Panugupati Nancharayya , vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 23 July, 2024

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Panugupati Nancharayya , vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 23 July, 2024

Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF ANDHRA PRADESH:;■■■ AIWARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH day of FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND twenty four
present

honourable SR/
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
QBIMinal APpp^i ^!2SUZ&585
of ?nn«
^Rjiw/NAL appf/\[ JIOlSTS of 7nnfl

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C
dated 29.04.2008 aggrieved by the Judgment
made in C.c.No.2 of 1999
forSPESACB Cases. Vijayawada. on the file of the SpecialJudge
Between:

Devabhaktuni -
Subbarao, s/o. Venkateswara r
Sarpanch D.No.5-615, Kanur Aged about 48 years,
District. Panchayat, Penamalur u Mandal. Krishna

AND
--Appe/lant/Accused No.2

The State of Andhra Pradesh.
Cases nep- by the Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
Through District Inspector,: Krishna, Vijayawad
3 Range, Vijayawada.

■••Respondenf/Complaina nt
Counsel for the Appellant; Sr/P PrabhakarRao
Counsel for the Respondent:
■ A Gayathr; Reddy ' Standing Counsel
tor ACB cum Spf. pp
rPIMINAL APP^*I S85 OF 2008

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.p.C against the Judgment in
SPE & ACB Cases.
CC.No.2 of 1999 on the file of Special Judge
Vijayawada, dt.29.04.2008.
Between:

Prakasha Rao S/o.Hanumantha Rao,
1 Konkimalla Venkata Surya
R/O. D.No.11-40-92. Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada, (A.4) -92
2. KunKimaila Srinivasa Sai, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, R/o.D.No.11-40
Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada. (A.5)
...Appellants/Accused

AND
Prosecutor, for
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Special Pubiic
ABC, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
...Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants;■ Sri. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. A Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel
for ACB cum Spl. PP
' * QBUVUNAL APPf/\| ^^^L624 of 2nnfi

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.c
Special Judge for against the Judgment of the
dated 29'^
SPE & acb Cases, Vijayawada i
day of April, 2008. in C.C.No.2 of 1999
Between;

Panugupati Nancharayya (A-3), s/o. Subba Rao
Dhanataxmi Aged 38
Enterprises. years, Proprietor of
D.No.27-12-46
Vijayawada-2 Chetlabazar, Governerpet,
Residing at H.No.35
i^ear Visalandh ra, 2/2-17, Second bine, Seetaramapuram,
r
Printing Press
Vijayawada. Brahmanadareddynagar,^ Chittugunta,

...Petitioner/Appenanf/Ac cused No.3
AND

The State of Andhra
Range, Vijayawada Pradesh, rep., efy District Inspector ACB \/i-
rep by Spl.P., acb Hyderabad. ' '

-Respondenfs/Complaiinant
Counsel for the Appellant;• Sri. T.S. Anirudh
Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent;
■ Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel
for ACB cum Spl. pp
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 625 OF 2008

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment of the
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in CC.No.2 of 1999,
. dated 29'" day of April, 2008.

Between:

K.J.M.Ratnam, W/o Late Tadepalli Nageswara Rao, Aged about 67 years,
R/o D.No.9-139/A, Near Ankamma Temple, Bandhar Road, Kankipadu,
Krishna District.

(Petitioner Amended as per Court Order dated 03.03.2014 in Crl.A.No.625
of 2008 in Crl.A.M.P.No.102 of 2014))

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No.1
AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by District Inspector ACB, Vijayawada
Range, Vijayawada, rep., by Spl. Public Prosecutor, ACB Hyderabad.

...Respondents/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s D Sangeetha Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. A Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel
for ACB cum Spl. PP

The Court made the following Common Judgment:-
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Appeal Nos.575. 585. 624 and 625 of 2008

Common Judgment:

Since the issue involved in all the Criminal Appeals is common

and arise out of one and the same crime, they are being disposed of

by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2008 has been preferred by AO-2,

Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2008 has been preferred by A-4 and A-5,

Criminal Appeal No.624 of 2008 has been preferred by A-3 and

Criminal Appeal No.625 of 2008 has been preferred by AO-1 against

the judgment dated 29.{)4.2008 passed in CC No.2 of 1999 by the

learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada.

3. AOs-1 and 2 and A-3 to A-5 were tried for the offences

punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(l)(c) and (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the ActO and Sections

120-B, 409, 465, 471, 477-A and 418 read with 34 IPC.

