IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES
-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.
Present: Smt. B.SATYA VENKATA HIMABINDU
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.
Wednesday, 16th day of April, 2025
C.C.No.57/2007
( Cr.No.8/2005 of CID P.S., Hyderabad)
ComplainantState represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, RCC, Vijayawada
Smt.G.Kalyani, Special Public Prosecutor Represented by
Accused1. Dharmendra Jesubai Patel, General Secretary, PRASMA, S/o Jesubai Patel, 42 years, Vishnuvardhan Street, City Central Colony, Sri Ganesh Kunj, First Floor, Labbipet, Vijayawada.
2. Vallabhaneni Satyanarayana @ Satyanarayana @ Satya N.V., S/o Basaveswara Rao, 36 years, Craft Teacher in LPCT Gujarathi Vidyalaya, Vijayawada.
3. Motamarri Durga Vara Prasad, S/o Seetharam, 32 years, D.No.26-4-55, Udathavari Street, Gandhi Nagar, Prop. Sri Graphics, adjoining to Santhi Prasanthi Cine Theater, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.
4. P.Narasinga Rao, the then Assistant Secretary, Education (PS-2), AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad, presently Deputy Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (under suspension)
5. K.V.S.R.K.Murthy, S/o K.V.Parameswara Rao,53 years, the then Assistant Section Officer, Education (PS- 2), A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad (under Suspension), r/o Sector 1 B14, Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
Represented bySri Mohammad Ari, Advocate, for accused No.1 and 3 Sri P.Srinivas, Advocate, for accused No.2 Sri N.Sai Sankar, Advocate for accused no.4 Sri T.V.Nava Kumar, Advocate for accused no.5
This case came before me on 3.4.2025 for final hearing. Upon hearing arguments, perusing the record and having considered the matter till this day, this Court has delivered the following:
2 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID,
RCIU, Vijayawada filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420, 406 and 120-B r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (ii) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the P.C.Act”) in Cr.No.8/2005 of CID P.S., Hyderabad.
2.The averments of the charge sheet are as follows:
(a) Accused no.1 worked as Secretary-cum- Correspondent of L.P.C.T.
Gujarathi Vidyalaya, Vijayawada earlier and General Secretary of Private
Recognized Aided Management Association (PRASMA) at the time of offence. Accused no.2 worked as Craft Teacher in L.P.C.T.Gujarathi
Vidyalaya, accused no.3 worked as partner of Sri Graphics, Vijayawada, accused no.4 worked as Assistant Secretary and accused no.5 worked as
Assistant Section Officer, in School Education (PS-2) Department in A.P.
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
(b) The management of St.Antony RCM Elementary & High School,
Vijayawada a Christian Minority institution appointed 7 teaching posts on regular retirement vacancies in pursuance of article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Correspondent of the school sister M.Graziana submitted an application to the LW.1/ District Education Officer/Krishna District though
LW.2/Deputy Education Officer for approval of their action in appointing the above posts. But LW.1 did not take any action.
(c) On 18-9-2003 LWs.2 to 8 along with their parents met accused no.1
Dharmendra J Patel at his shop-cum-office i.e Ganesh Traders and requested him to get approval from the Government for the posts they were already appointed and promised to pay Rs.25,000/- each. On 5-8-2004 and on 18-9-2003 accused no.1 addressed two letters bearing
No.PRASMA/158/2004 and PRASMA/048/2003 respectively to the
Prl.Secretary, School Education, Govt. of A.P and Minister of School
Education, Government of A.P requesting to settle the issue of the 7 3 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA candidates appointed by the management of St. Anthony RCM Elementary &
High School for Girls, Vijayawada in view of article 30 of the Constitution of
India. The Deputy Secretary K.V.Vilasini advised accused no. 2 to submit following documents; 1)The list called for by Employment Exchange, 2)The report of Selection committee who selected the teachers and
3) A letter from the DEO, Krishna stating that the management duly followed the selection procedure.
(d) On that accused no 1 got the List of Employment Exchange prepared by LW.12/ Pujyam Srikantam Padmanabha Kumar, at Datta Graphics,
Vijayawada and accused no.1 himself made forgery of the signature of
Employment Officer. Accused no. 1 also got the Staff Selection Committee letter and DEO letter prepared by LW.11/ Khaja, Computer Operator in LPTC
Gujarathi Vidyalaya, Vijayawada and forged the signature of Correspondent and Subject expert and the signature of DEO, Krishna District. The same were handed over to accused no 4 and 5 by accused no. 2 after collecting from accused no.1.
(e) The Government in the meanwhile issued GO.Rt.No 65 dt:29.01.2005 approving the appointments of 1)P. Bhagya Mary, 2) Ch.Janaki, 3)P.Bhagya
Rani in the existing vacant aided SGT posts made by the management of
St.Anthony RCM Elementary & High School for Girls, Vijayawada keeping in view of the provision laid down in Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. As the said Government memo was detrimental to the interest of candidates, accused no.4 Narasinga Rao handed over a copy of it to accused no.2.
Accused no.1 effected certain corrections and advised accused no.2 to get a fake Government order prepared. Thereupon accused no.2 got created a fake Government memo with the same number and date tampering with the original Government memo at Srujana DTP & Xerox, Hyderabad and took out the print outs by accused no .3/ Prasad at Sri Graphics, Vijayawada. On the advise of the accused no.1 and 2, accused no.3 scanned the signature of Seetharam the Section Officer (SO) and the initials of K.S.V.R.K.Murthy, 4 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Assistant Section Officer (ASO) that were given by accused no.4/ Narasinga
Rao on the said tampered/forged document. The DEO, Krishna District having followed the procedure implemented the Order in toto and recommended for payment of Salaries. However, the Salaries were withheld as the news related to this scam broke out in the News Papers.
(f) Accused no .1, 2, 3 and 5 also created forged Govt.Memo
No.15029/PS(2) /2003-2, Dt:5-2-2005 regarding approval given to the appointments of Ch. Indira; Ch. Kusuma and P.Anitha at St.Anthony RCM
Elementary & High School for Girls, Vijayawada like above with scanned the signatures of Mr.Seetharam, Section Officer and KSVRK Murthy, Asst.,
Section Officer, Secretariat, Hyderabad at Srujana DTP & Xerox, Hyderabad and Sri Graphics, Vijayawada.
(g) Accused no .1, 2, 3 and 5 also created another forged Govt.Memo No.
