C. Ramesh Sagar v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Crl.R.C.No.180 of 2017 ORDER:

This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the Code', for brevity), is filed by the petitionersA18 & A15 seeking their discharge after setting aside the orders, dated 30.11.2016, of the learned Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar, whereby the request of the petitioners herein to discharge was rejected while dismissing the said petition filed under Section 239 of the Code. 2.

Heard the submissions of Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners-A18 & A15, and of Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor (TG), representing the respondent-State. I have perused the material record.

3.

To begin with, it is to be noted that against the present petitioners/ accused herein and some others, a case in Crime No.3 of 2006 was registered, on 09.06.2007, by the Crime Investigation Department and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 466, 468, 471, 477(A), 201, 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the PC Act', for short). 4.

Be it noted that A18 earlier filed Crl.P.No.8581 of 2008 before this Court requesting to quash the proceedings in the subject crime against him. The said petition was dismissed by this Court vide common order, dated 24.03.2009, passed in Crl.P.Nos.7821 of 2007, Crl.P.Nos.628 & 1408 of 2008 and Crl.P.No.8581 of 2008.

5.

The relevant details of all the accused arrayed in the crime are as follows: 'A1, Sarva Shankariah @ Shanker was a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Karimangar. A2, Muddasani

Veeramallu, S/ o.Muthaiah was an Attender in the Office of Special Dy.Collector, Land Acquisition, SRSP LMD Colony, Karimangar. A3, Nakka Edwin, S/ o.N. Premaiah, was an Attender in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A4, Vemuganti Srinivasa Rao, S/ o.Mohan Rao was a Junior Assistant in Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar. A5 G.Laxmi Narayana, S/ o.Mallaiah was a Superintendent in the Office of Special Dy.Collector, L.A. Unit, SRSP, LMD Colony, Karmanagar. A6, K. Satya Narayana, S/ o.Narahari, was a senior Assistant in the Office of Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, SRSP, LMD Colony, Karmnagar. A7, D. Rangaswamy, S/ o.Rajaram, is a Superintendent in Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar. A8, T. Prabhakar Reddy, S/ o.Ramachandra Reddy, was a Superintendent in the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karmnagar. A9, Raziuddin, S/ o.

Rafiuddin, was a Senior Assistant in the District Court, Karimnagar. A10, Dayala Mallaiah, S/ o.D. Bhoomaiah, was a Government Pleader at Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar. A11, Sarva Kanakaiah, S/ o.Sarva Ramaiah is the elder brother of A1. A12, Mohd. Abdul Majeed, S/ o. Mohd.Abdul Wahed was Special Deputy Collector (since retired), LMD, Karimnagar. A13, V. Venkateswara Rao, S/ o. Tirumala Rao, was Special Deputy Collector, Land Protection Officer, Office of District Collector, Hyderabad. A14, Chinta Maruthi Rao, S/ o. late C. Narsaiah, was Special Deputy Collector, since retired, Land Acquisition Unit, SRSP. A15, Vemuganti Srikanth Rao, S/ o.late V.V. Narsimha Rao, was an advocate of Karimnagar. A16, P. Ramakrishna, S/ o.P.Koteshwar Rao, was Superintendent, Office of Special Collector, SRSP, Tarnaka. A17, Dr. P.

Laxminarayana, S/ o.late P. Kanakaiah, is the Special Collector (since retired), SRSP, Tarnaka. A18, C. Ramesh Sagar Rao, S/ o.C. Rama Rao, is an advocate, Hyderabad. A19, C. Trilochan Rao, S/ .o C. Narahar Rao, is advocate, Karimnagar (since died). A20, K.V. Vijay Kumar, S/ o. late K. Sanyasi Rao, was the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. A21, D.Abbulu, S/ o.D. Narsaiah, is the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Vide orders, dated 24.03.2009 in Crl.P.No.