4. By his judgment dated 29.04.2008, the learned Special Judge

found AOs.l and 2 and A-3 to A-5 guilty of respective charges leveled

against them and AOs.l and 2 were convicted and sentenced to .

undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
2
SRK J '
Crl.Appeat No.575 of 2008 and batch

Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence punishable under

Section 13(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act under 1^' count; AOs.l

and 2 were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each,

in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the

offence punishable under Section 477-A of IRC under 5^*^ count; AOs.l

and 2 and A-3 were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand

only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3)

months for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC under

7^*^ count; AOs.l and 2 were further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one

thousand only) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three

(3) months for the offence punishable under Section 13(c) read with

Section 13(2) of the Act under 8* count; AOs.l and 2 and A-3 were

further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to

pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default to

suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence

punishable under Section 120-B of IPC under 14"' count; AOs.l and 2

were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year

and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the
3
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

offence punishable under Section 13 (c) read with 13(2) of the Act

under 15'^" count; AOs.l and 2 and A-4 and A-5 were further sentenced

to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.l,D00/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence punishable under

Section 120-B of IPC under 21^'^ count.

5. The learned Special Judge found AOs.l and 2 and A-3 to A-5

not guilty and they were acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for

the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC against AOs.l and 2

under 2"^ count, for the offence punishable under Section 13(l)(d)
read with 13(2) of the Act against AOs.l and 2 under 3'''^ count; for the

offence punishable under Section 418 read with 34 IPC against AOs.l

and 2 and A-3 under 4^^ count, for the offences punishable under
Sections 465 and 471 of IPC against A-3 under count; for the

offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC against AOs.l and 2

under 9^*^ count; for the offence punishable under Section 13(l)(d)
read with 13(c) of the Act against AOs.l and 2 under 10^*^ count; for

the offence punishable under Section 418 read with 34 of IPC against

AOs.l and 2 and A-3 under 11^^ count; for the offence punishable
under Section 477-A of IPC against AOs.l and 2 under 12'^'^ count; for

the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC against A-3

under 13'^'^ count; for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC
4
SRK, J '
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

against AOs.l and 2 under 16^*^ count; for the offence punishable
under Section 13Cl)(d) read with 13 (c) of the Act against AOs.l and 2

under l?^*^ count; for the offence punishable under Section 418 read
with 34 of IPC against AOs.l and 2 and A-4 and A-5 under 18^ count;

for the offence punishable under Section 477-A of IPC against AOs.l

and 2 under 19^*^ count and for the offences punishable under Sections
465 and 471 of IPC against A-4 and A-5 under 20**^ count.

6. All the sentences of imprisonments were ordered to run

concurrently. The un-marked property if any was ordered to be

destroyed after appeal time is over.

7. The substance of the charge against the accused is that;

AOs.l and 2, being public servants within the
meaning of Sec.2(c) of the Act, employed as Executive
Officer and Sarpanch respectively of Gram Panchayat,
Kanuru, during the period from 23.01.1996 to
30.10.1996, at Gram Panchayat, Kanuru, were
entrusted or under the control with the funds of Gram

Panchayat, Kanuru to a tune of Rs. 1,17,835/-, and as
such public servants, have dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriated or otherwise converted for their own
use, the funds allotted by Gram Panchayat, Kanuru, to
a tune of Rs.l,17,835/- by creating or accepting fake
bills purported to have purchased Public Health material
from Anjana Agencies, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, and
5
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

thereby committed an offence punishable under section
13(c) read with 13(2) of the Act.
AOs.l and 2 further committed an offence under

Section 409 IPC for misappropriation of funds to a tune
of Rs. 1,17,835/- during the said period.
During the said period, AOs.l and 2 abusing
their position as public servants obtained pecuniary
advantage by accepting fake bills in the name of Anjana
Agencies, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section
13(l)(d)r/w 13(c) of the Act.
In furtherance of their common object, AOs.l
and 2 in collusion with A-3 cheated the Gram

Panchayat, Kanuru by creating fake bills thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 418 r/w
34 IPC and 477-A IPC.

A-3 during the said period used fraudulent bills
as genuine and he is alleged to have forged documents,
thereby committed the offences punishable under
Sections 465 and 471 IPC.

AOs.l and 2 in furtherance of their common

object in collusion with A-3 created fake bills and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
120-B of IPC.