2994/PS(2)/2004-1, Dt:23-12-2004 pertaining to approval of the appointment of Sister K. Showrilu, SGT, at St. Anthony RCM High School for Girls,
Vijayawada like above with scanned the signatures of Mr.Seetharam,
Section Officer and KSVRK Murthy, Asst., Section Officer, Secretariat,
Hyderabad at Srujana DTP & Xerox, Hyderabad and Sri Graphics,
Vijayawada. Thereafter, accused no.1 sent copies of the above 2
Government memos to the DEO, Krishna who in turn implemented the orders after receiving the executive orders from RJD, Kakinada and DSE,
Hyderabad, but salaries were not paid. Accused no.2 paid an extraneous consideration of cash Rs.25,000/- to Smt. K.V.Vilasini, on her request by canceling DD No.643170, Dt: 10-01-05 as she refused the DD. Accused no.2 paid about Rs.80,000/- to accused no.4 by way of; (1) DD No.643089, Dt: 05-01-2005 for Rs. 50,000/- that was taken by accused no.2 on State Bank of Hyderabad, Governorpet, Vijayawada on the name accused no.4 P.Narsinga Rao, (2) DD No.643171, Dt: 10-01-2005 that was issued by accused no.2 on State Bank of Hyderabad, Governorpet, Vijayawada on the name accused no.4/ P.Narsinga Rao for Rs.30,000/- 5 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
3) and deposited Rs.30,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- on 17-1-05, Rs. 10,000/- on 10- 2-2005 and Rs. 10,000/- on 29-3-2005) in the account of accused no.4 bearing No.0001190035348 at State Bank of Hyderabad, Secretariat Branch, Hyderabad.
accused no.2 also took a DD bearing No.643169 dt: 10-1-2005 for Rs. 20,000 on the name of accused no.5/ KVSRK Murthy, Asst. Section Officer, payable at SBH, Hyderabad. Accused no.1 & 2 shared the remaining money between them.
(h) The then District Educational Officer, Krishna/L.W.1 as per the proceedings issued by Director of School Education, A.P. Hyderabad lodged a complaint before Additional Director General of Police, CID, A.P. on 12.5.2005, who endorsed the same to Senior Executive Officer, CID/L.W.25, who in turn registered case in Cr.No.8/2005 under Sections 465, 468, 420, 406 and 120-B IPC of CID P.S. on 12.5.2005 at 17.00 hours. The DSP, CID,
RCC, L.W.25 took up investigation on 13.5.2005 examined the witnesses, and on 19.4.2005 L.W.25 received the record relating to this case from
K.Rama Krishna, Director, School Education, Hyderabad. L.W.25 forwarded the 1.G.O.Rt.No.65 Education (SEPS-2) Department dt.29.1.2005, 2.
Government Memo No.2994/PS-2/2004-1 dt.23.12.2004, 3. Government
Memo No.15029/PS-2/2003-2 dt.5.2.2005 to FSL, Hyderabad along with admitted and questioned signatures, initials of Seetharam and KSVRK
Murthy to FSL vide FSL No.DOC/201/2005. The Expert opinion issued by
L.W.21 revealed that the questioned documents were forged and the signatures and initials were executed through scanner, computer and printer by using genuine signatures and initials.
(i)During the course of investigation, L.W.25 arrested accused no.1 interrogated him in the presence of mediators L.Ws.19 and 18 and basing on his confession 9 documents were seized from his residence “Sri Ganesh
Kunj” situated at Labbipet, Vijayawada on 25.05.2005 in presence of mediators.
(j)Subsequently accused no.2 was arrested on 24.5.2005 at 5.00 P.M.
and during interrogation he confessed about committing the offence along with other accused and preparation of forged Government order at Srujana 6 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Graphics, Hyderabad with the assistance of L.W.10/Md.Ibrahim. The
Investigating Officer along with accused no.2 proceeded to his house and seized Government memos, counter foils of Pay in Slips (total 14 documents) secreted in the cup board of his flat at Sri Sai Nivas Apartments,
Vijayawada.
(k)Based on the confession of accused no.2 they further proceeded to
Sri Graphics, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada on 25.5.2005 at 12.00 Noon and apprehended accused no.3 who took the print outs of forged Government memos and scanned the signatures and initials of Seetharam and KSVRK
Murthy over them. The Investigating Officer seized a computer along with computer related equipment totally 10 items. Thereafter they proceeded to
LPCT Gujarathi Vidyalaya, Vijayawada on 25.5.2005 where accused no.2 showed L.W.11/ Md.Khaja /Record Assistant who purported to have composed and took print outs of letter addressed to Principal Secretary,
School Education, Hyderabad dt.26.11.2004 wherein the signatures of DEO,
Krishna was forged by accused no.1 and also Resolution of Staff Selection
Committee dt.31.7.2001 where accused no.1 forged the signature of Sister
Sybil and Ch.Rajasekhar by using the computer and seized computer related equipment including CPU (total 6 items).
(l).Thereafter they further proceeded to Datta Graphics, Vijayawada wherein accused no.2 showed L.W.12/ PSP Kumar to purported to have composed the list of candidates prepared by District Employment Officer vide letter dt.10.7.2001 by using a computer. The Investigating Officer seized the said computer along with connected material i.e., 8 items under the mediator report. On 26.5.2005 L.W.25 seized Hard disc from the above computers in the presence of mediators L.Ws.18 and 19 under the cover of mediator report with the assistance of L.W.17 who is computer Hardware mechanic.
(m) L.W.25 forwarded the Pay slips, counter foils and specimen hand writings of accused no.2 to FSL, vide DOC.No.248/2005 dt.26.4.2005 for comparison. LW.25. L.W.26 took up further investigation and forwarded the 7 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Hard Discs seized from the questioned computers and subsequently received the report disclosing that fake Government memos (1)
G.O.Rt.No.65 Education (SEPS-2) Department dt.29.1.2005; (2)
Government Memo No.2994/PS-2/2004-1 dt.23.12.2004, 3. Government
Memo No.15029/PS-2/2003-2 dt.5.2.2005 of Principal Secretary to
Government, School Education Department, A.P. are available in Hard Disc seized from Datta Graphics and Sri Graphics Vijayawada. L.W.26 also received hand writing expert report vide file No.DOC 248/2005 dt.29.7.2005 which discloses that the person who wrote red enclosed questioned signatures and writings also wrote the specimen signatures. During the course of investigation, Smt.K.Vilasini, expired on 10.2.2006 and case against her was abated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by LW.28 against the accused.
4.This Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 465, 468, 420, 406 and 120-B r/w 109 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (ii) of P.C.
Act, 1988 and summons were issued to the Accused 1 to 5. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, and after considering the material on record, charges under sections 420 against accused no.1, Sections 465, 468, 406, 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5
Section 465, 468, 406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5;
Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (ii) of P.C., Act, 1988 against accused no.4 and 5; and Sections 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act r/w 34 IPC against accused no.4 and 5, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 28 were examined, Exs.P1 to P62 were marked. After closer of prosecution side evidence, accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., referring to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence led by the prosecution, for which the Accused no.1 to 5 denied the same. Accused no.1 to 3 filed separate written statements. Exs.D1 to D3 were marked during the cross-examination of P.Ws.19 and 14.