proceedings in C.C.No.59 of 2007 against A20 & A21. A22, T. Rama Rao, S/ o.Narayan Rao, was P.A. to Special Collector (Retired), SRSP, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. A23, G. Janardhan Rao, S/ o.Venkataiah, is PA to Special Collector, SRSP, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. A24, J.T.Amarnath, S/ o.late J. Tulasi Ram, is Senior Assistant in the Office of the Special Collector, SRSP, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. A25, P. Thirupathamma, W/ o. K. Srinivas, is in-charge record keeper in Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar. A26, Swarna Venkateswerlu, S/ o.Manikkaiah, is the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. LMD, Karimnagar/ original de facto complainant-informant. A27 to A52 are the beneficiaries of the land acquisition and are parties to various land acquisition OPs. A53, M. Narsimhulu, is retired Spl.Dy.Collector, LA, LMD colony, Karimnagar, A54, Bollabathula Laxmana Murthy, is the then Senior Assistant (Bench clerk), District Court, Karimnagar, A55, K. Mallesh, is the Superintendent (the then Superintendent, II Addl.District Court, Karimnagar).'

6.

Amongst all the accused, A20 & A21, the then Presiding Officers of the Senior Civil Courts, Karimnagar, were discharged vide common orders, dated 24.03.2009 in Crl.P.No.7821 of 2007 and batch. A12 & A14 were discharged by orders, dated 03.02.2011, in Crl.P.No.3696 of 2009. A7 was discharged vide orders, dated 27.01.2012, in Crl.P.No.699 of 2008. Though, vide the common orders related to the discharge of judicial Officers, A13 was also discharged by allowing his Crl.P.No.1408 of 2008; however, while allowing the Criminal Appeal (Crl.A.No.1114 of 2012) preferred by the State, the Supreme Court has set aside the order discharging A13 passed by this Court by observing inter alia as follows: 'This order shall not prevent the respondent or prejudice him in any way in urging all such grounds as are open to him both on facts and in law at the time of framing of the charges before the trial court. We also make it clear that while examining whether any charges have to be framed against the respondent, the trial court shall remain uninfluenced by the observations made

by the High Court in the impugned judgment which we have set aside by this order.'

7.

The case in a nutshell is this: 'In land acquisition cases relating to lands of Hasnapur village of Karimnagar District, fake appeal judgments & orders and decrees of the High Court were brought into existence by A1 in conspiracy and in connivance with the other accused working in the Offices of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition; LMD, Karimnagar; Special Collector, Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), Tarnaka, Hyderabad; Senior Civil Court, Karimnagar; and, also with advocates; Government Pleader of Senior Civil Court, Karimnagar; and, beneficiaries who received compensations on the basis of such forged/ fake judgments/ orders/ decrees of the Courts. The conspiracy and connivance and the acts done pursuant thereto was to claim compensation @ Rs.

25,000/ - per acre irrespective of the category of land and entitlement of the claimants/ beneficiaries. The lands were acquired for Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP). A1, who was working as a Typist in Animal Husbandary Department, was instrumental in fabricating certain judgments/ orders/ decrees of the Courts and in swindling huge money of about rupees three crores from the State exchequer in conspiracy and in connivance with the other accused persons working in the above said Offices and the other accused. Fake judgments were used in a fraudulent manner in processing the cases for payment of compensation amounts in connivance of A2, A5, A6, 12 to 14, 16, 17, 22 to 24 and 26 with A1 and the beneficiaries of such payments who were arraigned as A27 to A52 and conspiracy amongst the accused.

According to the contents of the charge sheet and material on record, in six cases there were partial enhancement of compensation by the High Court but not to the extent of Rs.25,000/ - per acre but compensation was eventually paid at higher rate. In two cases, the judgments of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar, were confirmed by the High Court. In three cases, the High Court dismissed appeals for default.

appeal numbers mentioned against OPs do not relate to the appeal numbers of the High Court. In 14 cases, no appeals were preferred either by the claimants or the LAO/ Government and the A.S.

numbers mentioned in the fake/ fabricated appeal judgments of the High Court relate to OPs of other Districts but not of Karimnagar District.