AOs.l and 2 being public servants during the
period on 18.05.1996, dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriated the funds allotted by the Gram
Panchayat, Kanuru, to a tune of Rs.4,03,355/- by
creating or accepting fake bills purported to have
purchased electrical goods from Dhanalakshmi
6
SRK, J '
Crl.Appeal No. 575 of 2008 and batch

Enterprises, Vijayawada and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 13(c) read with 13(2)
of the Act.

AOs.l and 2 during the said period have
misappropriated the funds of Gram Panchayat to a tune
of Rs.4,03,355/- and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 409 IPC. In the course of
same transaction, they being public servants committed
an offence punishable under Section 13(l)(d) read with
13(c) of the Act.
AOs.l and 2 and A-3 together cheated the Gram
Panchayat, Kanuru to a tune of Rs.4,03,355/- and
thereby they committed an offence punishable under
Section 418 read with 34 IPC.

AOs.l and 2 In the course of same transaction

have misappropriated the funds which were allotted to
Gram Panchayat, Kanuru to a tune of RS. 1,17,835/- as
if they purchased electrical goods from Dhanalakshmi
Enterprises, Vijayawada and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 477-A of IPC.
A-3 fraudulently or dishonestly used certain
documents as genuine and thereby committed the
offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 IPC.
In furtherance of their common intention, AOs.l
and 2 and A-3 have conspired together and
misappropriated the amounts to a tune of Rs.4,03,355/-
and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 120-B IPC.

AOs.l and 2 during the year 1996, they being
entrusted or under the control with the funds belonging
J "

7
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

to Gram Panchayat to a tune of Rs. 19,889/- dishonestly
or fraudulently misappropriated the said funds and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
13(c) read with 13(2) of the Act. In the course of same
transaction, they committed the offence punishable
under Section 409 IPC and Section 13(l)(d) read with
13(c) of the Act.
AOs.l and 2 and A-4 and A-5 in the course of .

same transaction, have, conspired together in
misappropriating the funds to a tune of Rs. 19,889/- and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
418 read with 34 IPC.

A-4 and A-5 have used fake bills as genuine and
thereby committed the offences punishable under
Sections 465 and 471 IPC.

AOs.l and 2 in the year 1996 made false entries
in the stock, register belonged to the Gram Panchayat,
Kanuru, as if they purchased water works material
worth Rs. 19,889/- and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 477-A IPC.
Lastly, AOs.l and 2 and A-4 and A-5 have
conspired together in misappropriating the funds,
thereby committed an offence punishable under section
120-B IPC.

8. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.

a) AO-1 worked as Executive Officer in Gram Panchayat,

Kanuru, Krishna district from 23.01.1996 to 30.10.1996 and AO-2

worked as Village Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, as such they
8
SRK, J ■
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

are Public Servants within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. A-3

is a business man under the name and style of Dhanalaxmi

Enterprises, Govcrnorpct, Vijayawada. k-A and A-5 arc brothers and

Managing Partners of Rajyalaxmi Enterprises, Nuziveedu.

b) It is alleged that AO.l, while functioning as Executive

Officer, Kanur Gram Panchayat, Krishna District, during the period from

23.01.1996 to 30.10.1996 connived with AO.2 and actuated with

corrupt practices and in abuse of their official position misappropriated

the Gram Panchayat funds during the said period, fabricated fake bills

in the name of Anjana Agencies, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada as if public

health material amounting to PvS.1,17,835/- were purchased from the

said Anjana Agencies, Vijayawada. In fact the said Anjana Agencies

never existed at the relevant period at Hanumanpet, Vijayawada. AOs-

1 and 2 made false entries in the stock register as if public health

materials were supplied by the said Anjana Agencies, and thereby

caused wrongful loss to the Gram Panchayat, Kanur and wrongfully

obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves and also gained
wrongfully.

c) AO-1, while functioning as Executive Officer, Gram

Panchayat, Kanur, conspired with AO-2 Surpanch, Kanur Panchayat

and with A-3 Proprietor of Dhanalaxmi Enterprises, Vijayawada to

misappropriate the Gram Panchayat funds and in pursuance of their

common intention fabricated fake bills in the name of Dhanalaxmi
9
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

Enterprises, Vijayawada as if .electrical goods worth Rs.4,03,355/- were

purchased for the said Gram Panchayat Kanur on 18.05.1996. AO-1

made false entries in the Stock Registers of Kanur Gram Panchyat, as if

Electrical Goods worth Rs.4,03,355/- were received from the said

Dhanalaxmi Enterprises, Vijayawada and even without receiving the

said electrical stock, payment was made In the name of Dhanalaxmi

Enterprises, thereby caused wrongful loss to the said Grama Panchayat

and AOs.l and 2 and A-3 gained wrongfully and obtained pecuniary

advantage for themselves.

