Telangana High Court
Ch. Venkateshwarlu vs The Dy. Superintendent Of Police on 6 June, 2023
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.4246 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition is file to declare the notice dated 09.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, R.R. Range, In-charge of Khammam Range) including all consequential proceedings as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, void and without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and consequently, set aside the impugned notice.
2. Petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District vide G.O.Rt.No.92 Revenue Department dated 26.02.2022 issued by the Government. Petitioner joined as Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 04.03.2022. On the allegation that the petitioner indulged in corrupt activities while working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the impugned notice dated 09.02.2023 was issued by the respondent No.1 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and evidence, if any, within three (3) days from the 2 date of receipt of notice. The following allegations were made against the petitioner in the notice dated 09.02.2023:
1. Passed the orders dated 14.09.2022 in O.S.No.74/2022 one sided without following due process due process of law,
2. You have called Sri Palivela V.S.A. Narasimharao S/o Kameswrarao, Age 55 years, Advocate in Bar Association, Bhadrachalam R/o H-No: 3-1-41/2 Ttd Road, Bhadrachalam and demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/-
and passed orders in favour of opposite party in a case between Narredla Subba Rao Vs Mukkera Bhagya Laxmi and others, after he refused to pay bribe,
3. You have called Sri Mantripragada Ganapathi Rao S/o Narasimharao, Age 61 years, Advocate & Notary in Bar Association Bhadrachalam, R/o H-No:3-1-69/1, Ranganayakula Gutta, Bhadrachalam and demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- for each case and passed orders in favour of opposite party in cases, i.e. "In IA No.35/2022 in OS No.36 of 2022, IA No.181/2016 in OS No.385/2014, IA No.191/2022 in OS No.36 of 2022, IA No.137 of 2022 in OS No.173/2022, IA No.200 of 2022 in OS No.231/2022, OS No.129/2022, after he refused to pay bribe,
4. You have called Sri. Chukka Naga Ambedkar S/o Surya Prakasa Rao (Late), Age 47 years, Advocate in Bar Association Bhadrachalam, R/o H-No.13-1-41 Revenue Colony, Bhadrachalam, demanded bribe an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in OS No.77/2015 and in OS No.382/2014 and the matter kept pending without any progress, after he refused to pay the bribe,
5. You have called Sri. Bandaru Ramesh Babu S/o Ajay Kumar, Age 32 yrs, Advocate in Bar Association 3 Bhadrachalam, R/o H-No.18-2-182, Asr Colony, Bhadrachalam, and demanded bribe an amount of Rs.20,000/- in OS No.612/2021 and OS No.392/2022, and status Quo granted in favour of opposite party, after he refused to pay bribe,
6. You have called Sri. Nanduri Srinivasa Rao S/o N.S.V. Sharma (LATE), 60 Yrs, Advocate in Bar Association Bhadrachalam, R/o H.No.9-1-198, Shantinagar, Bhadrachalam, and told, that the matter which is involved is in value of crores of rupees and that a very close person known to him accompanied the said defendant and therefore he has not implemented the orders in IA Nos.763/2020 and 295/2020, after he refused to pay bribe,
7. You have called Sri Perla Venkateswarlu S/o Gangaiah, Age 46 yrs, Advocate in Bar Association Bhadrachalam, R/o. H.No.15-1-35, SRN Colony, Bhadrachalam, R/o H.No.1-21, OLD SARAPAKA, BURGAMPAD MANDAL and demanded bribe an amount of Rs.30,000/- in OS No.208/2022 and issued injunction order and also police protection to opposite party, after he refused to pay bribe,
8. You have called Sri. Talluri Naresh S/o. Ramesh, 32 yrs, OCC: AE, IRRIGATION & CAD, Nelakondapally, R/o. H.No.4-46/A, Gate Karepally, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District and demanded bribe of Rs.60,000/- for the cancellation of existing injunction order and the matter kept pending without any progress, after he refused to pay bribe,