Basing on the fake judgments/ orders/ decrees, all the accused including the present petitioners allegedly facilitated payment of compensation amount which is more than due and payable to the claimants/ beneficiaries. Further, though Sarva Shankaraiah, S/ o.Rukmaiah died, on 25.10.2000, by consuming poison, Sarva Shankaraiah, S/ o.Ramaiah, that is, A1, opened an SB Account in the name of the deceased Sarva Shankaraiah, S/ o.Rukmaiah and got filed cheque petition in O.P.No.887 of 1982 in the name of the said deceased and received compensation through SBH, Mankammathota Branch, Karimnagar, impersonating the deceased who is his namesake.' 8.

The case of the present petitioners-accused herein in support of their request for their discharge, and the submissions made on their behalf, in brief, are as follows:

Section 420 of the IPC has no application to the petitioners inasmuch as the LAOs, who are parties to the cases and whose names appear in the fake orders in appeals, have processed them and sent proposals to the Government for sanction. The files will be processed through various departments in the Government like Commissioner, Land Administration; Law Department; Irrigation Department; Finance Department and lastly to GAD. Cheating or dishonestly inducing delivery of property envisaged under Section 420 IPC, are applicable to the acts alleged against Land Acquisition Officers and other Secretaries of other Departments; but, not to the petitioners, who are advocates. The GAD by Government Order grants letter of credit and thereafter, the LAO deposits the amount into Court through D-Form and

Cheque. The petitioners have no role to play in the said process, that is, in the deposit of compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Officers have to be careful in depositing the compensation amounts; and, if any excess/ double payment is made, they only are to be held responsible. The trial Judge erred in dismissing the application for discharge of the petitioners merely on the presumption that the petitioners are arrayed as accused and on the sole ground that they filed cheque petitions on the basis of fake orders/ decrees in appeals; but, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioners have not filed execution applications on the basis of fake orders/ decrees in appeals claiming compensation @ Rs.

25,000/ - per acre and that the LAOs have suo motu sent proposals to the Government for sanction of compensation amount on the strength of fake orders/ decrees in appeals and that thereafter, the Government have sanctioned the budget in favour of individual claimants. Therefore, no role is played by the petitioners herein in deposit of amount into Court and, hence, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC also are not attracted insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that conspiracy between the petitioners and other accused in creating/ fabricating fake orders in appeals is not stated in the charge sheet. On the other hand, such fabrication is attributed to the other accused.

It is also specifically stated in the charge sheet that except the petitioners herein, other accused have knowledge of fake orders in appeals and they used the said orders in processing them for depositing the amount. Conspiracy is not alleged against the petitioners. As such, Section 120-B is inapplicable to the petitioners. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that motive cannot be attributed to the petitioners merely on their filing cheque petitions after the money was sanctioned by the Government and was deposited into Court. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that the names of the petitioners do not appear in the fake orders/ decrees in appeals so as to attribute motive and knowledge of fake orders.

appreciate that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code are not connecting the petitioners to the commission of the alleged offences. The Apex Court held that the Court is not the mouth piece of prosecution and that if participation and involvement of the petitioners in the alleged commission of offences is not proved by cogent material, the continuation of proceedings against them is unwarranted. It cannot be said that it is premature action. The learned Judge has not properly appreciated paragraph 10 of the charge sheet wherein nothing is attributed to the petitioners about creation of or using of fake orders/ decrees in appeals as genuine documents or in processing them for sanction of amount from the Government. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to be discharged.

9.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the orders of the trial Court has drawn the attention of this Court to the various averments in the charge sheet and other material record showing the complicity of the petitioners/ accused herein. He also drew the attention of this Court to the statements of some of the witnesses including those of the beneficiaries to show that the investigating agency collected sufficient material to show a prima facie case and a strong case for laying a charge sheet and putting the accused to trial.

He further contended that huge financial loss was caused to the Government by use of fake and fabricated court judgments/ orders & decrees and that A1 in conspiracy and in connivance with the other accused including the petitioners/ advocates and beneficiaries caused enormous loss to the Government and public exchequer and that, therefore, the ingredients of the offences with which the respective accused are proposed to be charged are made out and that the contention of the petitioners that the proposed charges are groundless is devoid of merit. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision cases.

10.