d) AO.l, while functioning as Executive Officer, Kanur Gram

Panchayat, actuated with corrupt practices and in abuse of his official

position conspired with A0.2 Village Panchayat Sarpanch, Kanur and

also with A-4 and A-5 partners of M/s. Rajyalaxmi Enterprises,

Nuziveedu, Krishna District to misappropriate Gram Panchaya funds,

and in pursuance of their common intention, AO.l obtained fake bills

numbering 4 from Rajyalaxmi Enterprises, Nuziveedu and with

fraudulent intention made false entries in the stock register, as if

material belonging to water works amounting to Rs. 19,889/- were

received and payment was also made to the said Rajyalaxmi

Enterprises, Nuziveedu in the year 1996, thereby caused wrongful loss

to the Gram Panchayat, Kanur and AOs.l and 2 and A-4 and A-5

gained wrongfully and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves.

\ :■
10
SRK, J '
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

e) On the representation petition of L.W.l Valluri Bhaskar Rao

and another of Kanuru Village a regular enquiry was ordered in

Rc.No.57/RE-VRI/97, dated 23.05.1997, by the Director General, Anti-

Corruption Bureau, A.P. Basing on the report of the said regular

enquiry, permission was obtained to register a case against the

accused officers. Accordingly, the Director General, Anti-Corruption

Bureau, A.P., in Memorandum No.57/RE-VKI/97 dated 09.07.1997

accorded permission to register a case against AOs. 1 and 2 and other

accused. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.l2/ACB-VJA/97, under

Section 13(2) r/w 13(l)(c) of the Act and Sections 409, 420 and 477-A

IPC was registered against AOs.l and 2 and others, and investigated

by P.W.ll. The Secretary to Government, Panchayatraj and Rural

Development, A.P., being the competent authority to remove AOs.l

and 2 from Government service passed prosecution sanction orders.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with

13(l)(c) and (d) of the Act and Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 471, 477-A
and 418 read with 34 IPC.

9. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished

to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, charges

under Section 13(2) read with 13(l)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and Sections 120-B, 409, 465,
11
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

471, 477-A, 418 read with 34 IPC were framed against the accused as

stated supra, read over the contents and explained to them in Telugu,

for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 11

and got marked Exs.Pl to P95 and Ex.Xl.

11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating

material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

for which they denied. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was

adduced, except marking Exs.Dl to D39.

12. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and

documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty and.

accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Against the

said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeals have been -

preferred.

13. Pending the Criminal Appeals, AO.l and A-5 died. In respect of

AO.l, CrI.A.MP No.102 of 2014 was filed to bring the legal heir of

deceased AO.l on record and the said application was allowed by an

order of this Court dated 03.03.2014. However, since A-5 died and no

application has been filed on behalf of deceased A-5 for bringing his.

LRs on record, the case against A-5 is hereby abated.
12
SRK, J '•
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

14. Sri N. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf

of learned counsel for the aRpellants/AO-2, A-3 and A-4 submits that

there is dbbuluLely iio accusation against AO-2, A-3 and A-4. According

to him, PW,7, who is the Executive Officer, categorically stated that it

is AO.l who is solely responsible for placing the orders. When once

resolution has been passed by the Gram Panchayat, it is AO.l alone

who is supposed to place the orders. According to learned Counsel,

PW.7 in categorical terms stated that A0.2 does not play any role to

take the material purchased for its utilization and the Executive Officer

alone is responsible for the same. He further submits that on a perusal

of the entire evidence on record goes to show that A-3 and A-4

supplied the material. The only grievance of PW.7 who is the

successor of AO.l is that the material supplied is of sub-standard

quality and the material that has been purchased is more than the

requirement which is in violation of the guidelines issued by the

Government from time to time. According to the learned Counsel, A-3

is the Proprietor of Dhanalakshmi Enterprises and A-4 is the Proprietor

of Rajyalakshmi Enterprises and as and when an order was placed for

supply of material before them, it is their bounden duty to supply the

said material. It is not the case of the prosecution that the material

which was supplied is of sub-standard quality. When such is the
13
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

situation, none of the accusations as alleged would attract against the
accused.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AO.l

submits that from time to time materials have been supplied by A-3

and A-4. Nowhere, it is mentioned that the Gram Panchayat has not

received the stock as mentioned in the stock register. PW.7 who is the

successor of AO.l took charge on 13.10.1996 and after lapse of seven

months he addressed a letter Ex.PlS on 29.05.1997 for supply of

duplicate bills. Except stating that the Gram Panchayat has not

deceived the stock as mentioned in stock register, there is no material

on record to show that what is the stock that has not been supplied by

A-3 and A-4. A sweeping accusation has been made to the extent that

the Gram Panchayat has not received the stock as mentioned in the

stock register.

