasing of drugs and diagnostic kits, an alert notice was issued by the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement vide Ref. No.05 (C.No.1391/V&E/D2/2015 and C.No.1601/V&E/DI/2017 dated 06.04.2018 about the irregularities and corrupt activities in the office of the Joint Director, Medical, Hyderabad. Pursuant thereto, the Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories vide Lr.No.1539/Emp.Vig/A3 /2018-19 dated 18.05.2018, instructed the Director, IMS to take immediate necessary action on the recommendations of the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement and to furnish action taken report in the matter. The Director, IMS, constituted a Committee on 02.03.2019 vide Rc.No.480/Peshi/2019 for verification of stock records regarding the outstanding bills submitted by the various firms. After the verification and 3 submission of findings on 19.06.2019 to the Director, the Director submitted the same to the Principal Secretary to the Government vide Lr.RC.No.3435/Vigilance 2018 dated 24.06.2019 informing that during the period of 2015-16 to 201-18, there were financial discrepancies to the tune of Rs.15,05,18,962/- under the Joint Director, Medical, Hyderabad and Rs.11,86,166/- for the period of 2015-16 to 2018-19 under the Joint Director, Medical, Warangal.
2.2 Based on the above common investigation arising out of a single regular inquiry vide C.No.02/RE-CIU/2019 dated 12.07.2019 vide C.No.02/RE-CIU/2019 dated 12.07.2019, four different FIRs got registered against the petitioner which are as under:
"a) FIR No.8/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019 dated 25.09.2019 under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d), 7 (a), 3 (1) (a), read with Section 13(2) of P.C. ACT 1988 and Sections 477 (A), 465, 468, 471, 420, read with Sections 120-B, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Central Investigation Unit, Anti-
corruption Bureau, Telangana, Hyderabad.
b) FIR No.10/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019 dated 25.10.2019 under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d), 7 (a), 3 (1) (a) (as amended in 2018), read with Section 13(2) of P.C. ACT 1988 and Sections 477 (A), 465, 468, 471, 420, read with Sections 120-B, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Central 4 Investigation Unit, Anti-corruption Bureau, Telangana, Hyderabad.
c) FIR No.13/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019 dated 30.12.2019 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (c) (d), 7 (a) (c), 7 (A) (as amended in 2018), read with Section 13(2) of P.C. ACT 1988 and read with Section 12 of P.C. ACT 1988 and Section 420, read with 120-B, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Central Investigation Unit, Anti-corruption Bureau, Telangana, Hyderabad.
d) FIR No.04/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 dated 03.09.2020 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (c) (d), 7 (a) (c) read with Section 13(2) read with Section 12 of P.C ACT 1988 and Section 420, read with Section 120-B, 34, 109 IPC registered at P.S. Central Investigation Unit, Anti- corruption Bureau, Telangana, Hyderabad. The said FIR was filed after a gap of nine (9) months only because of the fact that there was all India lockdown owing to Covid pandemic. It is apparent that if there was no Pandemic, the fourth FIR would have been filed immediately after the FIR No 13/2019."
2.3. The petitioner was arrested in all the above referred crimes even though he was not arraigned as an accused in F.I.R. No.8/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019) and was released on bail. 5
3. Heard Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Bharath Chandra Madas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Ch. Vidya Sagar Rao, learned Standing Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB - respondents, and perused the material on record.
4.1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the bail applications of the petitioner in Criminal Petition Nos.3980, 3976, 3977 and 3990 of 2020, common order dated 18.09.2020 was passed by categorically holding that the allegations in all the crimes are similar in nature. It is further submitted that the order dated 18.09.2020 was challenged by the ACB authorities vide Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1257-1260/2021 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 12.07.2021. The petitioner was granted bail in the other three crimes and the ACB authorities approached the Hon'ble Apex Court for cancellation of bail by filing SLP Nos.1069, 1070 and 1179 and the same were also dismissed by the order dated 14.02.2020. 6
4.2. The learned senior counsel further submitted that all the FIRs are interwoven with common allegations that the petitioner colluded with the other accused in order to prepare and insert anti- dated purchase orders with an intention to obtain pecuniary advantage to his concern. The subsequent three FIRs registered against the petitioner were merely on the further information obtained as a result of the investigation into the allegations brought out after the regular enquiry. If all the FIRs are tried separately, it will lead to unnecessary multiplicity of trials involving avoidable inconvenience to the witnesses and avoidable expenditure of public time and money.