Dealing with the first contention that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken on their face value no prima facie case much les a strong case is made out against the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to infra the relevant averments in the charge sheet related to the complicity of the present petitioners/ accused herein.

98.

During investigation, it is established that A15, V. Srikanth Rao, A18, C. Ramesh Sagar Rao, and A19, C. Trilochan Rao (expired) who are from the same office knowing fully well that no appeals were filed by either of the parties in 17 OPs, filed cheque applications in the Court of Sr.Civil Judge, Karimnagar with the connivance of D. Mallaiah (A10), beneficiaries and the court staff and facilitated the offence of cheating committed by beneficiaries/ accused and became instrumental in fraudulent withdrawal of Govt. money in the following cases mentioned in the charge sheets..

S.No.

Name of the claimant OP.

A.S.No.

Remarks No.

G. Narayana 80/ 3051/ 86 There was no such appeal with the said no. on the file of the High court.

K. Raji Reddy 850/ 82 3576/ 88 There was no such appeal with the said no. on the file of the High court S. Satyanarayana 856/ 82 3666/ 88 There was no such appeal with the said no. on the file of the High Court G. Narayana 156/ 80 207/ 88 The AS No.

corresponds to OP No.2/ 83 of Nizambad Dist.(not processed) P.

Ramachandra Reddy 300/ 80 1815/ 85 The AS no corresponds to OP.No.104/ 84 of Suryapet, Nalgonda District K. Ramaiah 303/ 80 318/ 86 The AS no corresponds to OP.No.330/ 80 of Aayyavaru Krishna Murty of Karimnagar District K. Narayana 849/ 82 2531/ 86 The A.S No corresponds to OP No.151/ 78 of Guntur Dist.

S. Shankaraiah 887/ 82 1341/ 87 The AS No corresponds to OP No.83/ 87 of Visakhapatnam District K. Rajmallu 985/ 82 206/ 87 The A.S.

No corresponds to OS No.49/ 77 of Krishna District K. Hanumakka 908/ 82 1669/ 88 The AS No corresponds to OP No.344/ 86 of

Nirmal, Adilabad Dist.

K. Rukmaiah 777/ 83 1251/ 88 The AS No corresponds to OP No.322/ 85 of Visakhapatnam District K. Viswanatham & 667/ 83 2061/ 86 This AS No corresponds to OP No.30/ 74 of West Godavari District D. Satyanarayana 891/ 82 1558/ 88 The AS No corresponds to OP.No.358/ 85 of Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District.

P. Malla Reddy 917/ 82 1827/ 88 Corresponds to OS No.191/ 86 of Guntur.

K. Pochamma 771/ 83 2475/ 88 The AS No corresponds to OP No.20/ 86 of Visakhapatnam District B. Kondaiah & 14 others 661/ 83 1098/ 87 This AS No corresponds to OP No.2208/ 84 of Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (not processed) K. Veeraiah 782/ 83 1318/ 92 The AS No corresponds to OS No.211/ 87 of I Addl.Sub-Court, Visakhapatnam District (still pending in High Court of A.P.

Hyd) others S.No.

Name of the claimant OP.No.

A.S.No.

Remarks A.P.

High Court partly enhanced the compensation amount M.

Rangaiah (expired) 922/ 83 2237/ 87 filed by SDC(govt) A.P.

High Court partly enhanced the compensation amount B. Ramaiah 574/ 82 819/ 85 filed by SDC (Govt) A.P.

High Court partly enhanced the compensation amount M. Mallaiah 561/ 83 2694/ 86 filed by SDC (Govt) A.P.

High Court partly enhanced the compensation amount K. Kondaiah 617/ 82 822/ 85 filed by SDC (Govt) A.P.

High Court partly enhanced the compensation amount` N. Laxmaiah 907/ 82 2769/ 87 filed by SDC(Govt) A.P.

High Court partly enhanced the compensation amount B.

Veeraiah (expired) 77/ 81 2170/ 85 filed by the claimant .

OP.No.

A.S.No.