16. On the other hand, Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the State, submitted that the accused conspired together and

submitted fake bills for supply of stocks. According to her, no original

bills were placed on record and the stocks which were supplied were

sub-standard one. According to her, all the accused conspired

together in misappropriating the funds of the Gram Panchayat, Kanuru

and the learned Special Judge was right in convicting the accused-
14
SRK, J
CrI.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

basing on the evidence that is available on record and further

submitted that it calls for no interference by this Court.

17. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

18. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all, reasonable
doubt.

19. PW.l is an agriculturist. He stated in his evidence that in the

month of February, 1997, on one day, on coming to know about the

irregularities committed by AOs.l and 2 in purchasing electrical goods,

public health material and water works, he along with others had gone

to the office of Gram Panchayat, Kanuru and demanded AO.l to show

the articles purchased under different bills. AO.l could not show the

material stating that the key is not available with him and he stated

that after arrival of Sarpanch i.e. A0.2, he would be in a position to

show the stock. Then, they made an application before the District

Panchayat Officer about the irregularities committed by AOs.l and 2.

The District Panchayat Officer informed that he would enquire into the

matter, but he did not take any action.

20. PW.2 speaks only with regard to the existence of M/s. Anjana

Agencies, Vijayawada and he states that Anjana Agencies are not
15
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

registered dealers on the roll's of the Assistant Commercial Officer,

Hanumanpet.

21. PWs.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case and they

were treated hostile by the prosecution.

22. PW.5 worked as the ACTO, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada from May

1995 to October 1997. He states that on 03.06.1997 he proceeded to

Dhanalakshmi Enterprises, Vijayawada along with the Inspector of

Police, ACB and found A-3, the Proprietor of the firm. On questioning,

A-3 produced some bill books and when he was asked to produce cash

book, stock register and ledger for the year 1996-97, A-3 stated that

he was not maintaining the above registers and he was unable to

produce them, but he produced two receipt books. Exs.P.12 and P13

are the cash/credit bill book and receipt book of M/s.Dhanalaksh mi

Enterprises seized by the Inspector of Police in their presence.

23. PW.6 is working as Sweeper in Panchayat Office, Kanuru. He

did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the

prosecution.

24. PW.7 worked as the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kanuru,

from 01.11.1996 to September 1997. He is the successor of AO-1.

After taking charge, he is stated to have verified the bills with regard to

purchase of electrical goods, water works and public health material
16
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

and found some of the bills missing. He found duplicate bills instead of

original bills. According to him. the goods which were supplied are not

in accotdance with the agreement entered at the time of tenders and

there is deficiency in the stock. Accordingly, he addressed a letter

dated 05.03.1997 to Dhanalakshmi Enterprises (A-3) to give suitable

clarification with regard to the said aspect. Ex.PlS is the letter

addressed by him. A-3 replied to the said letter intimating that they

would produce the LR and other bills which show that they purchased

products and samans of SIMA Company as incorporated in the

agreement. Ex.P19 is the reply from A-3. According to PW.7, on

verification of stock register he came to know that AO.l had purchased

the material more than the requirement which is in violation of

guidelines issued by the Government from time to time.

25. PW.8 is the Inspector of Police, ACB, Vijayawada, who took up

further investigation in this case and after obtaining prosecution

sanction order against AOs.l and 2 he filed charge sheet.

26. PW.9 is the DCTO, who stated that he has not issued any way

bills in respect of Rajya Lakshmi Enterprises, Nuzvid for the years

1995-96 and 1996-97, since there is no commercial tax check post in

between Vijayawada and Nuzvid.
17
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

27. PW.IO is the Section Officer in Panchayat Raj Department, AP

Secretariat, Hyderabad, who, pursuant to the summons issued by the

Court, brought the file relating to GO Ms.Nos.469 and 470 i.e., sanction

orders against AOs. 1 and 2. EXS.P30 and P31 are the prosecution

sanction orders issued against AOs.l and 2.