9. Allegations if any come forth during the enquiry.
3. Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned notice is contrary to law and without 4 any authority and jurisdiction. The litigants, who were unsuccessful before the Court, made baseless allegations against the petitoner instead of availing legal remedies. The suit in OS.No.74 of 2022 was decreed by the petitioner and the defendant in the suit filed CRP.No.2813 of 2022 before this Court. By order dated 07.12.2022 in IA.No.1 of 2022 in CRP.No.2813 of 2022, this Court granted stay of decree and judgement in OS.No.74 of 2022 dated 14.09.2022. Though the matter is subjudice before this Court, the respondent No.1 addressed letter to the District Collector dated 28.12.2022 stating that regular enquiry has been ordered by the Director General, ACB, TS, Hyderabad vide reference dated 22.12.2022 against the petitioner and requested the District Collector to furnish service particulars of the petitioner in the prescribed format. The respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 06.02.2023 addressed letter to the District Collector stating that an enquiry is being done against one D. Sriramulu, SDM, K. Anil Kumar, SD, Ch. Venkateshwarlu, SDM (petitioner herein), Sk Rasheed, Senior Assistant and Sk Wahid, Record Assistant, who are alleged to have been involved in corruption activities and requested the officer to furnish detailed information.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no crime registered against the petitioner and the question of respondent No.1 issuing impugned notice does not arise. 5 As per Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no police officer has got any power or authority to investigate without seeking permission/sanction from the competent authority, even for registering any case. The petitioner submitted two representations dated 10.02.2023 and 11.02.2023 seeking extension of time for submission of explanation pursuant to the impugned notice. The police officer/investigation officer cannot exercise any power without registering any crime and without anyone lodging complaint before the appropriate authority. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in YASHWANT SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION1.
5. Mr. Ch. Vidya Sagar Rao, learned Standing Counsel cum Special Pubic Prosecutor for ACB, submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ACB conducts enquiry on complaints received from various sources viz.
1) Public, 2) Discrete Enquiry, 3) Regular Enquiry against Pubic Servants of various government departments depending on the type of allegations. Later, findings will be submitted to the concerned department in the form of Articles of Charge to conduct inquiry so as to take necessary action against delinquent officer. If the findings attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption 1 (2020) 2 SCC 338 6 Act, the Director General, ACB, TS, Hyderabad, issues orders to register a case. The present issue is in the ambit and scope of regular enquiry, which is not a registered case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is not protected under the Judges (Protection) Act.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Telangana addressed a letter to the Director General, ACB, annexing the complaints given by various individuals about the corruption activities of the petitioner, upon which the Director General, ACB, entrusted the matter to cause enquiry and submit report enabling him to forward the same to the Registrar (Vigilance) for necessary action in this regard. There is no violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Constitutional provisions. A police officer can conduct investigation/enquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, into the allegations of corruption under the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in YASHWANT SINHA's case (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondent No.1 is not investigating or enquiring into the orders passed by the petitioner or recommendations made or decisions taken by public servants in 7 discharge of official functions or duties. Thus, Section 17-A of the Prevention Corruption Act is not attracted in the instant case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for ACB and perused the material on record.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for ACB relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF TELANGANA v. SRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY [Criminal Appeal No.1662 of 2019 dated 06.12.2019. In para 28 of the judgment, it was held as follows:
"28. In Lalitha Kumari, the Court has laid down the cases in which a preliminary inquiry is warranted, more so, to avoid an abuse of the process of law rather than vesting any right in favour of an accused. Herein, the argument made was that if a police officer is doubtful about the veracity of an accusation, he has to conduct a preliminary inquiry and that in certain appropriate cases, it would be proper for such officer, on the receipt of a complaint of a cognizable offence, to satisfy himself that prima facie, the allegations levelled against the accused in the complaint are credible. It was thus held as under:-
"73. In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear, i.e., to ensure that every 8 cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR so as to initiate an offence. The requirement of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that unless crime is registered, the ACB cannot conduct any enquiry/investigation. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB submitted that regular enquiry, which is a preliminary enquiry preceding registration of a crime, is being conducted as per ACB manual into the allegations of corruption against the petitioner and in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UP2.
10. However, as seen from the record, several complaints have been addressed against the petitioner to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Telangana alleging that the petitioner indulged in 2 (2014) 2 SCC 1 9 corrupt practices and letter dated 09.12.2022 was addressed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Telangana to the Director General, ACB, along with photocopies of the complaints received against the petitioner with regard to allegations of corruption and irregularities and requested to take necessary action to be taken against the petitioner.
11. As held by the Supreme Court in LALITA KUMARI's case (2 supra) and reiterated in several subsequent judgments preliminary enquiry is permissible before registration of a crime. The type of preliminary enquiry depends on facts and circumstances of each case (see paras 33 and 34 of STATE OF TELANGANA v. SRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY [Criminal Appeal No.1662 of 2019 dated 06.12.20190.
12. In the opinion of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in YASHWANT SINHA's case (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is asserted by the respondents in their counter affidavit that investigation/enquiry is not being done by the respondent No.1 in connection with the judicial orders/decisions made by the petitioner. There is no material placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate that enquiry is being conducted by the respondent No.1 into judicial orders so as to attract Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption 10 Act. The judgment in YASHWANT SINHA's case (1 supra) is distinguishable on facts.
13. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents is in violation of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prior sanction is required is without any merit. The respondents are conducting regular enquiry, which is akin to preliminary enquiry (under the provisions of Cr.P.C.), on the letter addressed by the Registrar General and pursuant thereto impugned notice dated 09.02.2023 is issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation and no investigation as such is initiated. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J June 6, 2023 DSK