Remarks S.No Name of the claimant Azeemuddin 921/ 82 1627/ 88 Judgment of SubCourt Karimnagar stood confirmed by A.P. High Court D. Raghavulu 860/ 82 Judgment of subcourt, Karimnagar stood confirmed by A.P. High Court / 86 S.No.

OP No.

AS No.

Name of the claimant Remarks 912/ 82 2130/ 85 M.

Appeal filed by the LAO was dismissed for default Komaraiah 971/ 82 2054/ 87 B. Narayana Appeal filed by the LAO was dismissed for default 988/ 82 724/ 86 K. Ramaiah Appeal filed by the LAO was dismissed for default 99.

The accused C. Ramesh Sagar Rao (A18) filed cheque petitions in IA.No.990/ 03, 1044/ 02, 235/ 05, 3093/ 03, 3089/ 03, 386/ 04, 387/ 04, 991/ 03, 429/ 03, 430/ 03, 1000/ 03, 89/ 03, 438/ 04, 459/ 04, 1102/ 04, 1103/ 04, 1391/ 03, 1392/ 03, 999/ 03, 1390/ 03, 1041/ 02, 1042/ 02 basing on the fake judgments of the High Court of A.P. in the respective land acquisition cases, though he knew fully well that either appeals by LAO or cross objections by the claimants were not filed; and facilitated the beneficiaries/ accused to withdraw the compensation @ Rs.25,000/ - per acre.

In OP.No.983/ 83 corresponding to A.S.No.1859/ 86 of the High Court compensation was paid to the beneficiary/ A11. A18 filed the cheque petition, identified the beneficiary and got the cheque bearing No.899423, dated 05.12.1997 issued for RS.13,40,837/ - by the Court. A18 dishonestly filed another cheque petition on behalf of the claimant/ accused in IA.No.1169/ 02, dated 01.12.2002 and paved way for payment of compensation twice causing huge loss to the Govt. exchequer.

100.

In OP.No.617/ 82 and 574/ 82 the High Court of A.P enhanced compensation amount in the appeals preferred against the judgments of Sub Court, Karimnagar. The advocate on record Sri Ramakrishna Chary filed cheque petitions and claimants received amounts. A15 having knowledge of payment of compensation made earlier, suppressed the said fact and filed another cheque petition on behalf of the claimants/ accused basing on fake appellate judgment of High Court and paved way for payment of compensation twice to the claimants causing financial loss to the Government exchequer. 101.

In OP.No.983/ 82, A18 filed cheque application on behalf of the claimant, A11, brother of A1, vide IA.No.1045/ 97 who received the cheque through the Court. A18 suppressed this fact and again filed cheque petition in IA.No.1169/ 02 on behalf of the same beneficiary-A11 and got payment of compensation of Rs.13,78,736/ - paid second time and facilitated/ abetted the commission of the offence of cheating by the beneficiary/ accused causing loss to the Government exchequer.

103.

The investigation established that the beneficiaries/ A27 to A52 knowingly conspired and connived with SDCs (A12 to A14, A26), Spl.Collector (A17) and their staff (A2, A5, A6, A16, A22, A23, A24) Court staff (A4, A7 to A9, A25), Government Pleader (A10) and Advocates (A15, A18, A19 (since expired)) of Karimnagar and Hyderabad and filed applications making false declarations for the sanction of decretal amounts mentioned in the fake judgments without actually preferring appeals and facilitated withdrawal of the compensation amounts twice in the cases mentioned above.

111(e) V.Srikanth Rao (A15) committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 471, 201 & 420 read with 109 IPC. 111(f) C. Ramesh Sagar Rao (A18) committed offences punishable under Section 120(B), 471, 201 and 419, 420 read with 109 of IPC. 11.

Be it also noted that A26 on the directions of the Government filed a report/ complaint with the police and that report set the criminal law into motion. It is discernable from the facts, submissions and material record that land of a total extent of 1892.17 guntas and 200 houses situated in Hasnapur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District were acquired in the years 1977 to 1982 and in all eight awards were passed by the then LAO determining the market values @ Rs.1,320/ - to Rs.