28. PW.ll is the Inspector of Police, ACB, Vijayawada, who

conducted confidential enquiry on the representation of PW.l and

another and submitted a report to the DG, ACB, Hyderabad. On such

report, the DG, ACB ordered to conduct regular enquiry in

Rc.No.57/RE-VKI/97, dated 23.05.1997. Accordingly, he conducted

enquiry and submitted report to the Head Office, ACB. On the

instructions given by ACB Head Office, he registered a case in Crime

N0.12/ACB-VJA/97 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2)

read with 13(l)(c) of the Act and under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A

IPC against AOs.l and 2 and others. Ex.A35 is the original FIR.

29. The crucial witness to the alleged misappropriation of funds is

that of PW.7, who is the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat, Kanuru

and is the successor of AO.l. On a perusal of his evidence goes to

show that in his chief examination PW.7 categorically stated that an

enquiry was ordered in connection with the irregularities that have

taken place in the Gram Panchayat, Kanuru. In connection with the

said enquiry, AO-2 is alleged to have bore grudge against PW.7 and
18
SRK, J '
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

thereby AO-2 used to harass PW.7 and caused mental agony to him.

On one day, during the year 1997 in the month of June, at about 1.30

or 2.00 pm, supporters of AO-2 went to the office of PW.7 and

assaulted him by abusing. In connection with the same, PW.7 gave a
I

report and the police, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet

against them and the said case ended in conviction. On assuming the

charge as Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat, PW.7 verified the bills

with regard to purchase of electrical goods, water works and public

health material and found some of the bills missing, He found

duplicate bills instead of original bills. Having noticed the same, he

intimated the same to the concerned. Except the said statement,

absolutely no documentary evidence has been placed on record to

show that PW.7 informed the same to his higher authorities. PW.7

could not state In what mode he intimated the same to his higher

authorities, in spite of giving reasonable opportunity to him. If really,

PW.7 has intimated to his superiors, it should have been in the form of

a letter or some document to show that he has intimated the same to

his higher ups. There is any amount of ambiguity with regard to the

said fact. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that much

credence cannot be given to such statement which is very vague.

30. PW.7 stated that on verification of relevant file, he addressed a

letter dated 05.03.1997 to Dhanalakshmi Enterprises (A-3), which is
19
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

marked as Ex.PlS, with regard to the genuineness of the sub-standard

samans supplied by SIMA Company. According to PW.7, the samans

which were supplied to the Gram Panchayat are not in accordance with

the agreement entered at the time of tenders. To the said letter, A-3

sent a reply dated 19.03.1997 intimating that they would produce LR

and other bills which would show that they purchased products and

samans of SIMA Company as incorporated in the agreement and

EX.P19 is reply from A-3. On a perusal of the evidence of PW.7 goes

to show that after addressing letters to A-3, he came to a conclusion

, that the Gram Panchayat has not received the stock as mentioned in

the stock register at the time of his taking over the charge. Except

stating that there is deficiency in the stock, absolutely there is no

material on record to show that, what is the stock that was ordered in

terms of the agreement and as per the Board resolution and what is

the deficiency in the stock. There is any amount of inconsistency in

the versions given by PW.7. On one hand, it has been stated by PW.7

that he came to know by verifying the stock register that AO-1

purchased the material more than the requirement. If really such is

the case, the question of deficiency in the stock would not arise at all.

According to PW.7, the purchase of material more than the

requirement is in violation of the guidelines issued by the government

from time to time. Having accepted the said statement, this Court is of

the opinion that purchasing the material in excess would not in any
20
SRK, J '
Crl.Appeal No. 575 of 2008 and batch

way come within the purview of aforesaid offences and the question of

mi.qapprnpriatinn of funds would not arise. There is any amount of

inconsistency in the statements made by PW.7.

31. So far as AO-2, A3 and A4 are concerned, in the cross-

examination of PW.7 by AO-2, he categorically stated that AO.l would

put his proposal in respect of the material required to be purchased

before AO-2. He categorically stated that after getting proposal from

AO-1, AO-2 would place the same before the Gram Panchayat Body for

its approval. In pursuance of conducting Panchayat Board Meeting and

after approval of the Board, the relevant material would be purchased

by AO-1 i.e. Executive Officer. If tenders are required to be called, it

would be placed before the Board and after its approval, AO-1 would

call for tenders. All the purchase of material and placing of orders

wouid be done by AO-1 in pursuant to the resoiutions being passed by

the Gram Panchayat. According to PW.7, it is AO-1 alone who will be

held responsible for all the purchase of materials and AO-2 has nothing

to do with it. When such is the case, it can safely be inferred that

AO-2, A-3 and A-4 have no roie to play in the said process of purchase

of material or maintaining the stock register. In view of the same,

since they do not play any role as per the version of PW.7, the

aforesaid provisions under Section 13(c) read with 13(2) of the Act and

Sections 120-B, 418 read with 34 IPC and 477-A IPC would not attract
21
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

as against AO-2, A-3 and A-4. There is absolutely no evidence on

record to show that there is falsification of accounts or using the

forged documents as genuine. No evidence is brought on record to

substantiate the said allegations. The said aspects, if any, would be

attracted as against AO-1, if really such accusations have been made.