5.1. On the other hand, Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Ch. Vidya Sagar Rao, learned Standing Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submitted that assuming that all the four FIRs arise out of a single alert notice issued by the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement, the investigation agency is entitled to register several FIRs. In the course of investigation in the first FIR, it came out that the petitioner was involved in different repeated conspiracies along with several other accused. The petitioner was involved in 7 conspiracy in respect of different offences. There is a lot of gap between the first and the subsequent acts. The four FIRs are having distinct line of investigation with distinct items, indents, note files PO's with different modus operandi through Nagaraju, who is marketing manager of the petitioner. The purchase procedure for the RC item, Non-RC item and proprietary items supplied by the petitioner are different, which are incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 09.04.2012 of Labour Employment Training and Factories (IMS) Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. FIR No.10/RCO-ACB-CIU/2019 and FIR No.8/RCO-ACB-CIU/2019 are completely different; one FIR deals with drugs and medicine and another one Lab Kit. The investigation in all the FIRs is at crucial stage which cannot be clubbed, otherwise it creates conflict, confusion and hampers the investigation process.
5.2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the ACB submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner on different dates, months and years caused huge loss to the State exchequer in different years. The offences committed by the petitioner along with different other accused in each crime cannot be clubbed and 8 cannot be treated as series of acts. Though four FIRs are registered on a single common regular enquiry, they are on different set of facts. Based on the different cognizable offences with different times, dates and years, separate FIR can be issued. During further inquiry, as commission of other offences by the petitioner were unearthed, subsequent FIRs were registered and the investigation was done.
5.3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the ACB further submitted that commission of offence starts with an indent worth of crores of rupees and ends with the budget sanction and sanction order of Director, IMS and another offence starts with another indent and ends with the sanction, which cannot be considered as series of act. The line of investigation in each case is different which cannot be investigated by clubbing them. There is no scope for double jeopardy as the investigating agency did not violate any fundamental rights of the petitioner.
6.1 In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions: 9
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala1, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat3, Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao4, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI5, Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India6, Balbir v. State of Haryana7, State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao8, S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras9, Dhurvasalu Naidu v. State10, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v.
Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel11, Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna12, Prem Chand Singh v. State of U.P13, Bhagwan Das v.
State of Rajasthan14, P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam15, Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P16., State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha17, Chandini Srivastava v. CBI18, Kushai Mallik v.1
(2001) 6 SCC 181 2 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3 (2010) 12 SCC 254 4 (2011) 2 SCC 703 5 (2013) 6 SCC 348 6 (2020) 14 SCC 12 7 (2000) 1 SCC 285 8 (1964) 3 SCR 297 9 AIR 1957 SC 340 10 1980 SCC OnLine Mad 93 11 (2017) 4 SCC 177 12 (2009) 7 SCC 685 13 ., (2020) 3 SCC 54 14 1957 SCR 854 15 , (1980) 3 SCC 141 16 (2013) 6 SCC 384 17 (1982) 1 SCC 561 18 2016 SCC OnLine Del 860 10 Emperor19, State of Kerala v. Wolf Hang Kannad Finert20, and J. Shekar Reddy v. State21.
6.2. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel appearing for the ACB relied on the following decisions:
M.R. Krishna v. State of Karnataka22, Lalu Prasad ALIAS Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State through CBI (A.H.D.), Ranchi, Jharkhand23, Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab24, Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat25 and State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav26
7.1. Though several decisions, as referred to above, have been relied upon by the learned counsel on either side, the relevant decisions having bearing on the subject matter are discussed below:
7.2. In T.T. Antony's case (Supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:19
1923 SCC OnLine Cal 184-High Court of Calcutta 20 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 263- High Court of Kerala 21 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1955- High Court of Madras 22 (1999) 3 SCC 247 23 (2003) 11 SCC 786 24 (2009) 1 SCC 441 25 (2010) 12 SCC 254 26 Criminal Appeal No.394 Of 2017 11 "27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."12
7.3. In Babubhai's case (Supra 3) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.
21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the 13 version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."
7.4. In Kolla Veera Raghav Rao's case (Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"4. It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) CrPC. Article 20(2) states:
"20. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
On the other hand, Section 300(1) CrPC states:
"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.--(1) A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof."14
7.5. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami's case (Supra 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"31. The Court held that "there can be no second FIR"
where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just the alleged cognizable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the CrPC. The Court observed : (T.T. Antony case [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , SCC p. 196, para 18)
33. The Court held that barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
7.6. In Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao's case (Supra 8), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:15
"25. According to Mr Chari Section 235(1) cannot be construed as having an overriding effect on Section 239 because whereas it contemplates acts so connected together as to from the same transaction resulting in more offences than one, Section 239(d) contemplates offences committed in the course of the same transaction and nothing more. The question is whether for the purposes of Section 239(d) it is necessary to ascertain anything more than this that the different offences were committed in the course of the same transaction or whether it must further be ascertained whether the acts are intrinsically connected with one another. Under Section 235(1) what has to be ascertained is whether the offences arise out of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, but the words "so connected together as to form" are not repeated after the words "same transaction" in Section 239. What has to be ascertained then is whether these words are also to be read in all the clauses of Section 39 which refer to the same transaction. Section 235(1), while providing for the joint trial for more than one offence, indicates that there must be connection between the acts and the transaction. According to this provision there must thus be a connection between a series of acts before they could be regarded as forming the same transaction. What is meant by "same transaction" is not defined anywhere in the Code. Indeed, it would always be difficult to define precisely what the expression means. Whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case and it seems 16 to us to be a difficult task to undertake a definition of that which the Legislature has deliberately left undefined. We have not come across a single decision of any Court which has embarked upon the difficult task of defining the expression. But it is generally thought that where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. It is, however, not necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for a transaction to be regarded as the same. But if several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design that would be a, strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction. The connection between a series of acts seems to us to be an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction and, therefore, the mere absence of the words "so connected together as to form" in clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 239 would make little difference. Now a transaction may consist of an isolated act or may consist of a series of acts. The series of acts which constitute a transaction must of necessity be connected with one another and if some of them stand out independently they would not form part of the same transaction but would constitute a different transaction or transactions. Therefore, even if the expression "same transaction" alone had been used in Section 235(1) it would have meant a transaction consisting either of a single act or of a series of connected acts. The expression "same transaction" occurring in clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 239 as well as that occurring in Section 235(1) 17 ought to be given the same meaning according to the normal rule of construction of statutes. Looking at the matter in that way, it is pointless to inquire further whether the provisions of Section 239 are subject to those of Section 236(1). The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 235 are enabling provisions and quite plainly can have no overriding effect. But it would be open to the court to resort to those provisions even in the case of a joint trial of several person permissible under Section
239."
7.7. In Dhurvasalu Naidu's case (Supra 10), it was held as under:
"8. A reading of the above extracts from the charge-sheets in the three cases shows that there was only one object of the conspiracy, namely, to cut the trees clandestinely and to dishonestly use the permits obtained for purposes other than cutting and removing the trees from the reserve forests and dispose them of in open market and to realise the proceeds thereof. The instances of cutting of trees illegally in the reserve forests of Attur and Harur, but at various times, were in pursuance of that single conspiracy and therefore the fact that in course of some months, others joined in the conspiracy did not change the conspiracy, nor could it split a single conspiracy into three conspiracies. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no inter-relation between the various acts of the accused and if there be some interrelation, there can be no distinctness." 18 7.8. In Anju Chaudhary's case (Supra 16), it was held as under:
"14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer-in-charge of a police station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the investigating agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to 19 investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The filing of report upon completion of investigation, either for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is a matter which once filed before the court of competent jurisdiction attains a kind of finality as far as police is concerned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of further investigation but wherever the investigation has been completed and a person is found to be prima facie guilty of committing an offence or otherwise, re-examination by the investigating agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same offence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the police cannot be ruled out. It is with this intention in mind that such interpretation should be given to Section 154 of the Code, as it would not only further the object of law but even that of just and fair investigation. More so, in the backdrop of the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, reinvestigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence of not only the investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code. (Ref. Reeta Nag v. State of W.B.[(2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051] and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762] of the same date.)"20
7.9. In Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav's case (Supra
26), it was held as under:
"35. We are unable to accept the submissions raised by learned senior counsel. Though there was one general charge of conspiracy, which was allied in nature, the charge was qualified with the substantive charge of defalcation of a particular sum from a particular treasury in particular time period. The charge has to be taken in substance for the purpose of defalcation from a particular treasury in a particular financial year exceeding the allocation made for the purpose of animal husbandry on the basis of fake vouchers, fake supply orders etc. The sanctions made in Budget were separate for each and every year. This Court has already dealt with this matter when the prayers for amalgamation and joint trial had been made and in view of the position of law and various provisions discussed above, we are of the opinion that separate trials which are being made are in accordance with provisions of law otherwise it would have prejudiced the accused persons considering the different defalcations from different treasuries at different times with different documents. Whatever could be combined has already been done. Each defalcation would constitute an independent offence. Thus, by no stretch, it can be held to be in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 Cr.P.C. Separate trials in such cases is the very intendment of law. There is no room to raise such a grievance. Though evidence of general conspiracy has 21 been adduced in cases which have been concluded, it may be common to all the cases but at the same time offences are different at different places, by different accused persons. As and when a separate offence is committed, it becomes punishable and the substantive charge which has to be taken is that of the offence under the P.C. Act etc. There was conspiracy hatched which was continuing one and has resulted into various offences. It was joined from time to time by different accused persons, so whenever an offence is committed in continuation of the conspiracy, it would be punishable separately for different periods as envisaged in section 212(2), obviously, there have to be separate trials. Thus it cannot be said to be a case of double jeopardy at all. It cannot be said that for the same offence the accused persons are being tried again."
8. In the light of the principle of law laid down in the above decisions, it is necessary for the petitioner to demonstrate that all the four F.I.R.s arise out of same or series of transactions and are interwoven. On reading of contents of each F.I.R., this Court is of the opinion that the financial irregularities in each crime pertain to different transactions and modus operandi is also different. For instance, in Crime No.8/RCO-CIU/2019 dated 27.09.2019, the mere allegation against the petitioner was regarding preparation of two fake indents in the office of the Joint Director, Medical, Hyderabad, showing that those indents have been submitted by the 22 In-charge Medical Officers of Patancheru and Borabanda Dispensaries on 26.05.2018 and 28.05.2018. Total value of these indents are of Rs.1,03,13,247.84 paise.
9. In Crime No.10/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019 dated 25.10.2019, the allegation against the petitioner was regarding preparation of fake indents of HIF Tridot Kits along with other lab kits and reagents and he has sent the same to DIMS Office. There is allegation of financial embezzlement to the tune of Rs.15,05,18,962 and Rs.11,86,166/-.
10. In Crime No.13/RCO-CIU-ACB/2019 dated 30.12.2019, the allegation was that Dr. Ch. Devika Rani, Director, IMS, had issued purchase orders for lab kits and reagents to the tune of Rs.110,63,06,215/- for the year 2017-18 and that purchase orders were found to be issued mostly in favour of three business concerns viz., M/s. Legend Enterprises, a shell company, M/s. Omni Medi, and M/s. Avantor Performance Mateial Private Limited. It was alleged that the petitioner Mr. K. Srihari Babu alias Babji, Proprietor of M/s. Omni Medi is the kingpin behind the above three business concerns and he adopted illegal methods through his employees and associates and obtained purchase orders 23 for M/s. Legend Enterprises and Supplied Lab Kits and reagents to DIMS at exorbitant rates in connivance with Dr. Ch. Devika Rani, Director, IMS, in violation of G.O. Ms. No.51.
11. In Crime No.4/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 dated 03.09.2020, the allegation was that accused officer Nos.4 and 5 colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued purchase orders without supporting indents from dispensaries for Hemcoue HB Cuvettes in favour of the firm owned by accused No.3 at exorbitant prices. Further the officials of DIMS in collusion with accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 purchased the Hemocue HB Cuvettes at exorbitant rates and caused huge loss to the Government Exchequer.
12. Though some of the accused persons are common in all four crimes, many of the several other accused persons are different, the nature of fraud, preparation of fake indents, the documents seized during investigation, witnesses etc., are also different and pertain to different period. Thus, there is no connection between these four crimes.
13. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that all the crimes arise out of a series of same 24 transactions. But, the record clearly discloses that all the transactions in the four crimes, as pointed out above, are different and distinct. There is no link between each of these transactions. The decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Therefore, submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that only one crime should have been registered is without any merit.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J June 13, 2023.
PV