2,920/ - for the acquired dry and wet lands and that in certain of the matters, in which the beneficiaries whose lands were acquired were not satisfied with the compensation determined, references were made to the civil Court and that the compensation was enhanced in some of the cases depending upon the classification and nature of the lands and that in some cases, compensation was determined at Rs.3,500/ - to Rs.5,000/ - or Rs.7,500/ - and that in certain matters compensation was enhanced to Rs.85,000/ - per acre and that the Supreme Court eventually fixed the compensation at Rs.25,000/ - per acre in those cases and that later the High Court in some similar cases fixed the compensation @ Rs.25,000/ - per acre.

It is also borne out by record that 29 judgments and decrees were forged as if such judgments were rendered and decrees were granted by the High Court. Under the said forged judgments and decrees it was shown as if compensation was enhanced by the High Court.

necessary funds from the Government and for deposit of the same to the credit of Civil Court deposits as and when such funds are released.' It is also borne out by record that fake judgments and decrees were inserted in 26 OP records of Senior Civil Court to facilitate the beneficiaries to withdraw the amounts deposited to the credit of respective OPs by filing cheque petitions. Eventually, on the processing and clearing of the files by officers concerned, Government deposited more than rupees three Crores to the credit of civil Court deposits for satisfying the claims under the fake judgments & orders and decrees. Through the cheque petitions filed by the beneficiaries, the said amounts were allowed to be withdrawn.

Thus, on account of the creation of fake judgments & orders and decrees and introduction of the same in the records of the land acquisition offices and of the senior Civil Court, Government was made to deposit amounts illegally to the credit of civil court deposits and such deposited amounts were allowed to be withdrawn by the beneficiaries on the basis of such fake judgments & orders and decrees. In some cases, on the basis of fake judgments & orders and decrees, opinions were obtained from the learned Government Pleaders and even the learned Advocate General, to the effect that the cases are not fit cases to prefer appeals.

While processing the files, the accused concerned and the petitioners/ accused herein intentionally failed to detect the fake judgments even though they contained embossed seal of the High Court and stamp of copyist department despite the fact that original judgments only contain the embossed seal but not the certified copy and that the certified copies contain the stamp and details of delivery. Even before the execution petitions were filed, the compensation claims of the beneficiaries in these cases based on fake judgments/ orders/ decrees were processed and proposals were made for release of compensation to the beneficiaries basing on the fake judgments/ orders/ decrees and funds were eventually received from the Government for payment to such beneficiaries.

petitioners failed to cross check their own records as to whether appeals or cross objections are filed though in three cases viz., OP.Nos.912/ 82, 971/ 82, 988/ 82, it was falsely mentioned that cross objections were filed by claimants while in fact no such cross objections were filed in the appeals preferred by the LAO and the appeals preferred by the LAO were dismissed confirming the orders of the civil Court. The petitioners intentionally got processed the files though they have knowledge of the fake judgments.' 12.

Thus a plain perusal and bare consideration of the above and other contents of the charge sheet, the supporting and the other material on record, discloses that A1 created and brought into existence some fake appellate judgments or orders/ decrees of the High Court against the judgments in the matters on the file of the Senior Civil Court, Karimnagar, by using his official typewriter and with the help of A3, who worked as Attender in the High Court and who affixed rubber stamps and embossed seals on the fake judgments/ orders and decrees of the High Court, and in conspiracy with A2, another Attender, who got inserted the fake appellate judgments/ orders and decrees in the files of Office of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, LMD, Karimnagar, and in conspiracy with A5, who worked by then as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Special Deputy Collector and who got processed the files pertaining to land acquisition cases; and, thereafter, with the help of A4, who worked as a Record Assistant in the Senior Civil Court, Karimnagar, got inserted the fake appellate judgments/ decrees in the records of the OPs on the file of the said Court; later, with the help of A7, Superintendent in the Office of Senior Civil Court got endorsed false notings on the cheque petitions.

facilitating payment of more compensation amounts than are actually due and payment of compensation amounts twice in some cases. It was alleged in the charge sheet that A1 committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, 201 read with 120(B) of IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act. A2 committed offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420 read with 120(B) of IPC. A4, A7, A8, A9 and A25 committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 466, 468, 471 & 420 IPC read with 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C.Act. A12, A13, A4, A16, A17, A22, A23, A24 committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 466, 468, 471 & 420 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C.Act. A15 committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 471, 201 and 420 read with 109 IPC.