8 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
6.Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsels for the accused no.1 to 5. Having considered the rival arguments, oral and documentary evidence on record, the following points framed for consideration:
1. Whether the sanction order obtained to prosecute accused no.4 and 5 is valid?
2. Whether the prosecution has established the offence under Sections 420 IPC against accused no.1 and Sections 468, 406, 465 and 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5?
3. Whether the prosecution has established the offence under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (ii) of P.C.Act against accused no.4 and 5?
4. Whether the prosecution has established the offence under Section 420, 468, 406, 465 IPC r/w 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5 and Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of P.C. Act r/w 34 IPC against accused no.4 and 5?
5. To what result?
Evidence as to Registration of Crime and Investigation:
7.In this case the criminal was set into motion through LW.1 based enquiry conducted by the then Director of School education who was examined as PW.20. The evidence of PW.20 is that on 05.04.2005 he received a memo from the government with direction to conduct enquiry pertaining to approval of appointments in certain Aided Schools. In pursuance of the same he conducted detailed enquiry and submitted enquiry report to the Principal Secretary to the Government vide covering letter dt.14.04.2005 under Ex.P40. During the course of enquiry he visited
Lutheran High School, Bhimavaram, St.Antony RCM Elementary School and
High School for Girls, Vijayawada and Bishop Azaraiah High School,
Vijayawada. He perused the records pertaining to the above schools and also records of Bethany High School, Bhimavaram and Lutheran High
School, Agarthipalem of West Godavari District. Thereafter the then District
Educational Officer, Krishna/L.W.1 as per the proceedings issued PW.20, lodged a complaint before Additional Director General of Police, CID, A.P. on 12.5.2005, who endorsed the same to Senior Executive Officer, CID/L.W.24, 9 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA who in turn registered case in Cr.No.8/2005 under Sections 465, 468, 420, 406 and 120-B IPC of CID P.S. on 12.5.2005 at 17.00 hours and further investigation was handed over to P.W.18
8.The then Deputy Superintend of Police CID who was examined as
P.W.18/T.Radha Krishna deposed that he received Ex.P27/FIR in
Cr.No.8/2005 of CID P.S, Hyderabad registered by LW.24/Y.Sudhakar the then Senior Executive Officer, CID, Hyderabad as per the proceedings issued by Additional DGP, CID, Hyderabad. He examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 and some other witnesses and on 26.05.2005 forwarded the tempered GO along with fake government memos to Forensic
Science Laboratory, Hyderabad along with admitted and questioned signatures and initials of Section Officer and Assistant Section Officer to
Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter of advice dt.26.05.2005.
Subsequently, he received the opinion Scientific of Assistant FSL/PW.16 vide report in FSL.No.DOC/202/2005, dt.09.06.2005 under Ex.P24 opining that the forgery of the said signatures and initials were executed through scanner, computer and printer. During the course of further investigation he forwarded the paying slips and signatures of accused No.2 to FSL vide common letter of advice dt.26.04.2005 in all the 4 crimes under Ex.P59.
9.On 25.05.2005 he interrogated accused No.1 and recorded his confession statement in presence of mediators/PW.14 and PW.15, in pursuance of his further confession proceeded to house of Accused no.1 situated at Labbipet, Vijayawada, seized fake government memos and other documents under the cover of mediator report./ExP.54 On 24.05.2005 he arrested Accused no.2 and recorded his confession statement in presence of mediators/PW.14 and PW.15, In pursuance confession of accused no.2 , proceeded to his house i.e., Sri Sai Nivas Apartment, Vijayawada and seized fake government memos and other documents along with original counter foils and pay slips under the cover of mediator report on 25.05.2005. On the same day they conducted search at Sri Graphics of Accused no.2 situated at
Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada and seized hard disc from the computer available in his shop with the assistance of M.V.Lakshmanrao hardware mechanic 10 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA vide separate mediator report and arrested Accused no.3. At around 01.00 p.m proceeded to Gujarathi Vidyalayam situated at R.R.Pet along with accused No.2 and mediators and seized one computer from the computer room which was situated in the first floor of the building in presence of mediators vide separate seizure report. Subsequently obtained the police custody of accused No.2 and proceeded to Sujana Xerox situated at Lakdi
Kapool, Hyderabad and a seized hard disc from the CPU of computer present in Sujana Xerox in presence of mediators vide mediator report marked under Ex.P.50. There after handed over further investigation to
PW.16.
10.P.W.19 stated that on 29.07.2005 he took up investigation in this crime from his predecessor/PW.15 and on the same day forwarded Ex.P39 a common letter of advice to FSL, Hyderabad requesting for extraction of data from 4 hard discs seized by PW.18 in connection with Cr.No.83/2005 of
Chilakalapudi P.S and Cr.No.5/2005, 7/2005 and 8/2005 of CID P.S,
Hyderabad. He also received common FSL report vide Doc.No.248/2005, dt.29.07.2005 marked asExP.25from PW.17/FSL hand writing expert.
During the course his investigation,he examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses and on 10.10.2005 received common FSL report in Doc.No.COM/59/2005, dt.08.10.2005 marked as Ex.P62 pertaining to extraction of data from 4 hard discs.
11.P.W.21 the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, RCIU,
Vijayawada deposed that on 17.04.2007 he was entrusted with the investigation in Cr.No.08/2005 of CID P.S as per the proceedings issued by
Addl.DG, CID, A.P, Hyderabad. As per the C.D file his predecessor PW.19 already forwarded Final Appreciation Report along with draft charge sheet to
DG, CID, A.P, Hyderabad. After approval of the draft charge sheet by DG,
CID, A.P and obtaining sanctioned proceedings against accused no.4 and 5 under Exs.P41 and P.42 from competent authority he filed charge sheet. In the backdrop of the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses the Point no.1 to 4 are discussed as follows; 11 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
POINT No.1:
12. The accused no.4 worked as Assistant Secretary and accused no.5 worked as Assistant Section Officer, Education (PS-2), A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad during relevant period and by virtue of the post held by them, falls under category of public servant under Section 2 (c) of P.C Act. As per the provisions of Section 19 of the P.C. Act, valid sanction by the competent authority is the prerequisite to launch prosecution against them. In order to prove the validity of sanction orders issued against the accused no.4 and 5 prosecution relied on Ex.P41 and Ex.P42. The perusal of Ex.P41 and P42 discloses that the competent authority i.e., Chief Secretary and Secretary to the Government respectively after perusal of all the material on record forwarded by the CID, on application of the mind, has considered that the accused no.4 and 5 should be prosecuted for the offences alleged against them and issued sanction proceedings accordingly as required under
Section 19 of P.C.Act. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of
P.W.21 or from the contents of Ex.P41 and P42 interfering with the competency of issuing authority or the grounds thereto. The point no.1 is accordingly answered.
Point no.2 to 4:
13. The case of the prosecution is that the Management of St.Anthony RCM
High School appointed seven Teaching a wherein all the posts are admitted to grant in aid and were vacant due to retirements. The the school correspondent made representation the DEO Krishna for approval, but no action was initiated. PW.1 to PW.6 and others approached accused no.1 and requested him to get approval orders for the posts already appointed by the Management. On that accused no.1 demanded Rs.25,000/- from each candidate to get approval orders. On the advice Deputy Secretary Smt
Vilasini to accused no.2 , accused no 1 fabricated the List of Employment
Exchange, Resolution passed by Staff Selection Committee and DEO letter and forged the signatures of Employment officer, Sister Sybil and the DEO
Krishna. It is further contended that on the directions of accused no.1, 12 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA accused no.2 colluded with one Vilasini working as Deputy Secretary, accused no.4 and 5 who were working in Secretariat and tampered the contents of Go RT no.65 issued by the Government and also prepared fake
Government memo No.15029/PS-3/2003-1 Dt.05-2-2005 and Government memo No.2994 /PS-2/2004-1 Dt.23-12-2004 Srujana GraphicsHyderabad and got typed GO and Government memos and copied the same in a
Floppy. Thereafter accused no.2 met accused no.3 who was the proprietor of
Sri Graphics, Vijayawada and with his assistance took the print out of tempered GO and memos from the Floppy and scanned the signatures of
Seetharam and initials of accused no.5. It is further contended that accused no.1 and 2 handed over fake memo to DEO Krishna District When the officials identified the GO and memos as fake a report was lodged with CID as to which the criminal law was set into motion
14.The initial allegation against the accused is that accused no.1 cheated
P.Ws.1 to 6 and others by fraudulently inducing them to deliver cash of
Rs.25,000/- each for getting approval from the Government to their appointments made by Management of St.Antony RCM Elementary School,
Vijayawada. On this aspect, P.W.1/P.Bhagya Mary deposed that she has been working as Teacher, St.Antony RCM Elementary school, Vijayawada since 2001 and secured Secondary Grade Teacher job after attending necessary tests and after 2 or 3 years all the unaided teachers approached accused no.1 and requested them to get their post approval and he agreed for the same. In the year 2004 he came to know through News that fake appointment orders for Teachers were issued. They approached the court in the year 2005 and subsequently their services are regularized.
P.W.2/Chintala Janaki also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1.
P.W.3/K.Bhagya Rani deposed that she is also working as Teacher in
St.Antony school since 2001 and she was selected as Secondary Grade
Teacher in their school after attending necessary examination and that their post was not regularized for 2 or 3 years and that they approached accused no.1 who was working as Secretary, PRASMA. She further deposed that in the year 2001 they were informed that their posts were approved. However, 13 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA this school authorities asked them not to draw the salaries as the G.O issued approving their posts is fake and on that they approached the court and that their services were regularized subsequently in the year 2011.
P.W.4/Cherukuri Indira, P.W.5/Ch.Kusuma, P.W.6/Peram Anitha also deposed in the similar manner as that of P.W.3.
15.The entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 no where disclose that accused no.1 deceitfully induced them to give Rs.25,000/- each to him promising to get their posts regularized, There is neither the element of fraudulent intention or deception alleged against accused no.1 as required under
Section 420 IPC.
16.In the same aspect, the prosecution tend to prove that some amounts illegally collected were distributed among the accused. It is alleged that
Accused no.2 took DD for Rs.25,000/- in the name of Smt. K.V.Vilasini on 10-10-2005 and as she refused to take DD, accused no.2 cancelled the DD at SBH, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada and paid Rs.25,000/- to her. It is further contended that Accused no.2 paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30000/- through DDs to accused no.4 taken from SBH, Governorpet Branch,
Vijayawada and also deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 17-1-05, Rs. 10,000/- on 10- 2-2005 and Rs.10,000/- on 29-3-2005 in account No.0001190035348 of accused no.4 in SBH, Secretariat Branch, Hyderabad as advised by accused no.4. Accused no.2 also paid Rs.20,000/- to accused no.5 through
DD 643169 dt 10.01.2005. Accused no1 and 2 shared the remaining amount among them.
17. On this aspect the prosecution placed the reliance on the evidence of
P.Ws.7, 11 and 12. P.W.7 the then Chief Manager, Andhra Bank,
Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada deposed that in the year 2005 on the request of CID officials he furnished statement of account marked under pertaining to A/c No.ABG/351 standing in the name of accused no.2 for the period from 1.4.2003 to 23.5.2005. The certified copy of which was marked as EX.P44 P.W.11 the then Chief Manager, SBH, Governorpet, deposed that in the month of May, 2005 on the request of CID officials, he furnished 14 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA details pertaining to 4 Drafts issued on behalf of accused no.2 in the name of
Murthy (accused no.5), Sanjeeva Rao and Vilasini. The certified copies of set of 4 vouchers cum draft applications submitted to the bank on 5.1.2005, 10.1.2005 is marked as Ex.P11. Certified copy of letter dt.27.1.2005 requesting for cancellation of DD Dt.10.1.2005 issued in the name of Vilasini along with canceled DD bearing No.643170 was marked as Ex.P12 and certified copy pertaining to 3 credit vouchers dt.17.1.2005, 10.2.2005 and 29.3.2005 respectively for Rs.10,000/- each was marked as Ex.P13. The evidence of P.W.11 is that the total amount of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.P13 was credited to the Savings account of P.Narasinga Rao (accused no.4) on the respective dates.
18.Similarly the evidence of P.W.12 the Assistant Manager, SBH,
Secretariat Branch, Hyderabad is that in the year 2007 on the request of
CBI officials he furnished statement of Account and connected documents pertaining to bank account of accused no.4. The attested copy of counter foils dt.17.1.2005, 10.2.2005 and 29.3.2005 for Rs.10,000/- in the name of accused no.4 was marked as Ex.P14. P.W.12 further stated that as per contents of Ex.P14 on three occasions an amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited to the account bearing No.01190035348 standing in the name of accused no.4.
19.Firstly, with regard to Exs.P11, P12 and 13 the prosecution attempted to prove that the above transactions were made by accused no.2 in favour of
Vilasini and accused no.4. On this aspect, the prosecution further relied on the evidence of P.W.17/ K.Vani Prasad /Hand Writing Expert who deposed that on 19.7.2005 their Department received a case from DSP, CID,
Vijayawada along with following documents for examination and opinion.
1) four DD applications forms containing questioned signatures and writings marked under Q1 to Q8 and Q24 to Q27.
2) 2 paying slips containing questioned signatures and writings marked under Q9 to Q11 and Q21 to Q23.
3) one loan pay slip containing questioned signatures and writings marked under Q10 and Q22.
15 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
4) one letter containing questioned signatures and writings marked under Q12, Q13 and Q28
5) 7 counter foils of DD application forms containing writings marked under Q14 to Q20
6) Standard signatures and writings on 3 letters marked under S1 to S3, on 4 pay slips marked under S4 to S11 and on 15 sheets marked S12 to S28.
20. P.W.17 stated that after careful examination of the documents, he opined that the person who wrote red enclosed signatures and writings marked under S1 to S28 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures marked under Q1 to Q28. He accordingly furnished his opinion with reasons vide file no.DOC 248/2005 dt.29.7.2005 the certified copy of which marked under Ex.P25. The contention of the learned counsel for accused is that there is no authentication for the questioned and standard signatures and writings forwarded to P.W.17.
21.Evidently the prosecution did not confront P.W.17 with the documents containing the questioned or standard signatures, except marking the certified copies of pay slips, vouchers and counter foils as Exs.P11, 12, 13 and 14. No documents were elicited pertaining to the standard signatures of accused no.2. Even considering the testimony of P.W.17 as true for arguments sake the prosecution must establish the source of the amount transacted is illegal.
22. The prosecution from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 failed to prove that the amount which was transacted to Vilasini, and accused no.4 by accused no.2 was collected from P.Ws.1 to 6. There is no proof to believe that the transaction under Ex.P11 to P13 as well as Ex.P14 are the amounts collected illegally and distributed among the accused. Likewise prosecution also did not procure the statement of account of accused no.4 except marking the copy of counter foils under Ex.P14 and statement of accused no.2 marked under Ex.P44 which does not contain any incriminating transactions during the relevant period. Therefore it can be concluded that the prosecution evidently failed to prove the initial fact that the amounts were illegally collected from staff on the first instance. Secondly failed to substantiate the transactions under Ex.P.11 to 14 by adducing sufficient oral 16 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA and documentary evidence. Thirdly any ingredient of illegality in the transactions under Ex.P.11 to 14 even considering the transactions as true.
Therefore, the contention of prosecution about accused that they illegally procured the amounts from P.Ws.1 to 6 and others and distributed among themselves and one Vilasini does not stands the proof beyond reasonable doubt.
23.With regard to allegation of forgery and fabrication of fake documents by accused no.1 to 5;
i) It is contended that on the advice of Deputy Secretary K.Vilasini to accused no.2 to submit the list called by Employment Exchange, Report of
Selection Committee who selected the Teachers and letter of DEO, Krishna, disclosing that the Management duly followed the Selection procedure, accused no.1 prepared list of employment Exchange at Datta Graphics with the assistance of P.W.10/Pujyam Srikanth Padmanabha Kumar and himself forged the signature of employment officer. Accused no.1 got prepared Staff
Selection Committee letter and DEO letter with the assistance of
P.W.9/Mohammad Khaza, at L.P.T.C. Gujarathi Vidyalaya and forged the signature of Correspondent, Subject Expert and the signature of DEO,
Krishna District and handed over the same to accused no.4 and 5 through accused no.2 ii) It is also contended that accused no.1 to 5 further concocted a tampered and fake G.O.Rt.No.65 Dt.29.1.2005 at Srujana Graphics, Hyderabad and
Sri Graphics, Vijayawada scanning the signatures of Seetharam (SO) and initials of accused no.5 (ASO) and handed over to DEO, Krishna District for implementation.
iii) It is also contended that accused no.1 to 5 further concocted fake
Government Memo No.15029/PS (2)/2003-2 dt.5.2.2005 at Srujana
Graphics, Hyderabad and Sri Graphics, Vijayawada scanning the signatures of Seetharam (SO) and initials of accused no.5 (ASO) and handed over to
DEO, Krishna District for implementation.
17 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA iv) is also contended that accused no.1 to 5 further concocted a fake
Government Memo No.2994/PS (2) /2004-1 dt.23.12.2004 at Srujana
Graphics, Hyderabad and Sri Graphics, Vijayawada scanning the signatures of Seetharam (SO) and initials of accused no.5 (ASO) and handed over to
DEO, Krishna District for implementation.
24.Firstly with regard to questioned List of Employment Exchange, the prosecution examined P.W.10 who deposed that previously in the year 2005 he used to do DTP Works in the name and style “Datta Graphics”,
Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. During the course of his business he got acquainted with accused no.1. One day accused no.1 requested him to type a list of names pertaining to some employment issue and he refused the same. After 20 days at the request of accused no.1, he typed list of names and handed over the print out to him and thereafter he never saw accused no.1. Evidently except mentioning about acquaintance with accused no.1, and that he typed list of some employees, nothing was elicited in the evidence of P.W.10 to incriminate against accused no.1. Further the prosecution did not mark any document purported to be the questioned List of Employment Exchange. Similarly there is no evidence on record either oral or documentary that accused no.1 himself forged the signature of
Employment Officer.
25. With regard to Staff Selection Commission Letter, and DEO Letter purported to have been forged by accused no.1, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.9/Mohammad Khaja who worked as computer operator in
LPCT Gujarathi Vidyalaya. The evidence of P.W.9 is that he has been working in LPTC Gujarathi Vidyalaya as Junior Assistant and during the relevant period worked as Record Assistant in the above institution and that he was acquainted with accused no.1 who is the School Correspondent during that period.
26P.W.9 further submitted that there is a computer institution with approximately 10 computers in their school, when he joined as Record
Assistant and that the in the year 2004 accused no.1 handed over the 18 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA proposals for appointment of Teachers and Resolution of Management pertaining to Luthern High School, Bhimavaram and St.Antony RCM High
School, Vijayawada and asked him to type. After typing the proposals and
Resolution he handed over the same to accused no.1. According to him
Ex.P8 letter dt.26.11.2004 addressed by DEO, Krishna, Machilipatnam to
Principal Secretary, School Education and Ex.P9 Resolution of Staff
Selection Commission Dt.31.7.2001 shown to him were typed by him using their school computer on the instructions of accused no.1.
27. He further stated that in the month of April, 2005 he came to know through news papers that accused no.1 forged the signatures of DEO on the proposals for approval of appointment of Teachers pertaining to the above mentioned schools and that the approval of appointment of teachers in the above schools as well as Bishop Hazaraiah High School, Vijayawada were based on fake G.O. With regard to aspect of forgery he deposed that he stated to CID Officials that accused no.1 forged the signature of Sister
Sybil and signature of DEO on Exs.P8 and P9 respectively.
28. The contention of the accused is that the version of P.W.9 is without any basis and there is no proof adduced by the prosecution pertaining to the alleged forgery and that of P.W.9 is deposing false due to fear of CID officers and due to differences with the accused no.1 and school Management who repeatedly admonished him for his misconduct. As seen from the contents of
Ex.P9 it is only a photostat copy of the Resolution of Staff Selection
Committee dt.31.7.2001 purported to have been containing the signatures of 1 to 5 committee members wherein Sister Sybil is shown as Se.No.3. The above document was not confronted to any witness to elicit from where it was seized. The mediator report marked under Ex.P54 pertaining to the seizure of list of documents from the house of accused no.1 also does not disclose the particulars of Ex.P9.
29.Though this document appears to have been forwarded to FSL for comparison, the Expert Report received from the FSL was not filed along with the charge sheet. Prosecution did not adduce any oral or documentary 19 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA evidence to show that the specimen or admitted signatures of Sister Sybil were collected and compared with the questioned signature on Ex.P9.
Similarly the prosecution is completely silent where the original document containing the purported forged signature of Sister Sybil was existing. The version of P.W.9 that he typed the content does not itself incriminate against accused no.1, unless the prosecution sufficiently proved that the document was forged by accused no.1 which bears the signature of other Committee members and the same was handed over to accused no.4 and 5 and
Vilasini. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that accused no.1 forged the signature of Sister Sybil on Ex.P9 does not stands any merits.
30. With regard to Ex.P8 also the evidence of P.W.9 is that he typed the purported content. However, Ex.P8 appears to be an official document containing the attested signature of Administrative Officer with date.
Evidently there is no signature of the DEO, Krishna, on Ex.P8. Therefore, in absence of any oral or documentary evidence it cannot be concluded that the original of Ex.P8 is forged with the signature of DEO and handed over to accused no.4, 5 and Vilasini.
31.Moving further, the next contention of the prosecution is that accused no.1 to 5 in pursuance of their conspiracy with Smt.Vilasini, Deputy
Secretary concocted G.O.Rt.No.65 and two Government memos. It is contended that accused no.2 obtained the draft of G.O.Rt.No.65 and tampered its contents as well as got prepared Government memo no.15029/PS-2/2003 2, dt.5.2.2005 and Government Memo No.2994/PS- 2/2004-1, dt.23.12.2004 at Srujana Graphics, Hyderabad with the assistance of P.W.13 downloaded the same in a Floppy and at Sri Graphics,
Vijayawada of accused no.2 the printouts of the same were obtained and scanned the signatures of Seetharam/Section Officer and accused no.5/
Assistant Section Officer obtained from the Secretariat through accused no.4. On this aspect the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of
P.Ws.13 and 8.
20 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
32.Mohammad Ibrahim/P.W.13 deposed that he is resident of Hyderabad and presently working as Private computer operator. Previously during the period 2004 to 2005 he worked as private computer operator in DTP Center by name Srujana Graphics, maintained by one Krishhna Mohan. He further deposed that he used to type running matter for the customers at the rate
Rs.10 to 15/- per page. In the year 2005 when questioned by CID officers he stated before them that he typed some matter pertaining to Government GO at the request of a person by name Satyanarayana. However, when questioned about identity he stated that he cannot identify the said
Satyanarayana who came to him.
33.Though the prosecution cross-examined P.W.13 and got marked his earlier statements before police as Ex.P15 nothing was elicited on record that P.W.13 has typed some running matter pertaining to questioned
G.O.Rt.No.65 and Government Memo No.15029/PS-2/2003-2, dt.5.2.2005 and Government Memo No.2994/PS-2/2004-1, dt.23.12.2004 marked under
Exs.P34, 35, 36 respectively. The prosecution did not attempt to confront the contents of Exs.P34 to 36 to P.W.13 and elicit whether its contents were typed by him at the instance of one Satyanarayana. Accordingly the evidence of P.W.22 failed to aid the prosecution with regard to the identity of accused no.2 as well as corroborating the documentary contents of Exs. 34 to 36.
34. In the same aspect, the prosecution relied upon the relevant portion of mediator report marked under Ex.P23 dt.28.5.2005 prepared at Srujana
Graphics, Hyderabad pertaining to extraction of Samsung Hard disc bearing
Model No.SV 40 12 H. Evidently as per the testimony of P.W.14/J.Nagendra
Rao who acted as mediator on 28.5.2005 he along with one Anjaneyulu acted as mediator for seizure of above Hard disc by the CID officials from the computer present in Srujana Graphics with the help P.W.13. However
P.W.13 denied that he was present at the time of extracting Hard disc from the computer at Srujana Graphics. Accordingly the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of any hard disc seized from Srujana Graphics on 28.5.2005 in the presence of mediators. Even as per contents of Ex.P62 21 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Expert opinion there is no incriminating material found in item no.4 i.e., Hard disc bearing No.SV 4012 H. Therefore, the entire oral and documentary evidence on record do not disclose any traces of preparation of Ex.P34 to 36 at Srujana Graphics, Hyderabad.
35.Moving further, the prosecution further contended that subsequently after downloading the tampered G.O. and fake memos prepared at Srujana
Graphics, accused no.2 copied the same in a Floppy and brought the same to Sri Graphics at Vijayawada. There with the help of accused no.3, got printed tampered G.O and fake Government memos and scanned the signatures of Seetharam and initials of accused no.5. On this aspect, P.W.8 deposed that he is resident of Vijayawada and during the period from 2003 to 2005 he along with accused no.3 used to run DTP Center at Gandhi
Nagar, Vijayawada and accused no.3 used to look after the DTP and computer works and he used to look after the STD Booth in the DTP center and that he was also acquainted with accused no.2. P.W.8 stated that in the year 2004 accused no.2 came to accused no.3 and took some print outs as to the materials in a Floppy in their DTP Center and at that time, accused no.2 was accompanied with another person and during the investigation of this case, he came to know that said person is accused no.1 through CID.
36.P.W.8 further stated that he came to know during the discussion among the accused that the above printouts were pertaining to some
Government orders and accused no.2 paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to accused no.3 for obtaining printouts and subsequently he came to know that some fraud has taken place pertaining to teacher posts through news papers. As P.W.8 resiled from the version of prosecution, he was cross- examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor wherein he admitted that during the discussion between accused no.2 and 3, accused no.2 stated that he got prepared the GO at Srujana DTP, Hyderabad and that he will give
Rs.10,000/- to accused no.3 if he make modifications to GO as directed by him and scan the signature of Secretariat staff. However, he denied that he stated before the CID officials as under Ex.P7 and that the conversation he admitted in the cross-examination is only over heard by him.
22 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
37.Evidently the evidence of P.W.8 do not disclose what is the content of the Government GO and memos dealt by him ,whether the same pertains to
Ex.P34 to 36 or at least and the same pertains to regularization of appointments of Staff of St.Antony RCM Elementary and High school,
Vijayawada. However, the part of evidence of P.W.8 to the extent that some print outs of government orders were taken at Sri Graphics can be taken into consideration with corroborated other evidence on record.
38.In this context the prosecution again relied upon the seizure of computer and corresponding Hard disc from Sri Graphics, Vijayawada and the Expert opinion rendered by P.W.16/V.Muralidhar under Ex.P24 as well as
L.W.22 in Ex.P62. On this aspect, P.W.14 one of the mediator deposed that at the request of CID officials he along with P.W.15 on 25.5.2005 acted as mediators for computer and its accessories in Sri Graphics, Vijayawada based on the confession of accused no.2. However, the said mediator report pertaining to seizure of computer at Sri Graphics was not marked as exhibit on record. In spite of the same the prosecution tend to prove its case placing reliance on ExP.49/Mediator Report and Ex.P.62/FSL Report which was marked through Investigating Officer/PW.19.
39.It is pertinent that according to the contents of seizure report marked under Ex.P49 marked through P.W.21/ Investigating Officer a Samsung company Hard disc bearing No.0382JIFR932621 was extracted from the computer purported to have been seized from Sri Graphics for which there is no proof. The corresponding Hard disc was shown as item No.2 in
Ex.P62/FSL Report and the same contains a file for pertaining to item
No.8,9 and 10 i.e questioned G.O.Rt.No.65 and Government Memos
No.2994/PS-2/2004-1 and No.15029/PS (2)/2003-2. However prosecution is completely silent from whose custody, when and where the questioned GO, and memos sent to FSL were seized. Likewise prosecution also failed to examine the forensic expert who issued ExP.62.
40 However to connect this aspect the prosecution further relied on the evidence of P.W.16/V.Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, Expert in Forensic 23 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Document Examination. According to him on 27.5.2005 their office received a requisition from CID, RCIU, Vijayawada for examination of some documents. Two memo sheets and one G.O. sheet containing questioned signatures and initials marked by him under Q9 to Q11, Q12 to Q14. He also received the standard signatures of M.R.Shakeer marked under S14/1 to
S14/3 and initials of K.S.V.R.K. Murthy marked under S10/5 and S10/6 in 4 sheets. On examination, of the documents he gave opinion that:
1. Red enclosed signature marked as Q9 to Q11 are forged and executed through Scanner, Computer and printer by using genuine signature.
2. Red enclosed initials marked as Q12 to Q14 are forged and executed through Scanner, Computer and printer by using genuine initial.
41.Accordingly he gave his opinion in file no. DOC/202/2005 dt.9.6.2005 under Ex.P24. Evidently Exs.P34 to P36 i.e. questioned G.O. and memos does not elicit the marking of any “Q” series which according to P.W.16 were executed through Scanner, computer and Printer by using the genuine signature. More specifically the questioned signatures sent to PW.16 are that of MR. Shakeer Section officer and not Section Officer Seetharam whose signatures were alleged to have scanned on the tampered GO and memos.
Further the prosecution did not elicit the source Exs.P34 to P36 which contains the official signatures and hand writings staff of DEO office.
Similarly these documents were not confronted to any of the witnesses except marking the same through the Investigating Officer. The prosecution ought to have examined the appropriate staff or officers of the Secretariat,
School Education Department or DEO office to elicit whether Exs.P34 to 36 were issued and processed by their respective Departments. There is no material connecting the contention of the prosecution that Exs.P34 to P36 were handed over by accused no.1 in the office of DEO and the same was seized by the Investigating Officer from the office of DEO. Similarly there is no material on record to show that from where Exs.P34 to P36 were collected by the Investigating Officer.
24 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
42. In cases where the prosecution tend to rely completely on documentary and electronic/ digital evidence followed by the expert evidence the same should be in accordance with the law with sufficient proof of chain of custody of the documents and device. The significance of maintaining chain of custody establish the integrity and reliability of evidence which is the foundation for proof of fact in issue. In spite of the fact that there is no document to show the seizure of any computer on 25.5.2005 at Sri Graphics, as per the evidence of PW.18 it is not the computer but the hard disk that has been seized from the Sri Graphics with the assistance
LW.17 which is contrary to contents of seizure report/ExP.49 pertaining to extraction of hard discs dt.26.05.2005. Further as per evidence of PW.19 till 29.07.2004 these hard disks were not forwarded to FSL. Lastly as per section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act the grounds on which an expert opinion is based places utmost relevancy and examination of expert who rendered opinion along with an opportunity to accused to contradict it provides a comprehensive basis for evaluating the merits of Expert opinion.
In this case the contents of EXP.62 which has been marked through PW.19 fails such credibility. Therefore it can not be concluded from above evidence on record that Exs.P34 to 36 are tampered and fake, and that the same were prepared at Srujana Graphics, Hyderabad and the print outs of the same were obtained at Sri Graphics, Vijayawada and handed over to DEO office by accused no.1 for further course.
43. The case of the prosecution in toto suffers inherent latches, in the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record rendering the chain of circumstance into broken pieces which fails to convince the court that the accused no.1 to 5 has committed offences charged against them. Therefore in view of above discussion, this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove charge for offence under section 420 IPC against accused no.1; charges for offences under Sections 406, 465, 468 and 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5 and Section 420, 406, 465, 468 r/w 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5, Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) P.C.Act r/w 34 IPC against accused no.4 and 5 and charge for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 25 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act against accused no.4 and 5, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused no.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the charges framed against them and are accordingly entitled for acquittal.
44.POINT NO. 5: In the result,
i) the accused no.1 is found not guilty of the charges under Section 420 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
ii) the accused no.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the charges under
Sections 406, 465, 468 and 120-B IPC and 420, 406, 465, 468 r/w 120-B IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.
iii) the accused no.4 and 5 are found not guilty of the charge under
Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) P.C.Act r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under
Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.
iv) the accused no.4 to 5 are found not guilty of the charges under
Sections Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
v) the existing bail bonds of the Accused 1 to 5 and the surety bonds, are cancelled and they are directed to execute a personal bond for
Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for the like sum as per Sec.437-A of
Cr.P.C., for their due appearance before the Appellate Court, in case, if any Appeal is preferred by the prosecution against this Judgment.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16th day of April, 2025.
Sd/-B.S.V.Himabindu
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES,
VIJAYAWADA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:
PW.1P.Bhagya Mery
PW.2Ch.Janaki
PW.3K.Bhagya Rani 26 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
PW.4Ch.Indira
PW.5Ch.Kusuma
PW.6P.Anitha
PW.7V.M.Pardha Saradhi
PW.8N.Vishnuvardan Rao
PW.9Md.Khaja
PW.10P.S.Padmanabha Kumar
PW.11K.V.Rama Krishna Rao
PW.12B.Krishna Rao
PW.13Md.Ibrahim
PW.14J.Nagendra Rao
PW.15B.Sambasiva Rao
PW.16V.Muralidhar
PW.17K.Vani Prasada Rao
PW.18T.Radha Krishna
PW.19G.Madan Mohan
PW.20K.Rama Krishna
PW.21N.Prasad
DEFENCE: None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the Prosecution: Ex.P113.05.2005Underline portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1
Ex.P213.05.2005Underline portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2
Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3
Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4
Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5
Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6
Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8
Ex.P826.11.2004Letter 27 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Ex.P931.07.2001Resolution of Staff Selection Committee
Ex.P1026.01.2005Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10
Ex.P11Certified copies of credit vouchers (4 Nos.)
Ex.P12 27.1.2005Certified copies of letter
Ex.P13Certified copies of credit vouchers (3 Nos)
Ex.P143 counter foils dt.17.1.2005, 10.2.2005, 29.3.2005
Ex.P15Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.13
Ex.P1627.4.2005Attested copies of Mediators report at 10.00 a.m.
Ex.P1727.4.2005Attested copy of seizure report at 2 P.M. A.M.
Ex.P1830.4.2005Attested copy of Mediators report at 10.00 A.M.
Ex.P191.5.2005Attested copies of seizure report at 10.00 A.M.
Ex.P2024.5.2005Attested copies of Mediators report at 5.00 P.M.
Ex.P2125.5.2005 Seizure report at 2.00 P.M.
Ex.P2226.5.2005Attested copies of 3 seizure report at 11 A.M. 12 P.M. 1 pm
Ex.P23Certified copy of seizure report
Ex.P249.6.2008FSL report
Ex.P2529.7.2005Certified copy of FSL report
Ex.P2610.5.2005Report
Ex.P27Original FIR along with annexure 3 sheets
Ex.P28Letter addressed St.Antony High School
Ex.P295.9.2003Letter addressed by DEO to DEO
Ex.P3017.9.2003Representation along with letter
Ex.P315.8.2004Representation of accused no.1
Ex.P326.11.2004Memo no.17888/PS-2/2004
Ex.P3329.1.2005Note file pertaining to GO Rt.65 Education PS 2 Dept
Ex.P3429.1.2005Forged GO Rt 65 containing Q1 signature and initials
Ex.P35Memo No.15029/Ps-2/2003-2 containing Q1 signature and initials 28 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Ex.P3623.12.2004Memo No.2994-PS (2)/2004-1 containing Q1 signature and initials
Ex.P3726.5.2005Covering letter along with letter of advice
Ex.P3814.4.2005Copy of enquiry report along with covering letter
Ex.P3929.7.2005Letter of advice
Ex.P4014.4.2005Certified copy of enquiry report
Ex.P4125.4.2007GO Ms no.284 sanction order against accused no.4
Ex.P428.6.2006Sanction order against accused no.5
Ex.P435.7.2004Certified copy of letter of Correspondent, Bishop School
Ex.P44Certified copy of Andhra Bank statement of A/c of A2
Ex.P4510.1.2005Certified copy of set of 4 vouchers-cum- applications for issuance of Draft
Ex.P4627.1.2005Certified copy of letter addressed by accused no.4 for cancellation of DD
Ex.P4717.1.2005Certified copy of 3 sets of credit vouchers P.Narasimgarao
Ex.P4817.1.2005Certified copy of counter foils P.Narasinga rao
Ex.P4926.5.2005Certified copy of 3 seizure reports of hard discs
Ex.P5028.5.2005Certified copy of relevant part of mediator report at Srujana Graphics
Ex.P5127.4.2005Certified copy of relevant mediators report at 10 a.m
Ex.P5227.4.2005Certified copy of seizure report at 2 P.M. at Ganesh Traders
Ex.P5330.4.2005Certified copy of relevant part of mediator report at 10 A.M
Ex.P541.5.2005Certified copy of siezure report at 10 A.M. at Ganesh Kunj
Ex.P5524.5.2005Certified copy of relevant part of mediators report at 5 P.M.
Ex.P5629.7.2005Certified copy of FSL report
Ex.P5729.4.2005Certified copy of FSL opinion
Ex.P58–Certified copy of report of A.Satyanarayana reddy, DEO
Ex.P5926.4.2005Certified copy of letter of advice along with questionnaire 29 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Ex.P6018.3.2005Certified copy of memo no.3336/PS-2-2005
Ex.P61–Certified copy of original memo
Ex.P62--Copy of APFSL Report
For the Defense
Ex.D1: Letter of Gujarat vidyalaya
Ex.D2Attested copy of attendance sheet of May 2005
Ex.D3Xerox copy of attendance sheets for April and May 2005 of PW.14
MOs markedNil
Sd/-B.S.V.Himabindu
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES,
VIJAYAWADA.
//T.C.B.O.// 30 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
CALENDER & JUDGMENT
CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB
CASES-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAWADA
C.C.No.57/2007
(Cr.No.8/2005 of CID P.S., Hyderabad) Date of Offence: Prior to 13.04.2005
Date of FIR: 13.04.2005
Date of filing of Charge sheet: 17.07.2007
Date of framing of charges: 31.10.2017
Date of Commencement of evidence: 07.03.2023
Date of the judgment: 16.04.2025
Accused Details
Rank of accused: Accused no.1 to 5 : 1. Dharmendra Jesubai Patel, General Name of accused Secretary, PRASMA, S/o Jesubai Patel, 42 years, Vishnuvardhan Street, City Central Colony, Sri Ganesh Kunj, First Floor, Labbipet, Vijayawada.
2. Vallabhaneni Satyanarayana @ Satyanarayana @ Satya N.V., S/o Basaveswara Rao, 36 years, Craft Teacher in LPCT Gujarathi Vidyalaya, Vijayawada.
3. Motamarri Durga Vara Prasad, S/o Seetharam, 32 years, D.No.26-4-55, Udathavari Street, Gandhi Nagar, Prop. Sri Graphics, adjoining to Santhi Prasanthi Cine Theater, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.
4. P.Narasinga Rao, the then Assistant Secretary,Education(PS-2), AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad, presently Deputy Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad (under suspension)
5. K.V.S.R.K.Murthy, S/o K.V.Parameswara Rao,53 years, the then Assistant Section Officer, Education (PS-2), A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad (under Suspension), r/o Sector 1 B14, Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
31 C.C.No.57/2007 ACB Court, VJA
Date of arrest: 26.04.2005(Accused No.1) 17.05.2005 (Accused No.2, 3) 28.07.2205 (Accused No.4, 5)
Date of release on bail: 10.05.2005 (Accused No.1) 24.05.2005 (Accused No.2) 28.07.2205 (Accused No.4, 5) : under sections 420 against accused no.1, Offences charged with Sections 465, 468, 406, 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5 Section 465, 468, 406, 420 r/w 120-B IPC against accused no.1 to 5; Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) (ii) of P.C., Act, 1988 against accused no.4 and 5; and Sections 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act r/w 34 IPC against accused no.4 and 5.
Whether acquitted or convicted: Acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.
Sentence imposed: -- : -- Period of detention undergone during trial for purpose of Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY AND REMARKS:-
This case was taken on file on 29.09.2007. Accused appeared and re- ceived copies of documents on 19.11.2007. On 07.03.2023 evidence com- menced and PWs 1 to 34 are examined. Later Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 21.03.2025. The Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused submitted written arguments. At last detailed oral arguments heard on both sides on 03.04.2025 and Judgment is
pronounced on 16.04.2025. Hence the reasons for delay.
Sd/-B.S.V.Himabindu
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES
-CUM- III ADJ, VIJAYAWADA.
Copy submitted to
The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Copies to :
1. The Special Public Prosecutor, ACB Court, Vijayawada.
2. The DSP, CID, RCIU, Vijayawada.
//T.C.B.O.//