The question of AO-2 and A-3 and A4, who are the Proprietors of

Dhanalakshmi and Rajyalakshmi Enterprises respectively, in any way

making use of the documents as genuine in supplying the material to

the Gram Panchayat, Kanuru, would not arise. Since there is no

material as against AO-2, A-3 and A-4, this Court is of the opinion that

the learned Judge erred in convicting AO-2, A-3 and A-4 for the

aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences passed

against AO-2, A-3 and A-4 are set aside and they are acquitted of all

the charges leveled against them.

32. Insofar as AO-1 is concerned, on a perusal of the evidence on

record goes to show that except a sweeping accusation against AO-1,

there is no material that there is deficiency in the stock and AO-1 has

misappropriated. It is not shown what is the order that has been

placed for supply of material by AO-1 and what is the stock that is

available with the Gram Panchayat. According to the evidence of

PW.7, AO-1 purchased the material more than the requirement, which

is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government from time to
22
SRK, J t
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

time. Merely because the material was purchased more than the

requirement, it would not in any way attract the'offences as alleged.

On the other hand, there is an accusation to the extent that there is

deficiency in the stock. EXS.D2 to D16 were, marked showing the

stocks that are available at the Gram Panchayat and in his cross-

examination by AO-1 and A-3 to A-5, PW.7 stated as follows.

"To one Kusuma the then Junior Assistant, AO-1
handed over the charge in my presence. It is endorsed
at page No.4 of Ex.D-1, that underneath, delivery was
effected and underneath therein, I signed. It is true
that I did not inform to my superior authorities about
the shortage of the alleged stock as stated in my chief.
Ex.D-2 is the stock register for the year 1997-98
in respect of street light material. In Page No.l of
Ex.D-2, i.e.. the Brought Forward from page No.25 of
1996-97 stock register, I put my initial as E.O. in Col.
I\lo.5. At Col.No.3, it is noted that as per stock register,
there are 246 1 X 40 volts Tube Lights were available
and the relevant entry is marked as EX.P-3.
Ex.D-4 is the relevant entry at page No.61 of Ex.
D-2 showing as per page No. 162 of 1996-97 stock
register, there were 498 40 Volts Starters noted in Col,
No.3 which was initialled by me in col.No.5. It is noted
at page No.9 in Ex.D-2 as per the entry dated
30.07.1997, at Col.No.3 it is shown as NIL. Witness

adds: He has not certified with his signature.
P.W.4 Is the scribe of the entries and he put his
initials in Col.No. 4.
23
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

At page No.31 of Ex.D.2, as per page No.l40 of
the 1996-97 stock register, there were 793 40 Volts
Copper Chokes and relevant col.No.5, I put my initial
and it is Ex.D-5.

Ex.D-6 is the relevant entry at page No.81 of
Ex.D2 that showing as per page No.151 of 1996-97
stock register, there was stock of 5484 of T.L. Side
Holders. I put my initial in Col.No.5.
EX.D-7 is the relevant entry at page No. 107, in
Ex.D2, that showing the as per page No.110 of Stock
Register 1996-97, there were 8 250 Volts M.V. Bulbs
are available. I signed in Col.No.5.
Ex.D-8 is the relevant entry at page No.lll of
Ex.D-2, that showing as per page No. 119 of Stock
Register 1996-97, there were 19 250 Volts M.V. Choks
were available. I put my initial in col.No.5.
Ex.D-9 is the relevant entry at page No. 115 of
Ex.D-2, that showing as per page No. 103 of 1996-97
stock register, 38 400 Volts M.V. Bulbs are available,
witness adds: I did not put my initial in Col.No.5.
Ex.D-10 is the relevant entry at page No. 119 of
Ex.D-2 that showing as per page No.ll3 of Stock
Register for 1996-97, 16 400 volts M.V. Chokes are
available. I put my initial in Col.No.5.
Ex.D-11 is the relevant entry at page No.123 of
Ex.D-2, that showing as per page No.69 of 1996-97
Stock Register, 78 M.V. Lamp Holders are available. I
put my initial in Col.No.5.
Ex.D-12 is the entry at page No.l27 of Ex.D-2,
that showing ad per page No. 132 of 1996-97 Stock
24
SRK, J I
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