A18 committed offences punishable under Section 120(B), 471, 201, 419 and 420 read with 109 IPC. A5 committed offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 201, 120(B) & 420 read with 109 IPC & Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C.Act. A10 committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 466, 468, 471, 420 read with 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C.Act. A11, brother of A1, committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of IPC. A27 to A52, beneficiaries, committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 471 and 420 of IPC. A53 to A55 committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 466, 468, 471, 420 read with 109 IPC and 13(1)(d)(ii) of PC Act.

13.

If the said first contention is examined in the light of the contents of the charge sheet and the entire supporting material, neither the first contention nor the other contentions of the petitioners herein which are already referred to supra do not merit consideration in the light of the following settled undisputed legal position.

'Section 239 Cr.P.C reads as under: - " When accused shall be discharged: If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under

Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing." Section 227 Cr.P.C., reads as under: - 'Discharge: - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.'

Thus, a charge can be framed against an accused in a case where the prosecution has placed on record sufficient evidence to show a prima facie case against him/ her under a particular provision of law. In case the prosecution fails in its primary duty to show a prima facie case to proceed against the accused i.e., when the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he/ she shall be discharged forthwith under Section 227 Cr.P.C. It is a well settled principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that a Court would not require the prosecution to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt at the time of framing of the charge as it is required to do so only at the time of conclusion of its case in order to bring home the guilt of the accused.

At the stage of framing of charge, the prosecution is under an obligation to place only that much of material against the accused which may be sufficient enough in the circumstances of a given case to draw a presumption that the accused has committed an offence. Further, in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others [1990 Cri L.J.

alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case." In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another [1979CriLJ154], the Supreme Court held as follows: "The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. In exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.

This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

14.

Further, in view of the following aspects there is no need to dilate further on the various contentions of the petitioners-accused herein including the contention that they have nothing to do with any of the alleged criminal acts constituting the criminal elements of the offences alleged against them. The present petitioners-accused, according to the prosecution case are also

members of the conspiracy and they connived with the other accused. The specific allegations made against the present petitioners-accused are already noted supra. Though the present petitioners-A18 & 15 contend that they are only advocates and that they discharged their professional duties and acted on the instructions of the beneficiaries on whose behalf they filed cheque petitions, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the specific case of the prosecution is that the advocates as well as the beneficiaries conspired with A1 and one of the witnesses namely Mallikarjuna Satyanarayana, LW50, who was examined during the course of investigation stated that at the relevant time, on one day, he went to Court and that on that day Sarva Shankaraiah, A1, and Kantha Rao were present in Court.

Thus, according to the prosecution, the advocate-A15 was in the company of A1 at the time when the details of the said witness were collected at the instance of A1. Further, it is pointed out that the advocates who earlier appeared for some of the beneficiaries for whom the present petitioners-accused later appeared gave statements that they informed the beneficiaries for whom they earlier appeared that they do not get any further amounts and yet, cheque petitions are filed on behalf of such beneficiaries through the petitioners-accused and their acts eventually facilitated payment of compensation twice in some cases and more compensation in some other cases, is the case of the prosecution.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused-beneficiaries on one hand are contending that they are innocent but at the instance of the advocates they filed the cheque petitions and received amounts though ineligible; and, that on the other hand, the advocates are contending that they are innocent and that only on the instructions of the beneficiaries they filed the cheque petitions as instructed by the beneficiaries. Thus, both the petitioners-accused and the accused-beneficiaries are trying to shift the blame to the other party and pass the buck.

service but also basing on the same the process was initiated and amounts were got released from the Government and deposits were made into Court to the credit of various OPs by apportioning the budget even though no execution petitions are filed and that within a short time thereafter, the cheque petitions were filed and amounts were got credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries. He would therefore submit that the said facts lay bare the conspiracy and connivance and that, therefore, there is sufficient material to safely conclude that there is a strong case for framing charges and proceeding against all the accused. He would also submit that in a given case, even when charge sheet is silent on some legal aspects, yet the trial court can frame necessary charges if the facts of the case show complicity of the accused in respect of the proposed charges.

15.

Further, as held by the Supreme Court, if this Court is to consider the contentions of the petitioners herein in detail, this Court would be clutching at the jurisdiction of the trial Court. It is also apt to note infra, the decision in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 (Supp) 1 SCC 80], which was referred to with approval in the afore-stated order of the Supreme Court. ' In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A of the IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary.

The provisions in such a situation do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B since from its very nature a conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, because otherwise the whole purpose may be frustrated and it is common experience and goes without saying that only in very rare cases one may come across direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime and in most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence may be legitimately drawn.'

Therefore, it is premature for this Court to record any finding on the existence of or otherwise of criminal conspiracy amongst the accused including the petitioners-accused herein who are also said to be parties to such conspiracy and suffice it to say that the present cases are not fit cases to invoke the jurisdiction at this stage and discharge the petitioners-accused herein. 16.

Before parting, it is apt to refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners:

i. CBI v. K. Narayana Rao1 & State of Karnataaka v. L. Muniswamy and others2 are relied upon to enlighten on the powers of the High Court and its inherent powers while dealing with applications filed under Section 482 of the Code requesting to quash the proceedings pending before the Court of Session/ Special Court. Placing reliance on these decisions it is urged that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, the Court possesses a comparatively wider discretion and that in the exercise of the said discretion the Court can determine the question whether the material on record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said to be reasonably possible.

It is also submitted that though a roving enquiry is not needed, however, it is the duty of the Court to find out whether there is prima facie material against the persons who are charged with various offences under the penal laws. ii. Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. the State of Maharashtra3, Mohd.Hussain Umar Kochra etc. v. K./S.DalipSinghji and another4 and Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra5 are relied upon on the aspect of mode of proof of conspiracy and the ingredients of the said offence which are required to be established.

submitted that the provision under Section 120(A) of IPC shall not be invoked unless there is reasonable ground to believe and there is prima facie evidence that a person is party to a conspiracy. Placing reliance on the decision in Modh.

Hussain's case (6 supra ), it is urged that in order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design and that in such conspiracy each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose and that each one is aware that he has a part to play in general conspiracy though he may not know all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accomplished and that in view of the above legal position, it cannot be said that the evidence collected during investigation is sufficient to establish that the present petitioners conspired with A1 and other accused.

In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal (5 supra) the section of law was analysed as follows: - ' In short, the section can be analysed as follows: (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour.'

Be it noted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Appeal of the State related to A13 in the instant case and the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri' s case, there is no need to further dilate on the legal position since the legal position insofar as it related to the accused in the present case is already emphasised by the Supreme Court in the orders passed in the criminal appeal of the State. The said findings can equally be applied to the case of the present petitioners-accused.

17.

Further, there is no need at this stage to form an opinion that petitioners-accused herein are certainly guilty of the offences alleged against them. This Court examined the issue involved, keeping in view the limited scope of interference and the restricted ambit of jurisdiction and also the afore-sated precedential guidance and the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu6. On consideration of the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of evidence including the documents produced before the Court and in the absence of any basic infirmities in the case warranting acceptance of the request of the petitioners-accused and also in view of the limited scope of jurisdiction, which vests with the Court, it is noticeable that this is a case where a final adjudication of the proposed charge/ s against the petitioners-accused herein has to be made only after oral and documentary evidence is adduced in a full-fledged trial.

18.

On the above analysis and for the reasons assigned supra, this Court finds that the request of the petitioners-A18 & A15 does not merit consideration and that the order of the learned Special Judge, which is sustainable, brooks no interference.

19.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and this order shall not prevent the petitioners-accused herein from urging all such grounds as are open to them under facts and in law at the time of hearing on charges or any later stages of the trial of the case. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this revision case shall stand closed.

_______________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 19.09.2017 Vjl 6 2017 (1) ALD (Crl) 842 (SC)