EX.D-13 is the relevant entry at page No. 131 in
Ex.D-2 that showing as per page No.76 of Stock
Register for 1996-97, 580 Meters of 1/18 Wire Coils are
available. I put my initial in Col.No.5.
Ex.D-14 is the relevant entry at page No. 139 of
Ex.D-2 that showing as per page No.lOO of 1996-97
stock register, 570 meters of 7/20 Wire Coils
(Alluminium) are available. I put my initial in Col.No.5.
Ex.D-15 is the relevant entry at page No.l45 of
Ex.D-2 that showing as per page No. 142 of 1996-97
stock register, 1 100 Amps Main Switch is available. I

put my initial in Col.No.4.

EX.D-16 16 the stock register for the years 1997-
98 showing the Items in appendix and the balance of
stock as on 1.4.1997 and in the relevant Col.No.5

disclosed that I put my initials, with regard to the Public
Health Material."

33. According to the prosecution, the stocks that are available with

the Gram Panchayat are shown as above. When there is no accusation

against AO-1 with regard to misappropriation of material, this Court

would not be in a position to accept that there is misappropriation

committed by AO-1. Merely because PW.9, who is the DCTO, has not

issued any way bill in respect of Dhanalakshmi Enterprises for

transport of goods, it cannot be said that the goods have not been

supplied at all. When there is a transparent approach as stated by
25
SRK, J
Crt.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

PW.7 that a resolution was passed for purchase of material from A-3

and A-4 and pursuant to the resolution when AO.l has taken steps in

purchasing the material,, merely on the ground that the bills have not

been submitted,, the finger cannot be pointed at AO.l. It is the case of

PW.ll in the cross-examination that there is absolutely no violation of

Rules by the Gram Panchayat with regard to calling of tenders and

their acceptance. But, according to him there is violation with regard

to quotations and further in his cross-examination he stated that one

cannot get quotation through phone.

34. In order to base a conviction in Criminal Cases, the case has to

be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Except alleging that there is

deficiency in the stock on one hand and on the other hand alleging

that AO-1 has violated the norms in purchasing the material in excess,

there is no other material to prove the deficiency of stock and thereby

the accused have misappropriated the funds. In order to prove the

case, the burden lies on the prosecution to show that there is

deficiency in stock and because of that the amounts have been

misappropriated by the accused. Once the burden is proved.

thereafter the onus shifts on the accused to show that whether there is

deficiency in the stock or not. Primarily, it is the burden of the

prosecution to prove the case. In the absence of any material to show

that there is deficiency in the stock, this Court is of the opinion that the
26
SRK, J ^
Crl.Appeal No.575 of 2008 and batch

case against AO-1 would not stand. Accordingly, the conviction and
sentences passed against AO-1 are set aside and he was acquitted of

the charges levelled against him.

35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

Criminal Appeal Nos.575, 624 and 625 of 2008 are allowed and

Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2008 is partly allowed and the conviction
and sentences passed against AOs.l and 2, A-3 and A-4 by the learned
Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada in CC No.2 of 1999,
dated 29.04. 2008 are set aside. The appe|lants/AOs.l and 2, A-3 and
A-4 are found not guilty of the offences alleged and they are acquitted
of the charges leveled against them and are set at liberty. The bail

bonds stand discharged. The Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2008, in so far
as deceased A-5 is concerned, the same is dismissed as abated.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in these Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.

SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY

Note: 23.07.2024 made m I.A.No.1
name ofamended as per co!!I7o?d^eTdIter
2024 in Crla.No.625 of 2008

SD/-S.V.S.R.MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE CO.PY//

SECTION OFFICER
To.

1. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. (With Record)
2. The District Inspector. ACB, Vijayawada Range . Vijayawada, NTR
Krishna District.
3. One CC to Sri. P. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to M/s D. Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri T Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to Sri. A. Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Spl. Public
Prosecutor, [OPUC]
8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi.
(for sending LC record)
9. Three C.D Copies.
Ssl

sree
-

HIGH COURT DATED: 13/02/2024 23/07/2024 AMENDED COMMON JUDGMENT CRL.A.Nos: 575, 585, 624 & 625 OF 2008 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati