Sri. C.n.murthy
III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-ACB
Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam · Visakapatnam · Andhra Pradesh
SRI. C.N.MURTHY, III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-ACB, is posted at Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam, Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 149 court orders on record since 2023. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRL, CC, CRLMP cases.
Featured Judgments
1
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC- I Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Thursday, this the 1 st day of August, 2024
C.C.No.31/2014
RC.No.3(A)/2013-CBI/VSP
Between:
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, Visakhapatnam. .…Complainant And :
A1-Kodamanchali Rajendra Prasad, S/o K.Aserwadam (late), aged 43 years, the then Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.35-8-2/1, Varalaxmi Nivas, Railway Station Road, Tanuku, W.G.District. Permanent R/o D.No.13-156, Duvva Village, Tanuku, W.G.District.
A2-Illapu Satyanarayana, S/o I.Samba Murthy, aged 52 years, the then Postal Assistant, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.1-92, Carpenter Colony, Addategala Village and Mandal, W.G.District
A3-Posagadi Appalaswamy, S/o P.Neelakanteswara Rao, aged 24 years, the then Postal Assistant, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.8-121, Pasalapudu Village, Rayavaram Mandal, near Ramachandrapuram, W.G.District.
2
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
A4-Sunkavilli Veeraju, S/o S.Dorabbai, aged 35 years, the then Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) Packer, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.3-43/A, Pedarayavaram Village, Rangampeta Mandal, W.G.District.
…Accused
This case came on 29.07.2024 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri Vijay Kumar Dogra, learned Public Prosecutor
for the Complainant and of Sri M.V.Sudhakar, Advocate for A1 to
A3, and Sri B.V.Ravi Kumar, Y.V.Subba Reddy, Advocates for A4; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court doth the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, CBI/ ACB, Visakhapatnam fled a charge sheet against accused 1 to 4 in RC.No.3(A)/2013-CBI/VSP for the ofences under Sections 120-B, r/w 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (i) (c) and (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are that, A1-
Kodamanchali Rajendra Prasad joined at Sub Post Ofce, Yeleswaram in the month of January,2010 as Sub Post Master. A2- Illapu
Satyanarayana joined in the same Sub Post Ofce, Yeleswaram as
Postal Assistant and worked there from 24.05.2008 to 25.07.2012.
Similarly A3- Posagadi Appala Swamy joined in the same Post ofce as
Postal Assistant and worked there from 02.08.2011 to 21.10.2012. A4 3
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
– Sunkavilli Veerraju joined in the same Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram and worked there from 21.06.2001 to 31.10.2012 as Grameen Dak
Sevak (GDS) packer. It is averred that a scheme by name Mahila
Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) was introduced in post ofces where women alone are eligible to be agents. These agents were engaged for collecting Recurring Deposits in Post Ofce from the existing account holders and deposit the same in the Post Ofce.
Thereby the agents are eligible for a commission of 4% on the deposits made by them.
Investigation in this case revealed that all the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and misappropriated the Recurring
Deposit amounts deposited by MPKBY agents with their Sub Post ofce
Yeleswaram by cheating the Postal Department, MPKBY agents and also depositors of the Recurring Deposit accounts. In total all the accused misappropriated 153 number of accounts to a tune of
Rs.30,56,429/-. Basing on a written complaint lodged by PW1-
Sumanam Markendeya Surya Subrahmanyam Vara Prasad, the then
Superintendent of Post Ofce, Kakinada Division, the instant case was registered.
3.It is seen from the record that this Court took cognizance of the ofences under Section 120-B, r/w 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A4. Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were served on them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations made by the prosecution.
4
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
4.After hearing both sides and on consideration of material on record, charges U/Secs. 120-B, 409, 420, 471, r/w 468 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed by this Court against A1 to A4 and the same were read over and explained to them, for which they denied charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
It is seen from the record that though this Court took cognizance of the ofence under Sec.201 IPC, yet no charge is framed.
5.To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined 40 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.40 on it’s behalf and got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.419. Accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by stating the incriminating circumstances available against them, for which they denied the prosecution case and fled written statements. DW.1 was examined on behalf of accused and Ex.D1 is marked through PW.7.
6.Heard.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
7.PW.1 – Sumanam Markandeya Surya Subrahmanya Vara
Prasad, Superintendent of Post Ofces of Eluru Postal Division is the defacto complainant in this case. He deposed about introduction of
Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yogana (MPKBY) scheme and collection of deposits by authorised agents. PW.1 also deposed about the procedure for depositing amount into the account of depositors and the duties of Postal Assistants and Sub Post Master in this regard.
In the month of January, 2013 after he assumed charge as a
Superintendent of Post Ofces, Postal Division, Kakinada a fraud was detected at Sub Post Ofce, Yeleswaram relating to Recurring Deposit 5
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
amounts. A1 who worked as Sub Post Master, A2 and A3 who worked as Postal Assistants in the Yeleswaram Sub Post Ofce, were under suspension. PW.1 noticed the conspiracy of A4 with other accused in committing fraud at Yeleswaram Sub Post ofce. Likewise A4 worked as Grameen Dock Sevak Packer was also under suspension in connection with fraud at Sub Post Ofce, Yelaswaram. On the directions of the Post Master General, Visakhapatnam Region PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint on 27.03.2013. He also furnished Ex.P.2 list of 153 recurring deposit accounts to CBI. The postal institution sufered a loss of Rs.30,55,100/- due to the fraud committed by all the accused. Before lodging complaint PW.1 directed PW.2 Chikkala
Suryanarayana to conduct an enquiry regarding the fraud in the recurring deposits of Sub post ofce at Yelawaram. Accordingly PW.2 caused enquiry and submitted Ex.P.3 report.
8.PW.2 – Chikkala Suryanarayana, is a crucial witness in this case. He is the Assistant Superintendent of Post Ofce, Samalkot
Sub Division. He also worked as in charge for Peddapuram Sub
Division from 02.07.2012 to 20.06.2013. He also deposed about the introduction of Mahila Pradhan kshetriya Bachat Yogana (MPKBY) recurring deposit scheme and the procedure for opening accounts by the deposit holders and also about the concept of ASLAAS-5 and
ASLAAS-6. ASLAAS-5 cards are supplied to the deposit holders in which the agents after collecting the amounts will make an entry.
ASLAAS-6 is a list prepared by agents for the amounts collected by them from deposit holders. These are submitted to the Post Master or Sub Post Master. The Postal Assistants working in the Post Ofce 6
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
will verify the said ASLAAS-6 forms and pass books submitted by the agents and in turn place them before the Post Master, who will direct the Postal Assistants to make necessary entries in the pass books, ledgers and relevant accounts books.
PW.2 deposed that on the instructions of in-charge
Assistant Superintendent of Post Ofce, Kakinada Postal Division on 26.07.2012, he verifed the work done by A2 at Addateegala Sub
Post Ofce and also Sub Post Ofce, Yeleswaram prior to 2008, in connection with issuing of Kisan Vikas Patra to one
C.Daivasahayamma. The sum and substance of evidence of PW.2 is that he conducted enquiry on the directions of his superiors and prepared Ex.P.3 fnal report and submitted it to the Superintendent of Post Ofces. In the course of enquiry he also prepared Ex.P.16 preliminary report dated 11.10.2012. PW.2 also deposed in detail about verifying the records at Yeleswaram Post Ofce and role of accused in commission of alleged fraud. According to PW.2 all the accused committed fraud and misappropriated the deposit amounts. Further all the accused at the time of enquiry confessed about misappropriating the amounts. PW.2 identifed Ex.P.17 as the statements of A1 confessing the misappropriation of amounts. A1 paid Rs.13,50,000/- towards misappropriation. Similarly A2 paid
Rs.30,000/- towards misappropriation. Ex.P.18 is statement given by A2 in the course of enquiry.
9.PW.2 also deposed about relevant records such as ASLAAS- 6 lists and recurring deposit pass book from the MPKBY agents.
PW.2 compared and verifed these documents and found out 7
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
several variations which he deposed in detail. According to him in several transactions there are no entries in the list of transactions, daily accounts, ledger extracts pertaining to various depositors.
Apart from that ASLAAS-6 lists pertaining to these depositors were not submitted to Sub Post Ofce, Samalkot.
10.PW.2 deposed that all the accused had fraudulently taken loans without the knowledge of depositors from 19 recurring deposit accounts. PW.2 identifed the relevant withdrawal vouchers.
11.PW.3 – Cherukuri Srinivasu, the then Inspector of Post
Ofce corroborated the case of prosecution. He deposed that on the directions of Superintendent of Post Ofces, Kakinada Postal
Division he went to Addateegala Post Ofce and verifed the records in that Post ofce in connection with a complaint relating to Kisan
Vikas Patram of Daivasahayamma. PW.3 deposed responding to the notice issued by him, A2 appeared for enquiry and confessed that he altered the name of Daivasahayamma and inserted the name of one Pavan Kumar. Thereafter PW.3 prepared Ex.P.20 enquiry report and submitted to Superintendent of Post Ofces.
After its receipt the Superintendent of Post Ofces directed PW.2 to conduct enquiry into the work done by A2 previously at the Sub
Post Ofce of Addateegala and Yeleswaram. PW.3 accompanied
PW.2 to Addateegala and Yeleswaram for the purpose of enquiry.
PW.3 corroborated the version of Pws.1 and 2 with regard to preparation of ASLAAS-6 lists and their verifcation. PW.3 and others found diferences in the number of accounts and prepared
Ex.P.16 preliminary report and submitted to Superintendent of Post 8
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ofces, Kakinada. PW.3 stated that all the accused misappropriated the accounts in the recurring deposits. A4 has to attend ofce works only but he worked in a counter and also in Post
Ofce. A4 also received cash from agents and maintained accounts and records and further made entries in ASLAAS-6 lists and pass books with diferent signatures un-authorisedly.
PW.3 summarised the case of prosecution stating that the amounts remitted by the agents pertaining towards recurring deposits were not credited into the postal accounts. The accused simply entered these amounts in ASLAAS-6 lists and postal pass books by afxing their signatures. Thus the actual amount was not remitted in the Post ofce accounts. All the accused confessed during the enquiry that they misappropriated the amounts. In addition PW.3 deposed that the accused had withdrawn amounts from 19 accounts in the form of sanctioning of loans without the knowledge of depositors and thereby misappropriated. All the accused used to take alcohol in quarters adjacent to the Post ofce during ofce hours. At that time A4 alone used to attend transactions in the counter.
PW.3 also identifed the hand writing and signatures and initials of all the accused as they worked under him. He identifed their signatures in several documents. PW.3 deposed about the procedure for withdrawal of amount from the Post ofce. He identifed various withdrawal forms that were verifed by A2 and passed by A1.
9
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
EVIDENCE OF AGENTS :
12.The prosecution also examined the MPKBY agents in support of its case. PW.4 to PW.11 and PW.12 (who is husband of deceased agent Kotha Savithri Devi). The sum and substance of their evidence is that they were licensed to act as MPKBY agents and collected amounts from the account holders. Each agent joined several depositors in the scheme and collected amounts from them and remitted at the Post ofce. Most of the agents stated that the frst accused was the Sub-Post Master and second accused used to sit in the counter at Sub Post Ofce, Yeleswaram during the relevant time. On some occasions the fourth accused also used to sit in the counter to whom the agents remitted recurring deposit amounts.
They also deposed that in the course of enquiry PW.2 enquired them about the remittance of accounts into the Post ofce. Almost all the agents stated about the presence of accused including A4 at the Post Ofce and that on some occasions A4 also received cash.
EVIDENCE OF DEPOSITORS :
13.The prosecution also examined the depositors PW.13 to
PW.25 and PW.39, who deposed that in the course of a fraud enquiry the postal ofcials came and enquired them and showed certain withdrawal forms. All these depositors denied their signatures on the withdrawal forms. Their money was deposited into Post Ofce through their agents. Subsequently CBI ofcials had taken their specimen signatures and hand writings.
The prosecution also examined some more depositors
PW.26 to PW.33. They deposed that they came to know from Postal 10
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Department that there was a fraud committed with regard to their recurring deposit accounts amount. They attended an enquiry at
Yeleswaram Sub Post Ofce. Subsequently, the Postal Department had paid the whole amount to them with regard to their recurring deposit accounts.
SANCTION:
14.PW.37 - S.Prakasa Rao, the then Inspector of Posts,
Peddapuram Sub division deposed that after perusing copies of FIR, copies of pass books and ASLAAS cards, statements of witnesses and S.P.Report he issued Ex.412 sanction order to prosecute A4.
PW.37 also identifed the signatures of late Mohammed
Ajmatullah, the then Superintendent of Post Ofces, Kakinada
Division. It appears late Mohammed Ajmatullah issued sanction order dated 11.04.2014 (LD-222) to prosecute A1 to A3. According to PW.37, being the Superintendent of Post Ofces late Mohammed
Ajmatullah is competent to remove a Sub-Post Master and Postal
Assistant as per Postal Manual Volume- III of Schedule I(A) Part-IV
General Central Services, Group-C r/w. Rule – 11 of C.C.S., C.C.A.,
Rules 1965.
EXPERT EVIDENCE :
15.PW.38 - P.Venu Gopala Rao is the Hand Writing Expert, who gave his opinion Ex.P.413 after comparing the signatures of the accused and the depositors. On analysis PW.38 opined as follows:
Ex.P.407 i.e., S.82 to S.162 that belongs to A1
Ex.P.406 is S.163 to S.243 that belongs to A2 11
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.408 is the specimen hand writing and signatures S.244 to
S.323 that belongs to A3.
As seen from the record most of the specimen hand writings and signatures of A1 to A3 pertains to withdrawal forms of various dates. With regard to A3 only one withdrawal form is considered.
EVIDENCE OF MEDIATORS :
16.PW.34 – M.Ramu, the then AGM, IDBI Bank, Visakhapatnam deposed that he was deputed to attend the CBI ofce on 25.01.2014. On that day the CBI obtained specimen hand writings of A1 to A4 on some sheets. The accused signed in his presence on all the respective sheets.
17.PW.35 – A.Paleti , the then Inspector of Posts, Kakinada deposed that on the instructions of his department he acted as a witness in this case to assist CBI ofcials on 22.01.2014. He went to
Post Ofce at Prattipadu where in his presence the writings of 12 depositors were taken on diferent sheets. On 18.02.2014 the hand writings of some more persons namely K.Rama Murthy, K.Venkata
Rao and P.N.Y.Narayana were taken. On 19.02.2014 the specimen hand writing of U.Bangaru Subhadra was taken at her residence at
Ambajipet.
18.PW.36 – M.Vasu Kumar, the then Assistant Manager in IDBI
Bank, Visakhapatnam deposed that on the directions of his superior ofcers he attended CBI ofce in the month of March, 2014. In his presence the hand writings of a male person of PW.25 I.Vivek were taken on some sheets.
12
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
INVESTIGATING OFFICER :
19.PW.40 – D.Vasu Krishna, the then Inspector of Police, CBI,
Visakhapatnam who is the Investigating Ofcer deposed about conducting investigation in this case. He identifed Ex. P.414 as the original FIR that was registered at the instance of PW.1
S.M.S.S.V.Prasad, Superintendent of Post Ofces, Kakinada Division on 28.03.2013. After obtaining search warrants from this Court, he conducted searches in the residential premises of all the accused.
In the course of investigation he secured the presence of the agents and recorded their statements. He obtained copies of MPKBY schedules from PW.2. PW.4 is also deposed about recording the statements of depositors. After receiving sanction orders against accused and after completion of entire investigation he fled charge sheet.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
20.A1 to A3 got examined DW.1 T.Vinod Babu on their behalf, who deposed that husbands of women agents used to collect recurring deposit amounts, MIS amounts, time deposit amounts and MPKBY amounts from the customers on behalf of their wives. The husbands used to remit money so collected into Post
Ofce. DW.1 stated that ASLAAS-5 applications were never flled by agents.
ARGUMENTS :
21.Learned public prosecutor, learned counsel for A1 to A3 and learned counsel for A4 fled written arguments. Perused the 13
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
same.
22.Heard.
ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION:
23.Learned public prosecutor submitted that the Central
Government launched MPKBY scheme where only women agents are permitted to collect deposits and remit them in Post ofces. All the accused are postal ofcials. The prosecution adduced evidence to show that the agents PW.4 to PW.11 collected deposits and remitted them at the Yeleswaram Post ofce where A1 is sub Post Master, A2 and A3 are Postal Assistant, and A4 is the GDS Packer. The prosecution also examined the depositors PW.13 to PW.25 and PW.39 who testifed that they gave amounts to their respective agents.
Learned public prosecutor submitted that the accused caused entries in the recurring deposit passbooks and ASLAAS-6 forms but failed to account for it to their superiors. It was further argued that the accused screened the documents relating to receipt of amounts from the depositors/ agents and therefore the head ofce did not knew about this remittance of accounts to Yeleswaram Post Ofce. By abusing their ofcial position the accused misappropriated the public money to a tune of Rs.30,56,429/-. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the specimen signatures of the depositors as well as accused were taken and the hand writing expert gave his opinion in favour of the prosecution. Learned public prosecutor further elaborated that there is a clear fnding in Ex.P.413 expert report that the signatures on withdrawal forms does not belong to the depositors and on the contrary the signatures on withdrawal forms belonged to 14
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
the accused. Learned public prosecutor submitted that admittedly accused were discharging their duties during the relevant period and therefore it is for them the misappropriation. Learned public prosecutor argued that confessing their guilt A1 and A2 in the course of Departmental Enquiry paid back money to the Postal Department i.e., A1 paid Rs. 13,50,000/- and A2 paid Rs.30,000/-. The Postal
Department sustained a loss of Rs.30,56,429/- but the department paid this money to the genuine customers. It was argued that the prosecution is successful in establishing the ofences alleged including the ofences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
24.Learned public prosecutor relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions are as follows:
1. State of Kerala Vs. C.E.Mohammed Kutty, Inspector of … on 08th June, 1962 (1963 CRILJ360).
2. Shariful Islam Vs. State of U.P. on 26th October, 1972 (AIR 1973 SC 82).
3. Krishna Kumar Vs. The Union of India on 21st May, 1959 (AIR 1959 SC 1390).
4. Chattar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana on 26th August, 2008 (AIR 2009 SC 378).
5. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Shri Ram Singh on1st February, 2000 (AIR 2000 SC 870).
6. Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal on3rd September, 2002 (2002(7) SCC 334).
7. Baljor Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Another on 9th April, 2018 (AIR ONLINE 2018 ALL 711).
15
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
8. K.S.Paulraj Vs. The State Rep. By on 21st February, 2019, Madras High Court, Dated 21.02.2019.
ARGUMENTS OF A1 TO A3:
25.Learned counsel for A1 to A3 submitted that the prosecution did not collect ASLAAS-6 forms from the depositors. The prosecution did not mention the individual fgures of each accused. It was argued that the prosecution failed to show the exact amount misappropriated by each accused and instead gave clubbed fgures. Learned counsel submitted that ASLAAS-6 forms and recurring deposit pass books were not sent to FSL. With regard to sanction, it was argued that the signatures of sanctioning authority alone was marked which is an irregularity. Learned counsel also submitted that the ofcial who granted sanction to prosecute expired. Learned counsel argued that
Ex.P3 report submitted by PW.2 is not true and it contains references to post dated letters, viz., 15.07.2013 and 12.07.2013. The Postal
Department collected Rs.2,00,000/- each from some employees but they are not cited as witnesses. Further the evidence of agents PWs.4 to 11 also do not show to which accused they specifcally gave the money. These agents did not identify the signatures of accused.
With regard to A3 it was argued that he joined on 1.08.2011 and never worked at S.B Counter. Unless he passed an examination he cannot be assigned SB Counter clerk duties. His appointment was very new at the time of ofences. Learned counsel further submitted that even the agents could not identify the accused signature on the relevant documents as it is deposed by witnesses that they used to handover the pass books in the morning and collect them in the 16
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
evening. In the course of arguments it was also stated that the fraud was not discovered for 4 years as per the evidence of PW.3. Learned counsel also submitted that though inspections were carried out regularly, the fraud was not discovered.
26.Learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1. 1990 CriLJ 2790 of Honourable High Court of Orissa between Nirajan Khatua Vs. State of Orissa.
2. 2012 (6) SCC 403 of Honourable Supreme Court of India between Sahadevan & anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
3. 1997(1) ALT (Crl.) 719 of Honourable High Court of
Andhra Pradesh between Deputy Chief Controller of
Imports and Exports Vs. Boddula mallesam.
ARGUMENTS OF A4:
27.Learned counsel for A4 submitted that A4 is a GDS Packer and by virtue of his employment he is no way connected with the alleged ofences. It was argued that none of the witnesses stated anything against the A4 and the only allegation is that he was sitting in the counter. Learned counsel relied on the Ex.P.413 hand writing expert opinion. Even as per this report A4 did not play any role in the ofences alleged. Thus the role of A4 is ruled out. Learned counsel relied on cross examination of PW.4 in support of his submissions and stated that the witnesses could not identify the signatures of A4 on any of the documents. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the cross examination of investigating ofcer PW.40 who admitted that PW.38 hand writing expert did not making adverse 17
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
remarks against A4 in Ex.P.413 expert report. PW.40 Investigating ofcer further admitted that though he conducted searches in the house of A4, he did not fnd any incriminating material.
Learned counsel for A4 further submitted that in the cross examination PW.3 admitted that he did not see A4 personally writing anything and that he never addressed any letter personally to A4 in ofcial capacity. Learned counsel summarised the case of prosecution stating that it is based on three prime allegations viz., - i.A1 to A4 received amounts from the agents but did not make entries in ASLAAS-6 forms and made entries only in pass books.
ii.The above said ASLAAS-6 forms were destroyed by the accused.
Iii.The accused raised 19 recurring deposit loans without the knowledge of the depositors.
Learned counsel also submitted that though P.W3 was the inspecting ofcial from 2009 – 2012 he did not notice loss of ASLAAS-6 forms from Yeleswaram Sub-Post Ofce. Learned counsel clarifed there is no need for A4 to approach PW.3 who is an inspection ofcial to write a letter for grant of C.Ls. Learned counsel submitted that A4 is innocent and no way connected with the alleged ofences but he was falsely implicated in this case. In the circumstances learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case against A4.
18
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
28.Learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1. 2024 INSC 56 between Raja Nayakar Vs. State of
Chattisgarh of Honourable Supreme Court of India.
2. AIRONLINE 2003 SC 771 between Mousam Singha
Roy & ors Vs. State of West Bengal of Honourable
Supreme Court of India.
3. 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 709 between Ram Sharan
Chaturvedi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh of
Honourable Supreme Court of India.
4. AIR 1973 SC 2773 between Kali Ram Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh of Honourable Supreme Court of India.
29.I have carefully perused the material available on record.
Upon hearing the submissions of learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and on perusal of material available on record, the following points emerge for determination.
1.Whether there is valid sanction to prosecute A1 to
A3?
2.Whether prosecution established conspiracy within the meaning of Section 120-B IPC among all the accused?
3.Whether the prosecution established the ofences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC against the accused No.1 to 4?
19
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
4.Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the property entrusted to them and by abusing their ofcial position as public servants within the meaning of Section 13(2) r/w 13 (i) (c) and (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
Before starting discussion I am inclined to refer to the
observations of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Sulekha Chatterjee
and Another Vs. Union of India and Others (2023 SCC Online Calcutta
2242):
“8. Post ofce, in many cases, do not only act as the nation's沐s preferred carrier of words and emotions, but also serve as the guardian of its savings. It is the trust that has been built over decades that citizens place on their local post ofces and it is the sacred duty of the postal department to forever and continuously uphold that trust. The breach of that trust, is not just limited to only the person who is afected by that breach, but can also afect the conscious and trust of the citizenry towards the postal system, which is the lifeblood of Indian republic, at large…”
POINT NO.1: Sanction
30.The prosecution obtained P.418 sanction order issued by
Mohammed Ajmatullah, the then Superintendent of Post Ofces,
Kakinada Division to prosecute A1 to A3. PW.37 S.Prakasa Rao, the then Inspector of Posts, Peddapuram Sub Division issued sanction 20
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
order Ex.P.412 to prosecute A4. The main objection of A1 to A3 is that
Ex.P.418 sanction order is not valid and that late Mohammed
Ajmatullah was not competent to remove a Sub-Post Master and Postal
Assistants. In this regard the prosecution relied on the Postal Manual
Volume- III of Schedule I(A) Part-IV General Central Services, Group-C r/w. Rule – 11 of C.C.S., C.C.A., Rules 1965 (copy appended to
Ex.P.418) to show that late Mohammed Ajmatullah, Superintendent of
Post Ofces is the competent authority to remove a Sub-Post Master and Postal Assistants. I have carefully perused Ex.P.418 Sanction order along with manual. It is clear that the Superintendent of Post
Ofces is the competent authority to remove Sub-Post Master and
Postal Assistants. One more argument advanced on behalf of accused
No.1 to 3 is that the sanctioning authority i.e., Mohammed Ajmatullah was not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution stated that the
Mohammed Ajmatullah expired and as such P.W.37 S.Prakasa Rao who was acquainted with late Mohammed Ajmatullah was examined to prove Ex.P.418 Sanction order. Learned public prosecutor also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State v. K. Narasimhachary [AIR 2006 SC 628 = (2005) 8 SCC
364 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 41 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1485] wherein it was held that:
“18... an order of valid sanction can be proved by the sanctioning authority in two ways : either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the ofence and the grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. In this case, the original order of sanction has been produced..” 21
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
I have perused the said judgment wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgments and stated the procedure for proving a valid sanction to prosecute.
In the present case since Mohammed Ajmatullah expired, the prosecution has no other way to prove sanction and therefore PW.37
Inspector of Posts was examined who was acquainted with late
Mohammed Ajmatullah. Apart from that a perusal of Ex.P.418 sanction order indicates that late Mohammed Ajmatullah having satisfed himself with the facts of the case had accorded sanction. It clearly indicates the application of mind and therefore this Court is of the opinion that there is valid sanction in this case in the light of above referred judicial precedent. Accordingly the point is answered.
POINT NO.2 – Conspiracy:
31.It is alleged by the prosecution that all the accused conspired together in commission of the ofences alleged. At the outset it may be pointed out that there is no cogent evidence available to show that
A4 being a Dock Sevak was engaged in conspiring with other accused.
A1 is Sub-Post Master and whereas A2 and A3 are Postal Assistants in the cadre of clerks. Somehow or other A1 to A3 can have business transactions with the customers. This is not the case with A4 as his duties are entirely diferent as deposed by PW.3 in his cross examination. It is stated that the duty period of A4 is for 4 to 5 hours a day. His duty was to collect bags; open them; sort out the letters; stamp them and also collect bags from Branch Post Ofce. This piece of evidence indicates that A4 has a very little role, if not no role at all, 22
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
in the business transactions of the Post Ofce. The only evidence of some of the witnesses is that A4 attended counter duties. This fact by itself is not sufcient to hold that he also conspired with other accused. In fact as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for A4,
Ex.P.413 hand writing expert report of P.W.38 is against A1 to A3 alone and nothing is stated anything against A4. Therefore in the absence of any satisfactory evidence this Court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to connect A4 to this case.
32.Coming to the role of A1 to A3 admittedly they worked during the relevant period at Yeleswaram Post Ofce.
In this context it is relevant to look into the defnition of conspiracy. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari v.
CBI [AIR 2010 SC 528] discussed the ingredients of the ofence. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:
“60. Criminal conspiracy, it must be noted in this regard, is an independent ofence. It is punishable separately. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action; for so long as a crime is generated n the mind of the accused, the same does not become punishable...
61. The ingredients of the ofence of criminal conspiracy are :
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. Condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be established by the prosecution viz., meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
23
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
62. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a fnding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difcult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the ofences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and / or by necessary implication...”
It is often said that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difcult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. In the present case the evidence of PW.38 hand writing expert and his report helps the Court to a large extent in adjudicating this case. Briefy stated the signatures of A1 to A3 were found on several withdrawal forms. A1 in the capacity of Sub-Post Master approved the withdrawal forms. In one of the withdrawal forms namely Ex.P.142 the handwritings of A3 is appearing. The prosecution introduced the period during which the accused worked in the post ofce which is relevant under Sec.9 of
Indian Evidence Act.
A1 worked in the Sub-Post Ofce between 26.01.2010 to 29.10.2012.
A2 worked in the Sub-Post Ofce between 24.05.2008 to 25.07.2012.
A3 worked in the Sub-Post Ofce between 02.08.2011 to 21.12.2012.
24
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Thus, it can be seen that on some occasions A1 to A3 worked together and on some occasions at least two of the accused worked together.
During their tenure the fraud was committed. The key person in this case is A1 Sub-Post Master, who approved the withdrawals. These circumstances with regard to employment during the crucial period is a relevant fact which establishes meeting of minds. Considering the totality of the circumstances it can be said that the prosecution established the ofences of conspiracy among the accused to commit the ofences alleged. Hence, it is held that prosecution proved the ofence under Sec.120-B IPC against A1 to A3. Accordingly, the point is answered.
POINT No.4 AND 5: Sec.409, 420, 471 r/w. 468 and 477-A
For the sake of brevity and convenience the discussion for
Point Nos.4 and 5 is taken together as the facts are interwoven and interlinked with each other.
33.In order to sustain the ofence under Sec.420 IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property and thereby deceived him. In the present case the evidence of PWs.4 to 11 clearly indicate that the agents remitted the money collected from the depositors to the accused. The evidence is also clear that the agents submitted passbooks of the concerned depositors and ASLAAS-6 lists which was signed by the accused after receiving the money. The agents are under the bonafde impression that the necessary entries shall be made in the relevant records by the accused and A1 in particular.
25
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Had they knew that the amounts are not being properly accounted for in the Postal records, the agents would not have remitted money to the accused. These facts clearly establish the ofence of cheating within the meaning of Sec.415 IPC punishable under
Sec.420 IPC.
Sec.471 IPC r/w. 468:
34.The prosecution alleged that the accused had forged documents for the purpose of cheating and also used these documents as genuine. Use of the document must be for one of the purposes mentioned in Sec.463 IPC which defnes Forgery.
35.Noted Author K.D.Gaur in his text book on Indian Penal
Code, 8th Edition Universal – LexisNexis, states that forgery is committed when an instrument is made with the intention that somebody will be induced to believe it as genuine. For instance, if “A” makes a copy of instrument with an intention to pass it as original, he is guilty of committing forgery. As per Sec.468 IPC committing forgery for the purpose of cheating is made punishable.
Sec.471 IPC:
36.Coming to Sec.471 IPC, using of forged document as genuine is punishable in the same manner as if the document is forged. To prove this ofence the prosecution has to prove that
i) The document is forged one ii) The accused used that document as genuine with a knowledge that it was forged.
Iii) The accused used that document fraudulently or dishonestly.
26
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
In the present case the accused are alleged to have availed loans against 19 Recurring Deposits and further they had withdrawn money. To substantiate its case the prosecution relied on the evidence of the agents as well as depositors namely PW.13 to PW.25 and PW.39. The sum and substance of evidence of these depositors is that they paid money to the agents after opening Recurring
Deposit Postal Account at Yeleswaram Sub-Post Ofce. These depositors did not withdraw their money at any point of time. They denied their signatures in the withdrawal forms shown to them. The other depositors namely PW.26 to PW.33 also stated about opening of accounts at Yeleswaram Sub-Post Ofce. They learnt from Postal ofcials that a fraud was committed due to which their amounts were misappropriated. They deposed in an internal enquiry conducted by PWs.2 and 3. The prosecution is relying on the expert opinion Ex.P.413 to substantiate the ofence of forgery and other connected ofences by the accused. As already stated, the depositors PW.13 to PW.25 and PW.39 denied their signatures on the withdrawal forms shown to them. The specimen signatures of these depositors were obtained by investigating ofcer and sent to
Central Forensic Laboratory for comparison. The specimen writings of various persons were marked by the expert as S1 to S81. In his evidence the expert stated the names of the persons to whom his signatures belonged. For instance, the specimen writings S1 to S4 belongs to PW.15 - Paluri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. Likewise the specimen signatures S5 to S7 belonged to PW.39 – K.Vara 27
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Lakshmi. The specimen signatures were collected in the presence of PW.35 - A.Paleti. These specimen hand writings are present on several withdrawal forms. The investigating ofcer also obtained specimen hand writings of all the accused which are marked as S82 to S403. In total the PW.38 expert analysed Q1 and Q113 disputed signatures/ hand writings. From the evidence of PW.38 Hand Writing
Expert, it is understood that the specimen hand writings / signatures of depositors did not match with the questioned signatures/ hand writings on the withdrawal forms. Thus, the prosecution established that the depositors did not withdraw amounts from their accounts through withdrawal forms and vouchers.
37.It is pertinent to mention that PW.38 Hand Writing Expert opined that the writings and signatures of A1 in S.82 to S.162 (Ex.P.407) tallied with the hand writings and signatures in withdrawal forms marked as Q3, Q9, Q20 and Q21, Q26, Q27, Q33, Q37, Q39,
Q43 to Q45, Q50, Q56, Q62, Q68, Q73, Q74, Q78, Q80, Q81, Q87, Q91 and Q92, Q98, Q103 and Q104, Q109, Q111.
Likewise, PW.38 after analyzing the hand writings and signatures of A2 S.163 to S.243 (406) opined that they tallied with writings and signatures in withdrawal forms marked as Q2, Q8, Q14,
Q14/1, Q32, Q55, Q61, Q67, Q79, Q86 and Q97/2.
Similarly, PW.38 opined that the specimen hand writings and signatures namely S244 to S323 (Ex.P.408) of A3 tallied with the writings and signatures in the withdrawal form Q108.
28
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
PW.38 was cross examined on behalf of A1 to A3 but nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination to discredit his evidence.
There is nothing particular to discredit the evidence of the expert.
PW.38 admitted in his cross examination that examination of hand writing is a developing science. He admitted that he did not specifcally mention the degree of slant and pen pauses. He also admitted variations in the signatures of an individual it occurs but they are natural. Thus, the cross examination of PW.38 expert is not of much use to the defense of A1 to A3.
38.It may be noted that the A1 to A3 never denied their specimen hand writings taken in the presence of PW.34. On a careful perusal of the written arguments submitted on behalf of A1 to A3 and considering the line of cross examination adopted by the accused, it is understood that the accused are not disputing the fact that their specimen signatures were obtained and compared with questioned signatures and hand writings on various withdrawal forms. Instead, the accused are disputing the procedure adopted by the Investigating
Ofcer in collecting their specimen handwritings without any Orders of the Court. In fact learned counsel for A1 to A3 relied on a judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Deputy Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Boddula Mallesam in
1997(1) ALT (Crl.) 719. According to learned counsel the permission of the Court is not taken for obtaining specimen signatures of accused No.1 to 3. I have carefully perused the said judgment and there is no dispute about the legal proposition. This judgment was delivered before insertion of Sec.311-A Cr.P.C by way of amendment 29
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
with efect from 23.06.2006. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. Apart from that obtaining specimen signatures or hand writings of accused with permission of
Court arises only when the accused is arrested in connection with that case as seen from the proviso Sec.311-A Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience the section is extracted here:
Sec.311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.—If a Magistrate of the frst class is satisfed that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that efect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specifed in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding.
In the present case admittedly A1 to A3 are not arrested and therefore, the investigating ofcer is not precluded from obtaining specimen signatures and hand writings of the accused. It appears the accused voluntarily gave their specimen signatures and it is not their case that the specimen signatures are obtained by threat or coercion.
It can be said that one way or other the accused disputed the procedure adopted taking their specimen signatures. Apart from that the accused also did not plead or establish any prejudice that occurred because of the procedure adopted by the investigating ofcer.
In view of above discussion this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or error in the investigating ofcer obtaining specimen signatures/ writings of accused in the course of investigation 30
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
more so, when the accused are not arrested in terms of proviso to
Sec.311-A Cr.P.C.
39.An important aspect that needs consideration at this stage is that in all the withdrawal forms it appears A1 approved the payment in the capacity of Sub-Post Master. All these withdrawal forms contain the hand writings or signatures of A2 and only on one occasion the writings of A3 are present. It is already concluded that the original depositors/ customers did not withdraw the money by presenting these withdrawal forms which means that some other person other than the original depositor or customer presented these forms and they were processed by A1 to A3 in their ofcial capacity and payments were made. It is understood that the duty of A1 to A3 is to verify and check the withdrawal forms presented by the customers/ depositors and then make a payment. The fact that these withdrawal forms were approved and cash was paid without there being original depositors or customers itself is a fact to conclude that the withdrawal forms and vouchers are forged for the purpose of cheating. Apart from that these documents are used as genuine documents within a meaning of Sec.471 IPC. Thus the ofence under Sec.471 IPC r/w. 468 IPC is established by the prosecution. Accordingly the point is answered.
40.The defense of the accused as seen from the line of cross examination and the written statement submitted by the accused is that the husbands of the agents used to visit Post Ofces and conduct transactions. The accused did not substantiate this defense. The concerned agents denied these suggestions that on 31
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
their behalf their husbands were collecting amounts. The accused also did not establish that the agents or their husbands misappropriated the amounts collected from the depositors. Though
D.W-1 was examined, his evidence is not of much use. In his cross examination it came to light that he was working at a diferent place from Yeleswaram. Apart from that he was also facing similar allegations and infact convicted in that criminal case. Thus the prosecution could successfully impeach his evidence. Ex.D-1 which was marked in the cross examination of P.W7 was not confronted to
P.W-40 Investigating Ofcer and hence its relevance cannot be considered.
On the other hand the evidence of the depositors is clear enough to show that they gave money to their respective agents who used to collect the pass books and written them with entries.
No animosity is suggested to the agents to depose against A1 to A3.
41.Extra-judicial confessions of A1 & A2:
The next argument of the accused is that by using coercion the Postal Department obtained extra judicial confessional statements namely Exs.P.17 and P.128. Ex.P.17 is the six statements given by A1 to PW.2 in the course of the internal enquiry. Ex.P.18 is the statement of A2 given to the PW.2 during enquiry. It is stated in the written statement fled by A1 and A2 that they were obtained by coercion. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan & another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in 2012 (6) SCC 403. Learned counsel submitted that as per this judgment, an extra judicial 32
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
confession is a weak piece of evidence and as such Exs.P.17 and
P.18 cannot be relied on. I have carefully perused Exs.P.17 and P.18 containing the statements of A1 and A2 wherein the accused themselves voluntarily stated that they are depositing money admitting their liability. It is stated that A1 deposited a total sum of
Rs.13,50,000/- and A2 deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/-. At this juncture, I came across the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; 2019 (17)
SCC 411 wherein it was held that though extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, the Court must ensure that it inspires confdence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
After that it can be acted upon to base the conviction. It was further held that the rule of prudence does not require each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to participation of accused must be independently and separately corroborated. The relevant portion is extracted is here under:
“13. Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court must ensure that the same inspires confdence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire confdence. If the court is satisfed that the extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base the conviction. Considering the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession, after referring to various judgments, in Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146] , this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 410-11, paras 15.1, 15.4 & 15.6) 33
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
“15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 59] this Court stated the principle that : (SCC p. 265, para 10) ‘10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.’ *** 15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965] stated the principle that : (SCC p. 192, para 19) ‘19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a ft state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.’
The Court further expressed the view that : (SCC p. 192, para 19) ‘19. … Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused….’ *** 15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79] held that : (SCC p. 611, para 29) ‘29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession 34
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma & Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore [Thimma & Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC 105 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 320] , Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. [Mulk Raj v. State of U.P.,AIR1959SC902:1959CriLJ 1219] , Sivakumar v. State [Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC 714 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 470 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42)] , Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra [Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 262 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1320] and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B. [Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B., (2008) 15 SCC 449 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1082] ]’ ”
14. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntary confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of the accused need not in all cases be corroborated. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey [Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 598] , this Court after referring to Piara Singh v. State of Punjab [Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 614] held that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated.
15. As discussed above, if the court is satisfed that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated...”
42.In the present case it is noted from the cross examination of
PW.2 that nothing was suggested to him to depose against A1 to A3. It was only suggested that the statements are not voluntarily and that they were obtained on the threat of arrest. Admittedly the accused 35
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
were never arrested in this case. In other words no animosity is suggested to PW.2 enquiry ofcer to depose against accused and submit Ex.P.3 enquiry report to higher authorities.
In his written statement A1 stated the husbands of agents used to visit the post ofce and transact business. His department threatened to lodge a case against his family members and subjecting him to mental agony they obtained statements from him. The plea of
A2 in his written statement is that under coercion he wrote Ex.P.18 extra judicial confession. He relied on a photostat copy of notice given to him by the Postal Department. I have carefully perused the said letter by Superintendent of Post Ofce, wherein it is stated that the subsistance allowance is stopped since A2 did not communicate his residential address. It is further stated that unless A2 stays at
Yeleswaram and makes himself available and cooperate in enquiry the substance allowance will not be paid. A perusal of this letter indicates that A2 did not communicate his residential address at Yeleswaram to his superior ofcers and as such the substance allowance is stop. By no stretch of imagination this letter can be termed as coercion to induce A2 to give Ex.P.18 confessional statement.
In the light of above discussion and judicial precedents this
Court is of the opinion that the extra judicial confession of A1 and A2 is voluntarily and can be acted on. The fact that A1 paid Rs.13,50,000/-,
A2 paid Rs.30,000/- further fortifes this observation.
Sec.409 IPC and 477-A IPC:
43.Coming to the charges under Sec.409 IPC and 477-A IPC.
admittedly A1 to A3 are public servants working in Postal 36
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Department. In order to bring home an ofence under Sec.477-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish that:
1. the accused at the relevant time was an employee
2. acting in that capacity the accused destroyed, altered, falsifed any book, valuable security of account which belonged to his employer or had been received by him for and on behalf of his employer
3. the accused committed the ofence with an intention to defraud
In the instant case, A1 to A3 are employed in the sub-post ofce,
Yeleswaram and they are the custodians of ofcial records. They cannot deny entrustment. It is already established that with an intention to falsify the accounts the accused used withdrawal forms and vouchers which is a valuable document that were in their possession and obtained a wrongful gain. The intention to cheat is apparent since inception. It may be noted the exact manner in which the misappropriated amount is converted need not be established by the prosecution. The accused themselves confessed the commission of ofence by virtue of Exs.P.17 and P.18.
Processing withdrawal forms and vouchers without there being original depositors or customers itself also amounts falsifcation of accounts. All the accused are aware that they are processing withdrawal forms without the knowledge of the original depositor/ customer.
At this stage it is relevant to look into the written statements fled by A1 to A3. A1 stated that the husbands of the agents used to visit post ofce transact business in connection with R.Ds, loans and 37
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
SB in the post ofce. This implies that in the presence of A1 certain transactions took place in connection with the RD’s and loans. A2 made a fatal admission that strengthens the case of prosecution to a large extent. A2 stated that husbands of the agents used to fll
ASALAS-6 forms in their presence and submit passbooks. Further the husbands of agents used to withdraw from deposit accounts. This version is important because somehow or other the accused are admitting transactions during their tenure and presence. Apart from that the accused is admitting withdrawals. It appears that the accused never protested when the husbands of agents transacted business.
Nor it was brought to the notice of the superiors. The accused failed to substantiate that it is the husbands of agents who used to transact business in the post ofce. The evidence of D.W-1 is also not helpful to the defense raised by the accused. Nevertheless the fact remains that it is only the accused who can process the withdrawals. This aspect of withdrawals by who ever person, be it an agent or her husband is established. Therefore the plea of the accused that are not connected with the case or withdrawals can be accepted. As already stated Ex.P- 413 expert opinion proved the writings of accused on the withdrawals.
Now with the version of the accused in their written statements, the chain of circumstances is complete to show that the involvement of accused in the transactions. No doubt these statements under Sec.313
Cr.P.C by itself cannot be a basis for conviction. Yet, as per settled law the statements under Section 313 of the Code can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly, when the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of events.[N.V.
38
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Subba Rao v. State (2013) 2 SCC 162]. In the present case the prosecution already established from the evidence that A1 to A3 in the capacity of postal ofcials used to process the transactions of the depositors. Even assuming for arguments sake that it was the husbands of the agents, who transacted business at the post ofce, yet the fact remains that it was A1 to A3 who processed the withdrawals. Thus, the hand writings of A1 to A3 are appearing on withdrawal forms as per Ex.P.413 expert report. Presently the written statements of A1 and A2 corroborate these circumstances thereby completing the chain of events.
Thus, the prosecution established all the ingredients of the ofences alleged under Sec.409 and Sec.477-A IPC and hence accused are held liable for the said ofences. Accordingly the point is answered.
The ofence under Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(i)( c ) and (d):
44.In view of the above discussion the conduct of accused in fraudulently misappropriating the public money and obtaining the pecuniary advantage by abusing their position as public servants can be termed as criminal misconduct within the meaning of
Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)( c ) and (d). Accordingly, these ofences are also proved by the prosecution against A1 to A3.
45.I have also carefully perused the case law cited by the learned public prosecutor and there is no dispute against the legal propositions contained therein. Learned public prosecutor relied on observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh [AIR 2000 SC 870].
39
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
The observations with regard to corruption in the civilized society are very much relevant for the facts of this case. Learned public prosecutor cited the case law regarding the ofence of conspiracy and how to establish it. This judgment is also relevant to the facts of this case. With regard to extra judicial confession learned public prosecutor relied on Chattar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2009 SC 378] wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several case laws defned confessions and the method of appreciating the extra judicial confession. These judgments is also relevant to the facts of this case.
46.To sum-up the following facts are established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
i)Accused No.1 to 3 were employed at Yeleswaram Sub-
Post ofce during the relevant period and entrusted with their ofcial duties and thus they are the exclusive custodians of ofcial records.
ii)Several depositors namely PW.13 to PW.33 and PW.39 opened accounts at Yeleswaram Sub-Post ofce and gave money to their respective agents namely PW.4 to PW.11 and Smt. Savithri, W/o PW.12- K.Venkata Rao.
iii)The agents remitted the money to A1 to A3 in the course of their employment and obtained signatures in pass books and ASLAAS-6 forms. These forms were seized by the investigating ofcer.
iv)A1 and A2 in the course of enquiry by PW.2 confessed the commission of ofence and paid Rs.13,50,000/- and 40
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Rs.30,000/-
v)The hand writings/ signatures of depositors were not tallied in withdrawal forms.
vi)On the other hand the signatures of A1 to A3 are found matching with signatures/ hand writings of withdrawal forms.
All the above facts are interconnected and establish the ofences of cheating and also forgery by public servants and falsifcation of the documents in the capacity of public servants.
Further A1 to A3 conspired in commission of above ofences. As already stated the complicity of A4 is not established for the ofences alleged.
In the light of above discussion, it is held that prosecution established charges under Secs. 120-B, 409, 420, 471, r/w 468 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3 only. Accordingly, A1 to A3 are convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
47.In the result, A4 is found not guilty for the ofences under
Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 471 r/w 468 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accordingly, A4 is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal
Procedure Code
A1 to A3 are found guilty for the ofences under Secs. 120-B, 409, 420, 471 r/w 468 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is convicted under
Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
41
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
The bail bonds executed by A4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of August, 2024.
Sd/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
A1 to A3 are present. They were heard on question of sentence likely to be imposed on them, for which they stated as follows:
A1-Kodamanchali Rajendra Prasad stated that he is heart patient and that his children are dependent on him.
A2- Illapu Satyanarayana stated that he is sufering from diabetics.
His wife died. His daughter is dependent on him.
A3- Posagadi Appalaswamy stated that he is sufering from diabetics and B.P.
Statements of A1 to A3 recorded separately.
Heard. Learned public prosecutor and also learned counsel for A1 to A3. Learned counsel prayed to take a lenient view.
Considering the fact that A1 had already paid Rs.13,50,000/- towards his liability. A2 paid Rs.30,000/- towards his liability and upon hearing the submissions of learned public prosecutor, learned counsel for A1 to
A3 and upon hearing accused this Court is of the opinion that the ofence involves the fnancial fraud that efects the Nation.
At the stage I came across the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, (2022) 7 SCC 475 :
42
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
(2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 335 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 464 at page 481,
wherein it was held that mere depositing of the defrauded amount cannot be a mitigating factor. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
17. Being a public servant in the post ofcec the delinquent ofcer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwillc name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent ofcerc the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Thereforec in the facts and circumstances of the casec bothc the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement.
Further in Sulekha Chatterjee and Another Vs. Union of India and
Others (2023 SCC Online Calcutta 2242) the sanctity of post ofces in the country are discussed. The acts of some of the unscrupulous employees committing fraud and the duty of the postal department towards the innocent customers was also highlighted in this judgment. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“8. Post ofcec in many casesc do not only act as the nation's preferred carrier of words and emotionsc but also serve as the guardian of its savings. It is the trust that has been built over decades that citizens place on their local post ofces and it is the sacred duty of the postal department to forever and continuously uphold that trust. The breach of that trustc is not just limited to only the person who is afected by that 43
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
breachc but can also afect the conscious and trust of the citizenry towards the postal systemc which is the lifeblood of Indian republicc at large.
“15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar
Agarwal v. Postmaster General (supra)c also helps the petitioners' case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that acts of post ofce/bank employees when done during their course of employmentc are binding on bank/post ofce at the instance of the person who is damnifed by the fraud. Relevant portions have been extracted below- “57. We begin by noting that M.K. Singh is not a third person but an offer and an employee of the Post Offe. Post Offe, as an abstraft entity, funftions through its employees. Employees, as individuals, are fapable of being dishonest and fommitting afts of fraud or wrongs themselves or in follusion with others. [See Punjab National Bank v. Durga Devic 1977 SCC
OnLine Del 93 ] Sufh afts of bank/post offe employees, when done during their fourse of employment, are binding on the bank/post offe at the instanfe of the person who is damnifed by the fraud and wrongful afts of the offers of the bank/post offe. Sufh afts of bank/post offe employees being within their fourse of employment will give a right to the appellants to legally profeed for injury, as this is their only remedy against the post offe. Thus, the post offe, like a bank, fan and is entitled to profeed against the offers for the loss faused due to the fraud, etf. but this would not absolve them from their liability if the employee involved was afting in the fourse of his employment and duties.
58. This Court in SBI v. Shyama Devi [SBI v. Shyama Devic (1978) 3 SCC 399 ] held that for the employer to be liable, it is not enough that the employment aforded the servant or agent an opportunity of fommitting 44
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
the frime, but what is relevant is whether the frime, in the form of fraud, etf. was perpetrated by the servant/employee during the fourse of his employment. Onfe this is established, the employer would be liable for the employee's wrongful aft, even if they amount to a frime. Whether the fraud is fommitted during the fourse of employment would be a question of faft that needs to be determined in the fafts and firfumstanfes of the fase.”
In the present case it is brought on record from the evidence of the depositors that their amounts were paid back by the postal department soon after the fraud was discovered. Thus the postal department sustained severe loss both monetary as well as reputation wise due to the acts of the accused. Hence, these judicial precedents and the facts of the present case are kept in mind while sentencing the accused.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 120-B
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.120-B IPC.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 409
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.409 IPC.
45
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 420
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.420 IPC.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 471
IPC r/w Sec.468 IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.471
IPC.
A1A A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 477-A
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.477-A IPC.
With regard to sentence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(i) (c) and (d) this Court is inclined to refer to Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that while fxing fne amount the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the ofence. The total amount of fraud arrived by CBI is Rs.30,56,429/-. Out of this amount A1 already paid Rs.13,50,000/-. A2 paid Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, fne amount is fxed.
46
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Therefore, A1 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under
Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(c). Further A1 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(d).
A2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of Rs.8,23,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs
Twenty Three Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence under
Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(c). Further A2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(d).
A1AA3 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of Rs.8,53,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty
Three Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence under
Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(c). Further A2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fne 47
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(d).
A1A All the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period undergone by accused in any shall be set of under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
Total fne amount payable by A1 – Rs.7000/-; A2- Rs.8,29,000/- (6,000+8,23,000); A3 - Rs.8,59,000/- (6,000+8,53,000).
Accused are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and availability of free legal aid. Free copy of this judgment supplied to them today i.e., 01.08.2024.
Sd/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
F APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
T OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW.1:Sumanam Markandeya Surya Subrahmanya Vara Prasad
PW.2:Chikkala Suryanarayana
PW.3:Cherukuri Srinivasu
PW.4:Billa Subba Lakshmi
PW.5:Gusidi Anuradha
PW.6:Gogula Venka Satya Kumari
PW.7:Siddhani Bhramaramba 48
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
PW.8:Sutapalli Satyavani
PW.9:Tadipatri Bhavani
PW.10:Velampalli Bhagya Lakshmi
PW.11:Vagu Satya Lakshmi
PW.12:Kotha Venkata Rao
PW.13:Kalabathula Muneswara Rao
PW.14:Kurakula Venkata Rama Rao
PW.15: Paluri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
PW.16:Pynda Nagayagna Narayana
PW.17:Kosuru Vineela
PW.18:Sareka Pedda Lakshmi
PW.19:Vuppala Bangaru Subhadra
PW.20:Kosaraju Ramamurthy
PW.21:Molleti Nookaraju
PW.22:K.Adilakshmi
PW.23:I. Venkata Ratnam
PW.24:Y.Venkata Satya Gowri Devi
PW.25:T.Vivek 49
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
PW.26:J.Rajanaikanth
PW.27:J.Govindu
PW.28:K.Sattirreddy
PW.29:M.Subba Rao
PW.30:P.Venkateswarlu
PW.31:S.Venkata Satya Sekhar
PW.32:V.Padmanabha Swamy
PW.33:G.Kumari
PW.34:M.Ramu
PW.35:A.Paleti
PW.36:M.Vasu Kumar
PW.37:S.Prakasa Rao
PW.38:P.Venu Gopala Rao
PW.39:K.Vara Lakshmi
PW.40:D.Vasu Krishna
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE F
DW.1:T.Vinod Babu
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P1:Complaint given by PW.1 to the Dy. Inspector General, 50
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam, dated 27.3.2013
Ex.P2:List of 153 recurring deposit accounts furnished by PW.1
Ex.P3:Enquiry report submitted by LW.2 – Ch.Suryanarayana, In-charge Assistant Superintendent of Peddapuram Sub Division
Ex.P4:Attested copy of posting orders of the A1 as sub post master to the sub post ofce, Yeleswaram
Ex.P5:Attested copy of posting orders of the A2 as postal assistant to the sub post ofce, Yeleswaram
Ex.P6:Attested copy of orders passed to suspend the A1
Ex.P7:Attested copy of orders passed to suspend A2
Ex.P8:Attested copy of appointment orders of A3as postal assistant in sub post ofce, Yeleswaram
Ex.P9:Attested copy of orders passed to suspend A3
Ex.P10:Attested copy of put of orders passed against A4
Ex.P11:The Superintendent of Post Ofces, Kakinada issued a memo pertaining to the duties of sub post master and postal assistant in the sub post ofce, Yeleswaram
Ex.P12:Attested copy of the order of Finance Minister relating to the maintenance of recurring deposit accounts under the scheme of Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yogana
Ex.P13:Attested copy of the order of Finance Minister relating to the authorization of agents and payment of commission to the agents in the Mahila Pradhan 51
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Kshetriya Bachat Yogana Scheme
Ex.P14:Attested copy of the orders passed relating to deduction of income tax on payment of commission to the MPKBY Agents
Ex.P15: Attested copy of the letter, dated 29.8.2012
Ex.P16:Attested copy of the preliminary report, dated 11.10.2012
Ex.P17:Statements (6 in number) of A1 given to the witness
Ex.P18:Statement of A2given to the witness
Ex.P19:Attested copy of directions issued by the Superintendent of Post Ofces, Kakinada Division.
Ex.P20:Attested copy of enquiry report prepared by PW.3
Ex.P21:Attested copy of directions of Superintendent of Post Ofce, Kakinada Division in his letter Dt.26.7.2012
Ex.P22:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness after comparison with the original in the presence of accused and their counsel
Exs.P23:Pass books of 23 recurring deposit (MPKBY) accounts to P45during the period 2009 to 2012.
Ex.P46:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists (70 in number)
Ex.P47:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness after comparison with the original in the presence of accused and their counsel.
Exs.P48:Pass books of the 12 recurring deposit (MPKBY) to P59accounts.
52
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P60:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists (50 in number) relating to the recurring deposit (MPKBY) accounts
Ex.P61:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness after comparison with the original in the presence of accused and their counsel
Exs.P62:Pass books of the said 28 recurring deposit (MPKBY) to P89accounts during the period from 2010 to 2012.
Ex.P90:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists Seventy (127 in number)
Ex.P91:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness after comparison with the original in the presence of accused and their counsel
Exs.P92:Postal pass books of the three (3) recurring deposit to P94(MPKBY) accounts during the period from 2009 to 2012
Ex.P95:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists (16 in number)
Ex.P96:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness
Ex.P97:Pass books of the said 9 recurring deposit (MPKBY) to P105during the period from 2011 and 2012.
Ex.P106:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists
Ex.P107:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness
Exs.P108:Pass books of the 2 recurring deposit (MPKBY) accounts and P109
Ex.P110:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists (11 in number)
Ex.P111:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness
Exs.P112:Pass books of seven recurring deposit (MPKBY) accounts to P118during the period from 2010 to 2012 53
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P119:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists (34 in number)
Ex.P120:Attested copy of the license issued to the witness
Exs.P121:Pass books of the said Fifteen(15) recurring deposit to P135(MPKBY) accounts
Ex.P136:Bunch of ASLAAS-6 lists forty eight (48 in number)
Ex.P137:Pass books bearing Nos. 295955 and 295969 are and 138relating to PW.12 recurring deposit accounts.
Ex.P139:Withdrawal form Dt.5.4.2011
Ex.P140:Signatures in the withdrawal Dt.2.11.2011
Ex.P141:Withdrawal form Dt.8.11.2011
Ex.P142:Withdrawal form Dt.11.9.2012
Ex.P143:Recurring deposit pass books and P144
Ex.P145:Withdrawal form
Ex.P146:Specimen writings and signatures
Ex.P147:Recurring deposit pass books (50 in number) to 196
Ex.P197 :Ledger extracts with certifcates U/Sec.65-B (4)(c) of to P349Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P350 :List of transactions pertaining to the recurring deposits to P358of Sub Post Ofce, Yeleswaram which are seized from the Head Post Ofce, Samalkot pertaining to years 2009 to 2012
Ex.P359:Daily accounts for the period from January to 54
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
December, 2010 submitted by the Sub post master, Samlkot
Ex.P360:Daily accounts for the period from January to December, 2011 submitted by the sub post master, Sub post ofce, Samalkot
Ex.P361:Daily accounts for the period from January to September, 2012 submitted by the sub post master, Sub post ofce, Samalkot
Ex.P362:Attested copy of withdrawal form dated 14.02.2011
Ex.P363 :Specimen writings and specimen signatures of PW.18 and 364
Ex.P365:Attested copy of withdrawal form dated 06.09.2011
Ex.P366 :Specimen signatures and specimen writings of PW.19 and 367
Ex.P368:Withdrawal form dated 13.10.2011
Ex.P369:Specimen signatures of PW.20
Ex.P370:Specimen writings of PW.20
Ex.P371:Attested withdrawal form, dated 10.06.2011
Ex.P372:Specimen signatures of PW.21
Ex.P373:Specimen writings of PW.21
Ex.P374:Withdrawal voucher dated 08.04.2011
Ex.P375:Withdrawal voucher for account No.295969, dated 04.11.2011.
Ex.P376:Withdrawal form dated 06.09.2011 (Original of Ex.P365)
Ex.P377:Withdrawal form dated 14.12.2011 55
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P378:Withdrawal form dated 10.06.2011
Ex.P379:Withdrawal form dated 31.01.2012
Ex.P380:Withdrawal form dated 21.10.2011
Ex.P381:Withdrawal form dated 18.11.2011
Ex.P382:Withdrawal form dated 10.06.2011
Ex.P383:Withdrawal form dated 31.01.2012
Ex.P384:Withdrawal form dated 04.06.2011
Ex.P385:Withdrawal form dated 05.09.2011
Ex.P386:Withdrawal form dated 03.11.2011
Ex.P387:Attested copy of the letter addressed by the Superintendent of Post Ofces, kakinada Division, Kakinada to the Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Samalakot Sub Division, Samalkot, dated 12.10.2012
Ex.P388:Two sheets containing specimen signatures of PW.12
Ex.P389:Four sheets containing specimen hand writings of PW.12
Ex.P390:Two sheets containing PW.15 specimen signatures
Ex.P391:Two sheets containing PW.15 specimen hand writings
Ex.P392:Two sheets containing PW.16 specimen signatures
Ex.P393:Four sheets containing PW.16 specimen hand writings
Ex.P394:Four sheets, two sheets containing PW.14 specimen signatures and two sheets containing PW.14 signature
Ex.P395:Two (2) sheets containing specimen signatures of PW.22 56
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P396:A sheet containing PW.22’s hand writing of some numbers
Ex.P397:Two sheets containing specimen signatures of PW.23
Ex.P398:Three sheets containing specimen writings of PW.23
Ex.P399:Two sheets containing specimen signatures of PW.24
Ex.P400:Two sheets containing hand writing of PW.24
Ex.P401:Two sheets containing specimen signatures of PW.25
Ex.P402:Four sheets containing hand writings of PW.25
Ex.P403:Four sheets containing hand writings and signatures of PW.33
Ex.P404:Three sheets, two containing the signatures and the other containing her hand writing in numbers of Mrs. K.Vara Lakshmi which were marked as S.05 to S.07.
Ex.P405:Sheets containing the hand writings of S.Veerraju (A4),
dated 10.02.2014
Ex.P406:Sheets containing the hand writings of Mr. I .Satya Narayana (A2) marked as S.163 to S.243 on diferent sheets, dated 10.02.2014
Ex.P407:Sheets containing the hand writings of K.Rajendra Prasad (A1)which weremarked as S.82 to S.162 on diferent sheets, dated 10.02.2014.
Ex.P408:Sheets containing P.A.Swamy (A3) hand writings which were marked as S.244 to S.323, dated 14.02.2014.
Ex.P409:Hand writings of some of the depositors on the sheets (S.12 to S.15)
Ex.P410:Hand writings of some of the depositors on the sheets (S.29 to S.32)
Ex.P411:Four sheets on which PW.13 signatures and hand 57
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
writings
Ex.P412:Sanction order issued by PW.37
Ex.P413:Opinion in 12(A) with the reasons in 12(B)
Ex.P414:Original FIR in RC.3(A)/2013
Ex.P415Death Certifcate of Smt. Kotha Savithri Devi
Ex.P416Attested copy of MPKBY license of Smt. Kotha Savithri Devi
Ex.P417Ofce copy of requisition dated 27.03.2014 addressed to the Director, CFSL, Hyderabad.
Ex.P418Sanction order against A1 to A3 along with certifed copy of Rule 12(2)(a) of Central Civil Services (Classifcation Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 and schedule 1A Part-VI General Central Services Group-C appointing/ Disciplinary authorities of postal manuals Volume-III received by PW.40 from Md.Azmatulla.
Ex.P419Certifed copies of Grameen Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rule-2011 along with schedule and covering letter dated 11.4.2014
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Ex.D1Some portion in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.7
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Nil-
Sd/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC- I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
58
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
Copies to:
The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam through Public Prosecutor.
// True Copy //
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC- I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
59
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC- I Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Thursday, this the 1 st day of August, 2024
C.C.No.31/2014
RC.No.3(A)/2013-CBI/VSP
Date of ofence: between 2008 to 2012
Date of report or complaint: 08.09.2014
Date of apprehension of accused: 11.02.2015
Date of release on bail : --
Date of commencement of trial: 05.02.2018
Date of close of trial: 14.03.2023
Date of sentence or order: 01.08.2024
Explanation of delay and remarks :
This case was taken on fle on 08.09.2014against the A1 to
A4. The examination of witnesses was commenced on 05.02.2018.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 40 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.419 marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., on 14.03.2023. On behalf of accused, DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1 is marked during cross examination of PW.7.
60
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
The trial was completed on 14.03.2023. Judgment is pronounced on 01.08.2024.
Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 31/2014 on the fle of
I Additional Special Judge for C.B.I., Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Complainant : State Represented by the Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, Visakhapatnam.
Name of the accused :
A1-Kodamanchali Rajendra Prasad, S/o K.Aserwadam (late), aged 43 years, the then Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.35-8-2/1, Varalaxmi Nivas, Railway Station Road, Tanuku, W.G.District. Permanent R/o D.No.13-156, Duvva Village, Tanuku, W.G.District.
A2-Illapu Satyanarayana, S/o I.Samba Murthy, aged 52 years, the then Postal Assistant, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.1-92, Carpenter Colony, Addategala Village and Mandal, W.G.District
A3-Posagadi Appalaswamy, S/o P.Neelakanteswara Rao, aged 24 years, the then Postal Assistant, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.8-121, Pasalapudu Village, Rayavaram Mandal, near Ramachandrapuram, W.G.District.
A4-Sunkavilli Veeraju, S/o S.Dorabbai, aged 35 years, the then Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) Packer, Sub-Post Ofce, Yeleswaram, E.G. District. R/o D.No.3-43/A, Pedarayavaram Village, Rangampeta Mandal, W.G.District.
61
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ofence : U/Sec. 120-B, r/w 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (i) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding:
In the result, A4 is found not guilty for the ofences under
Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 471 r/w 468 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accordingly, A4 is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal
Procedure Code
A1 to A3 are found guilty for the ofences under Secs. 120-B, 409, 420, 471 r/w 468 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is convicted under
Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
The bail bonds executed by A4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 120-B
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.120-B IPC.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 409
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.409 IPC.
62
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 420
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.420 IPC.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 471
IPC r/w Sec.468 IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.471
IPC.
A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand only) for the ofence under Sec. 477-A
IPC, in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.477-A IPC.
With regard to sentence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(i) (c) and (d) this Court is inclined to refer to Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that while fxing fne amount the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the ofence. The total amount of fraud arrived by CBI is Rs.30,56,429/-. Out of this amount A1 already paid Rs.13,50,000/-. A2 paid Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, fne amount is fxed.
63
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Therefore, A1 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under
Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(c). Further A1 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(d).
A2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of Rs.8,23,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs
Twenty Three Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence under
Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(c). Further A2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(d).
A1AA3 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of Rs.8,53,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty
Three Thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence under
Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(c). Further A2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fne amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fne 64
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2)(d).
A1A All the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period undergone by accused in any shall be set of under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
Total fne amount payable by A1 – Rs.7000/-; A2- Rs.8,29,000/- (6,000+8,23,000); A3 - Rs.8,59,000/- (6,000+8,53,000).
Accused are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and availability of free legal aid. Free copy of this judgment supplied to them today i.e., 01.08.2024.
Sd/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC- I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
Copies to: The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
// True copy//
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
65
CC.31/2014, dt.01.08.2024
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
1
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC- I Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the 29 th day of December, 2023
C.C.No.13/2002
Between:
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam. .…Complainant And :
1.P.N.Mathur, S/o late K.N.Muthur, 58 years, Formerly Chief Manager, Small Scale Industries Finance Branch, Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, Presently Chief Manager, U.B.I., Service Branch, Watchel Molla Building, Kolkata. (case against A.1 is abated on 26-07-2021)
2.T.Tamala Reddy (Died)
(case against A.2 is abated on 05-09-2003)
3.B.Rama Kanth, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged 37 years, Formerly Dy. Manager(Tech), S.S.I. Finance Branch, Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, Presently Manager(Tech), Union Bank of India, Regional Ofce, Broadway, Chennai.
4.M.Sudhakar Rao, S/o M.V.Hanumatha Rao, age 34 years, Managing Partner, M/s Master Steel Tubes, C/o M.V.Rama Rao, D.No.2-2-160/A, Tilak Nagar, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.
5.V.Jagannadha Rao, S/o late Ramalingam. (Discharged) (A5 was discharged as per orders of this Court
dated 14.10.2004 in Crl.M.P.209/04)
6.B.Nageswara Rao, S/o Jagga Rao, aged 42 years, Flat No. G-1, Amba Enclave, Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
7.A.S.Bhagawan, S/o late Venkata Ratnam, age 40 years, Formerly Computer Clerk, UBI, S.S.I, Finance Branch, Visakhapatnam, Presently at UBI, Gopalalpatnam Branch.
2
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
8.M.R.K.Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy. (Discharged)
(A8 was discharged as per orders of this court
dated 14.10.2004 in Crl.M.P.379/04)
…Accused
This case came on 26.12.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Smt.K.Srilatha, learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the Complainant and of Sri G.V.P.B.Satyanarayana Murthy,
Advocate for Accused No.3; Sri J.Prudhvee Raj, Advocate for
Accused No.4; Sri M.V.Sudhakar, Advocate for Accused No.6; Sri
B.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Accused No.7; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam fled a charge sheet against accused in RC.No.9(A)/2000 for the ofences under
Sections 120-B, read with 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 of (i)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as seen from the record is A4-M.Sudhakar Rao is the Managing Partner of M/s. Master
Steel Tubes, Visakhapatnam. A1-P.N.Mathur was the Chief Manager;
A2-T.Tamala Reddy, Manager; A3-B.Ramakanth was the Deputy
Manager (Tech.) of Union Bank of India, Small Scale Industries Finance
Branch, Visakhapatnam. A4-M.Sudhakar Rao applied for cash credit of
Rs.52.50 lakhs, Inland letter of credit of Rs.39 lakhs for running a factory at Garikapalem village Ransthalam Mandal of Srikakulam. He also applied for a term loan of Rs.2 lakhs for a car. It is averred that A1 to
A3 by abusing their ofcial positions, criminally conspired among themselves and with A4-M.Sudhakar Rao; A5- V.Jagannadhara Rao;
A6-B.Nageswara Rao; A7-A.S.Bhagwan; and A8-M.R.K.Reddy. Cash 3
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
credit of Rs.52.50 lakhs; letter of credit of Rs.39 lakhs and a term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs were sanctioned to A4-M.Sudhakar Rao basing on infated security.
3.It is further elaborated that M/s. Master Steel Tubes for which
A4 is the Managing Partner submitted supporting documents on project report, partnership deed along with a lease deed between B.Santha Rao and the Master Steel Tubes. A3-B.Ramakanth submitted technical report recommending the project that it is technically feasible. He endorsed it to A2, who recommended sanction of the loans. Accordingly the loan was sanctioned by A1-P.N.Mathur, Chief Manager on 04.11.98(Page No.90 of Ex.P7). Thereafter a demand draft for
Rs.40,00,000/- was issued in favour of M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and
Tubes, Raipur on 05.11.98. Earlier to that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao opened a current account bearing No.23004. Rs.20 lakhs was deposited on 03.11.98 into that account. On the next day a term deposit of Rs.20 lakhs was created in the name of Master Steel Tubes on 04.11.98 by debiting from that account; and on the same day Rs.17 lakhs was sanctioned against the said deposit. It was credited into this CC account showing the same as margin money. Again on the same day i.e.
04.11.98 cash credit of Rs.52.50 lakhs was sanctioned. It is alleged that
A5-V.Jagannadha Rao who is approved bank valuer with a dishonest and fraudulent intention infated the value of the industrial site of 4033 sq.
yards situated at Patancheru, Medak District as Rs.1.20 crores as against the actual value of Rs.8,06,600/-. This property was ofered as collateral security for loans taken by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao. Thereafter as already stated the initial disbursement of Rs.40 lakhs was released by 4
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
way of DD dated 05.11.98 in favour of M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and
Tubes, Raipur.
4.It is further alleged that on 05.11.98 M.Raghavendra Rao, who is brother of A4 visited Raipur and presented the above said DD on
Rs.40 lakhs and two other letters dated 05.11.98 without handing over the forwarding letter. S.K.Agarwal, M.D., of said M/s. Krishna iron Strips and tubes Raipur arranged material for Rs.20 lakhs. He arranged a DD for Rs.20 lakhs in favour of G.Sreedhar of Hyderabad who had arranged the loan of Rs.20 lakhs to A4-M.Sudhakar Rao. Thus the margin money was taken back. It was further found in the investigation that A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao submitted 23 fake invoices along with lorry receipts to account for Rs.40 lakhs sanctioned by the bank. The invoices numbers were furnished along with the quantity. It is alleged that A1 to A3 bank ofcials knowing fully well that these invoices are fake, had accepted.
Further in pursuance of instructions of A1-P.N.Mathur, A4-M.Sudhakar
Rao ofered additional security of land measuring Ac.7.14 situated at
Etcherla village, Srikakulam district. A8-M.R.K.Reddy of Visakhapatnam who is an approved bank valuer had infated the value of addition collateral security as Rs.41,05,500/- as against actual value of Rs.6 lakhs with a dishonest and fraudulent intention. That land is situated in
S.No.9/86, 11/1 at Etcherla village. A4-M.Sudhakar Rao obtained signatures of PW.11- Ch.Venkata Seetha Ram on the letter of guarantee without informing the purpose of letter of guarantee. It is alleged that the letter of guarantee was notarized with the forged signatures of
PW.11 and PW.12-Ch.Ravi Kumar and submitted to the bank.
5
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
5.It is further alleged that A6-B.Nageswara Rao of M/s. Jayanthi
Engineering Company had discounted a fake bill for Rs.7,69,384/- paid by Bank of Madhura on 30.03.99 against the letter of credit. M/s.
Jayanthi Engineering Company is not registered with Central Excise.
Investigation revealed that it was a trading frm but not a manufacturing unit. Further M/s. Jayanthi engineering Company was engaged in ship repair activity but not in any manufacturing or dealing in that iron and steel production.
6.It is alleged that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao availed a car loan of Rs.2 lakhs. A7-A.S.Bhagavan, Computer Clerk in SSI Finance Branch, Union
Bank of India, Visakhapatnam issued a quotation with a dishonest and fraudulent intention in the name of M/s. Subujo Services showing the value of the car as Rs.3.25 lakhs. He received an advance payment of
Rs.1.25 lakhs from A4 M.Sudhakar Rao requesting him to pay balance of Rs.2 lakhs. The business turnover was shown as Rs.7.50 lakhs between M/s. Subujo Services, Visakhapatnam and M/s. Master Steel
Tubes. Knowing fully well that M/s. Subujo Services is only a fnance frm that car loan was sanctioned by A3-B.Ramakanth.
7.The accused ofcials failed to get hypothecation in the registration certifcate of the car. A1-P.N.Madhur visited Patancheru site of of A4 and submitted his report dt.19-4-1999 that the value of site of 4033 sq. yards is Rs.52 lakhs as against the actual value of
Rs.8,06,600/-. Thus all the accused conspired together to cheat Union
Bank of India, Small Scale Industries Finance Bank. In pursuance of the said conspiracy a cash credit of Rs.52.50 lakhs; inland letter of credit of
Rs.39 lakhs; and a term loan of Rs.2 lakhs on the infated collateral and 6
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
additional collateral securities, forged lorry receipts and invoices
submitted by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao was sanctioned. They caused a wrongful loss of Rs.60,49,227/- and corresponding wrongful gain to A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao. It is alleged that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao did not repay the loan amount. In the course of investigation the complicity of
S.K.Agarwal is shown as A6 in FIR was not established. It is alleged that
A7-A.S.Bhagavan was compulsorily retired from service and therefore sanction order was not obtained.
8.It is seen from the record, this Court took cognizance of the case against A1 to A8 for the ofences under Sec.120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC read with 13(2) r/w. 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were served on them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/ sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations made by the prosecution.
9.It is stated that A1 and A2 died and the case against them was abated. A5 and A8 were discharged from this case vide orders in dated 14.10.2004 in Crl.M.P.209/2004 and 379/2004). Thus the present case is proceeded against A3, A7 who are public servants and A4 and A6 who are private persons.
10.After hearing both sides and on consideration of material on record, charges U/Secs. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against A1, A3, A7;
U/Secs. 120-B, 420, 471 IPC against A4; U/Secs. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against A6 were framed by this Court and the same were 7
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
read over and explained to them, for which they denied charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11.To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses on it’s behalf and got marked Exs P.1 to P.71. Accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by stating the incriminating circumstances available against them, for which they denied the prosecution case. Ex.D-1was marked through PW.5 in his cross- examination.
12.Heard.
13.Learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for A6 submitted written arguments. Perused the same.
ARGUMENTS:
14.Learned public prosecutor submitted that this is a case of bank fraud where A4-M.Sudhakar Rao availed diferent types of loans from
Union Bank of India during the tenure of A1 to A3 and later committed default in his payment. While sanctioning loan there were several irregularities on the part of A1 to A3. A4 with a dishonest intention ofered margin money but later with connivance of his brother
M.Raghavendra Rao, had taken away that amount. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the case is registered basing on the source information. It was argued that the case of prosecution is mainly based on Ex.P19 vigilance report prepared by bank ofcials. Learned public prosecutor relied on the evidence of the bank ofcials PW.5 – Sankara
Rama Subrahmaniyan and PW.6-B.Balayya in support of her submissions. These two persons conducted internal investigation in the bank and submitted Ex.P19 investigation report. It was argued that 8
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
right from opening of the bank account, A4-M.Sudhakar Rao had an intention to cheat the bank. There was no power supply in the manufacturing unit of A4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that
Ex.P7 is the relevant fle that contains the loan documents. It was argued Ex.P19 report is self explanatory that contains chronological events in this case.
15.Learned public prosecutor submitted that with the help of
M.Raghavendra Rao, A4-M.Sudhakar Rao got deposited Rs.20 lakhs as fxed deposit and raised a loan of Rs.17 lakhs. This amount was utilised as margin money to avail loan from Union Bank of India. In the said process the bank issued a DD for Rs.40 lakhs in favour of
M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes, Raipur out of which it supplied material for Rs.20 lakhs only. Thereafter dishonestly A4-M.Sudhakar
Rao with the help of M.Raghavendra Rao got transferred the remaining
Rs.20 lakhs from M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes, Raipur to the original creditor G.S.Sridhar who extended a loan of Rs.20 lakhs. Thus the accused diverted the loan amount with a dishonest intention to cheat the bank. Learned public prosecutor submitted that A4 cheated the bank as if he obtained material worth of Rs.40 lakhs from M/s.
Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes.
16.Secondly the accused ofered collateral security by showing immovable property and infating its value. While doing so, A4 obtained
Ex.P14 and P15 pattadar psss books and other documents from the owners namely PW.10 and the family members namely Pws.11 and 12 without their knowledge or consent. It is stated that the accused No.4 9
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
ofered collateral security by manipulating the documents without the knowledge and consent of the owners.
17.It is further argued A4 also obtained letter of credit and diverted funds to M/s. Jayanthi Engineering Company of A6-B.Nageswara
Rao. In fact M/s. Jayanthi Engineering Company is not a manufacturing company. Learned public prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW.20 income tax ofcer in support of his submissions. PW.20 deposed in his evidence that M/s. Jayanthi Engineering Company is not registered as a manufacturer nor it was a dealer as per Central Excise Act. In this connection A6- B.Nageswara Rao facilitated A4- M.Sudhakar Rao in commission of ofence and diverting the funds. A4 also availed a car loan. A second hand Premier-118 NE car was purchased. The amount was disbursed by A3-Ramakanth to M/s. Subujo Services. As per the evidence of PW.26 -M.Bhupal Reddy then Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax, M/s. Subujo Services was not in existence in the given address.
Learned public prosecutor also relied on the evidence of PW.25 –
M.Krishna Murthy, the then Senior Branch Manager, A.P.S.F.C.,
Hyderabad. He was recovery ofcer. He deposed that PW.9 – B.Santha
Rao participated in auction for sale of M/s. Navodaya Steel Tubes
Private Limited Company, Ranasthalam, Srikakulam District. According to learned public prosecutor the bank ofcials A1 to A3 and A7 ought to have taken care while disbursing loans. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the conduct of the bank ofcials in disbursing loan reveals their dis-honest intention and conspiracy. The loans were disbursed in a hurried manner on almost day-to-day basis. Learned public prosecutor submitted all the facts and circumstances including 10
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
evidence of material witness disclosed dis-honest intention on the part of bank ofcials as well as the prime accused A4-M.Sudhakar Rao who obtained the loans and had wrongful gain. It was argued that the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18.Learned counsel for A3 submitted that A3- B.Ramakanth is the then Deputy Manager (Technical). It was argued that there are no particular allegations against A3 in sanctioning the loans. The ingredients under Sec.120-B are not attracted to the facts of the case.
Learned counsel relied on Ex.P7 appraisal report and Ex.P47- Technical report submitted by the A3 to the bank. It was argued that these two documents are not the basis for grant the loan. Clearly A3 had cautioned the bank about the lacunas in the project. Learned counsel submitted that A3 informed the bank about non-availability of power supply to the unit of A4. Inspite of that basing on inferences the case is fabricated against A3 also even though he is not connected with the sanction of the loan. Learned counsel prayed to acquit A3-Ramakanth.
19.Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence adduced by prosecution showing conspiracy by A3. Apart from that A3 cannot anticipate that A4 would commit default in repayment of loan in future.
A3 merely discharged is duty as technical ofcer. He had no authority to sanction loan.
20.Learned counsel for A4-M.Sudhakar Rao submitted that at the outset that there is no conspiracy in granting of loan. After legal scrutiny only the loans were granted to A4. Learned counsel argued about the subsequent events in this case. It was submitted that the bank fled O.A. 86/02 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against M/s.
11
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Master Steel Tubes and A4 as defendants 1 and 2. That O.A. was allowed with costs. Suppressing those facts the present case is foisted against A4. It was argued that A5 was discharged in this case and it had become fnal. According to learned counsel the only ofences attracted are Sec.420 and 417 and that there is no evidence for the other ofences. It was argued that taking cognizance for the ofences under
Sec.420, 471 r/w. 120-B had become fnal. The charges were subsequently altered against A4. Thereafter A4 was charged with the ofences under Sec.120-B, 420, 471 of IPC only vide altered charges
dated 04.01.2019.
21.Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution failed to add the frm of A4 in this case, for which A4 is acting as Managing
Partner. It was argued that loan was sanctioned to frm but not A4.
Learned counsel reiterated that according to prosecution the frm availed the loan but not A4-M.Sudhakar Rao. Therefore, the FIR itself is illegal and hence A4 is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel argued that there was no investigation about fling of O.A. before Debt
Recovery Tribunal. In the course of arguments learned counsel relied on various prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that from the evidence of PW.5 it is disclosed that the investigation agency did not collect any other report from the Panel advocate or valuer. With regard to evidence of PW.22-N.Subba Rao, the then Assistant Manager of Union
Ban of India, it was argued that PW22 had no personal knowledge about car loan. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PW.26-
M.Bhupal Reddy the then Joint Commissioner, Income Tax is not useful to the case of prosecution. It is his evidence in prosecution that by the 12
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
year 2001 a business frm can do business without obtaining PAN card.
Learned counsel also submitted that there is ambiguity with regard to the date of submitting Ex.P54- True copy of Form-1 of Death Certifcate of Chigurupalli Lakshmana Rao signed by R.V.Ramana Rao. According to learned counsel the report preceded the covering letter to
Commissioner, Income Tax.
22.Arguing about the evidence of PW.9 B.Santha Rao lessor it was submitted that he did not fle any cheque dishonour case when the cheques issued by A4 towards monthly rents were dishonoured. Further
PW.9 was not aware if the name of the factory was changed. Learned counsel submitted that from the evidence of PW.25-M.Krishna Murthy,
Recovery Ofcer, A.P.S.F.C., it is disclosed that the CBI Inspector did not record his statement. One K.Darma Rao alone has knowledge about
Ex.P48 – Sale letter. Thus according to learned counsel even this evidence is also not useful to the case of prosecution.
23.It was also argued that PW.7 also did not give his statement to
CBI. PW.7 is the brother of the vendor Subash Sigal. It was argued that the evidence of Pws.10 to 12 are crucial in this case. From the evidence of PW.11- Ch.Venkata Seetha Ram it was disclosed that he signed on some white papers at CBI ofce. Likewise evidence of PW.12 -Ch.Ravi
Kumar another guarantor is also not useful to the case of prosecution.
PW.12 is not aware of anything about A4- M.Sudhakar Rao. Learned counsel submitted that PW.15- G.Subramanyam, Advocate deposed that an advocate known to him brought Ex.P29 original declaration of Pws.11 and 12 and accordingly he attested. PWs. 11 and 12 were introduced to him.
13
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
24.In the course of arguments learned counsel submitted that the CBI did not seize any documents from PW.3 – T.Gopi Krishna who was doing Transport Business. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution did not examine G.S.Sridhar to whom M/s. Krishna Iron
Strips and Tubes Private Limited is alleged to have paid Rs.20 lakhs by way of transfer of funds. According to learned counsel the crucial witness including M.Raghavendra Rao is not examined in this case.
According to learned counsel certain transactions took place in the this case without knowledge of A4 – M.Sudhakar Rao.
25.Learned counsel submitted that as per conditionss 9 to 11 of
Partnership Deed dated 05.09.98, bank account has to be operated by
A4- M.Sudhakar Rao. It was argued that nothing useful is elicited form the evidence of Pw.18 – S.D.Varma, Manager, Bank of India, Raipur
Branch. According to learned counsel non examination of any one concerned with the afairs of M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes Private
Limited is fatal to the case of prosecution. Further PW.18 admitted in his cross examination that he did not issue statement of account of M/s.
Krishna iron Strips and Tubes Private Limited to CBI.
26.With regard to search witnesses it was argued that from the evidence of PW.1 – M.V.Krishna Rao it is established that as per attendance register he was on duty on the date of search. PW.2-
K.Satyananda Rao, another search witness is a planted witness.
Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to cross examination portion of PW.2. It was argued that there is a variation in the evidence of PW.2 and the investigating ofcer. PW.29 – U.V.Bhaskara Rao with regard to conducting of search. Learned counsel submitted that PW.29 14
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
only identifed the signature of other investigating ofcer –
S.E.Mohammed, who conducted investigation and fled charge sheet.
Concluding his arguments learned counsel submitted that the CBI did not obtain the specimen signature of M.Sudhakar Rao for comparison by
Government Expert. Thus the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao had conspired with bank ofcials with a dishonest intention and cheated the bank.
27.Learned counsel for A6 submitted that in order to establish charge under Sec.120-B IPC. The prosecution has to establish the role played by A6 in this regard. The charge sheet is silent in what way and what manner the letter of credit was issued. No ofence of forgery is made out in this case. None deposed about A6. It is also stated in the written arguments that the prosecution failed to show any connection between A6-B.Nageswara Rao and M/s. Jayanthi Engineering Company.
None from bank of Madhura was examined to establish the alleged violations by A6-B.Nageswara Rao. It was prayed to acquit A6.
28.Learned counsel for A7 submitted that A7 is not connected with cash credit or other loan transactions. It was argued that no evidence is adduced by prosecution to show that A7 issued Ex.P8 loan application for car loan. It was argued that as per available record the sister-in-law of A7 P.Padma the owner of Suboj Enterprises. The car owner P.Rama Rao was not examined. According to learned counsel
Ex.P19 report cannot be believed. In this connection learned counsel relied on Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of D.Venkata Rao
V State [2000 (2) ALD (Cri) 458]. In this case it was held that an enquiry report is not a substantial piece of evidence and its use is 15
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
limited. Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P19 itself has no value. The prosecution failed to connect A7 to car loan transaction. Learned counsel therefore prayed to acquit A7.
29.Upon hearing learned public prosecutor and learned counsel
for accused and on perusal of material available on record, the following
points emerge for determination.
1.Whether the prosecution proved conspiracy among accused in committing the alleged ofences punishable withing the meaning of Sec.120-B IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution established the ofences under Secs.420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and
Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act against A1, A3 and A7?
3.Whether the prosecution proved the ofences under
Sec.120-B, 420, 471 IPC against A4-M.Sudhakar
Rao?
4.Whether the prosecution established the ofences under Secs. 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against A6?
30.For the sake of convenience and brevity the discussion for all the points is taken up together, since they are inter linked.
At the out set it may be noted that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao is the prime accused in this case. He is the Managing Partner of M/s. Master
Steel Tubes, Visakhapatnam. A careful perusal of record including the written statement fle by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao indicates that he admitted availing of loans from Union Bank of India Small Scale Industries Finance
Branch, Visakhapatnam. A4-M.Sudhakar Rao fled his written statement 16
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
along with copies in O.A.No.86/2002 fled against him, the partnership frm and others by the bank. That O.A. was allowed with costs. A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao also fled his written statement pleading that due to disturbance created by the bank he was not in a position to run his industry. Thereupon, he sustained heavy loss and unable to pay EMIs., regularly. The accused also paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the bank towards
OTS proposal promising to pay the balance. The correspondence fled by the A4-M.Sudhakar Rao indicates that A4 ofered to pay Rs.75 lakhs towards full and fnal settlement.
31.Thus it is clear from the above discussion that there is no necessity to discuss the factum of loan transaction between M/s. Master
Steel Tubes, A4-M.Sudhakar Rao and Union Bank of India. The only grievance of the bank is that while availing loan and after availing loan
A4-M.Sudhakar Rao acted with a dishonest intention and cheated the bank. To be precise A4 is alleged to have diverted the loan amount to one G.S.Sreedhar, Financier and also ofered immovable property as security for the loan by infating the value. With regard to margin money also the accused committed fraud on the bank by diverting the bank loan. These are the main allegations against the accused. One more allegation is that he ofered property at Etcherla village of
Srikakulam District without the knowledge of the owners. An equitable mortgage was created on this property.
32.PW5- S.Rama Subrahmaniyan, the then Deputy Manager,
Union Bank of India, Zonal Vigilance Cell gave a some what clear picture of the fraud played by the A4-M.Sudhakar Rao as seen from his evidence as follows:
17
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
1) That there was no power connection to M/s. Master Steel Tubes Unit as per report of A3-B.Rama Kanth, Technical ofcer.
2) The bank issued demand draft for Rs.40,00,000/- to M/s. Krishna
Iron Strips and Tubes, Raipur through the guarantor Raghavendra Rao, but Rs. 20 lakhs was diverted to the original fnancier G.Sreedhar.
3) A4-M.Sudhakar Rao over valued his property worth only Rs.8 lakhs as Rs.1.2 crores. The property was registered on 05.10.1998 for Rs.1.25 lakhs but within 15 days the value was infated to Rs.1.2 crores.
Likewise the additional security is worth only Rs.6 lakhs but its value is infated in the valuation report as Rs.40 lakhs.
4) The lease agreement with PW.9-B.Santha Rao is for fve years only but it was mentioned that lease period is for 14 years.
5) The stock statement and debtor statement reveal that there was no activity from April, 1999.
6) The fgures in the accounts of the frm are fctitious.
7) A4-M Sudhakara Rao fabricated the lorry receipts from M/s. Krishna
Iron Strips and Tubes. Only 14 trucks were dispatched but not 23 trucks as per the documents.
8) Likewise A4-M Sudhakar Rao availed car loan for which the bank issued a draft in favour of Suboj Services but the owner of the car is a diferent person.
9)With regard to inland letter of credit the bank honoured letter of credit for documents produced by M/s. Jayanthi Engineering Company which actually engaged in ship repairing activity but not in manufacturing or dealing with Iron or Steel production.
18
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
33. CONSPIRACY:
In this context it is relevant to look into the defnition of conspiracy. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari v.
CBI [AIR 2010 SC 528] discussed the ingredients of the ofence. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:
“60. Criminal conspiracy, it must be noted in this regard, is an independent ofence. It is punishable separately. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action; for so long as a crime is generated n the mind of the accused, the same does not become punishable. Thoughts even criminal in character, often involuntary, are not crimes but when they take a concrete shapr of an agreement to do or caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means then even if nothing further is done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy.
61. The ingredients of the ofence of criminal conspiracy are :
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. Condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be established by the prosecution viz., meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
62. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a fnding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difcult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the ofences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and / or by necessary implication...” 19
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
34.Thus the prosecution has to establish a prior agreement among the accused and that agreement must relate to doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The prosecution must establish at the outset meeting of the minds of the accused for doing this illegal act.
35.Thus the prosecution has to establish prior meeting of minds among the accused to commit the ofence. The present case revolves around A4-M Sudhakara Rao, Managing Partner of M/s. Master Steel
Tubes. A2- T.Tamala Reddy was the Deputy Manager of the same bank and A3- B.Ramakanth is the Technical Ofcer of Union Bank of India that granted loan. The prime allegations are against A1- P.N.Mathur, who is alleged to have sanctioned loan. A2 died and there is no much evidence available against him in the available record.
Role of A-3 B.Rama Kanth:
With regard to A3 it is alleged that he gave a technical report, with that branch recommended and sanctioned loan. PW.5 is a crucial witness in this case. He belongs to Zonal Vigilance Cell. On instructions he conducted investigation along with PW.6- B.Balayya in this case and submitted Ex.P19 report to his higher authorities. I have perused Ex.P19 as well as a technical report submitted by A3-
B.Ramakanth. Even according to PW.5, A3-B.Ramakanth gave a fnding that power connection is not available with the unit and that before sanctioning loan they have to ensure the power connection. It is alleged that A3 accepted the request of the party to run the unit on the generator. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for A3, he had cautioned the bank in advance about non-availability of power. It is not as if he recommended to grant loan even in the absence of power. In 20
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
this regard the evidence of PW.8 A.Sanjeeva Reddy the then Senior
Manager becomes relevant. In his cross examination PW.8 stated that technical ofcers report is one of the documents for consideration to sanction a loan and it is no way concerned with title or value of the property relating to the project. PW.8 further elaborated that loan has to be sanctioned basing on banking norms and discretionary powers of
Branch Manager. Viewed in this angle, A3 has a little role to play in grant of loan to the frm of A4-M Sudhakara Rao. Strictly speaking A3-
B.Ramakanth in his technical report dated 15.08.1998 at page No.3 clearly stated that the plant is connected with Ht power 100 KV which is more adequate for the plants operation. The main tube mill can be operated with 74 HP power itself. Therefore it cannot be said that the technical report given by A3-B.Ramakanth alone became basis for grant of loans. As per the evidence of PW.8, A3-B.Ramakanth is not connected with other aspects. In fact A3 recommended in his report that credit facilities may be provided to the subject frm subject to usual bank norms. This indicates the bank has to follow other norms while sanctioning loans. The role of A3 is thus limited in this case. No evidence is adduced by prosecution to show that he deviated from the established procedure and recommended for loan. Consequentially it is also held that there is also no mis-conduct within the maintaining of
Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
36. Role of A-6 B.Nageswara Rao:
With regard to the role of A6 – B.Nageswara Rao it is under stood from the evidence of PW.5 and the averments in the charge sheet that he is connected with M/s. Jayanthi Engineering Company which 21
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
charged an excise duty even though it is not engaged in manufacturing activity. The evidence of PW.20 – Dr.Haribandhu Pradhan, the then
Additional Commissioner (Personnel and Vigilance), Visakhapatnam
discloses as per Ex.P39-letter dated 20.08.2001 the said Jayanthi
Engineering Company is not registered as a manufacturer nor a dealer as per Central Excise Act. Prosecution did not place any record to connect A6-B.Nageswara Rao with the said M/s. Jayanthi Engineering
Company. In the written statement fled on behalf of A6 it is mentioned that none deposed about A6 with regard to ofence of forgery. PW.5 and PW.6 alone stated about A6 in their evidence. Learned counsel also submitted that prosecution did not place any record if A6-
B.Nageswara Rao is maintaining any account with Bank of Madura. On careful perusal of record, this Court agrees that the submissions of learned counsel for A6. Though the prosecution alleged about the role of A6 in the conspiracy and commission of ofence, yet no record is placed by the prosecution at the outset to prove that A6-B.Nageswara
Rao is one way or other conencted with the afairs of M/s. Jayanthi
Engineering Company. As such it can be held that the ofences alleged against A6 namely 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 are not proved.
37. Role of A-7 A.S.Bhagawan:
A7-A.S.Bhagwan is concerned only with car loan. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for A7 the prosecution did not place any cogent material to connect with A7 that Subojo Enterprises which is alleged to have sold a car to M/s. Master Steel Tubes. In the written statement fled by him A7 stated that he is only a computer terminal operator in clerical cadre and that he is no way connected with loan 22
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
department and its related activities. The prosecution at best can be said to have established through evidence of PW.26, the then Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, that M/s. Subojo Enterprises was not having PAN card and that it is not in existence in the given address.
Except that no other cogent material is available to show that A7 is connected with the afairs of M/s. Suboj Enterprises. Hence, it is held that prosecution failed to establish the charges against A7 for the ofence under Sec.120-B. The prosecution further failed to prove any mis-conduct on the part of A7 within the meaning of Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
38. Role of A-1 P.N.Mathur and A-4 M.Sudhakar Rao:
As already stated the case against A1 and A2 is abated on their death. It is noted that A2 died before charges, whereas A1 the
Chief Manager P.N.Mathur died after framing of charges. He is the person, who sanctioned loan to Master Steel Tubes. For the sake of better adjudication it is felt desirable to discuss the role of A1 and the prime accused A4-M.Sudhakar Rao together.
39.Reverting to the defnition of conspiracy as referred above in the light of judgment of Supreme Court, the facts of the present case are to be appreciated to arrive at a just decision. While doing so, this
Court is inclined to briefy refer the applicable sections and illustrations given to the relevant sections under Indian Evidence Act. In my considered opinion Section 6, 8, 9 and 10 of Indian Evidence Act assume importance. For the sake of convenience the sections and relevant illustrations are extracted here.
23
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Sec.6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction— Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at diferent times and places.
Illustrations
(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
Sec.8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct.—Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an ofence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct infuences or is infuenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.—The word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to afect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2.—When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which afects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.
The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
Sec.9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. —Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fx the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by 24
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
Sec.10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to
common design.—Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an ofence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was frst entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
40.Since the ofence of conspiracy is usually done in secrecy, the
Court has to mostly rely on the circumstantial evidence to conclude that there was a conspiracy and prior meeting of minds. In this regard this
Court is inclined to briefy refer the chronology of events as follows:
15.09.1998Partnership deed (Page No.45 of Ex.P7) 23.09.1998A4-M.Sudhakar Rao entered into a lease agreement with PW.9- B.Santha Rao under Ex.P24 for a period of 5 years. (but represented as 15 years claiming under Ex.P7 – Lease Deed dated 15.10.98) 25.09.1998The bank account of the form was opened. 05.10.1998A4-M.Sudhakar Rao purchased immovable property for Rs.1,25,000/- at Patancheru. 10.10.1998 A4-M.Sudhakar Rao obtained valuation certifcate for Rs.1,20,99,000/- from M/s. Jagannadha Rao and Associates, Hyderabad for the property puchased by him at Patancheru. 14.10.1998A4-M.Sudhakar Rao submitted a letter to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Small Scale Industries Branch, Visakhapatnam to sanction of OCC limit of Rs.54 lakhs and inland letter of credit limit of Rs.39 lakhs. He ofered collateral security of industrial site at Patancheru, Hyderabad, worth of Rs.1.20 lakhs. 15.10.1998Un-registered lease deed with PW.9 for 15 years. 15.10.1998Technical appraiser report given by A3-B.Ramakanth 25
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
31.10.1998M/s. New fnance Services Private Ltd., issued a cheque for Rs.15 lakhs for taking two demand drafts in favour of M.Raghavendra Rao (Ex.P.55 and P.56) 04.11.1998Loan was disbursed (PW.5 at page No.2) 05.11.1998Letter by Union Bank of India to M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes including DD for Rs.40 lakhs for supplying required raw material to the client M/s. Master Steel Tubes, Visakhapatnam (Page No.92 of Ex.P7)(LD.50) 05.11.1998Letter by M/s. Master Steel Tubes to M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes to supply material (Ex.P.68) 05.11.1998Letter by M/s. Master Steel Tubes to M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Tubes requesting to return Rs.20 lakhs to G.S.Sridhar. (Ex.P.69) 05.11.1998Bank receipt voucher in the name of M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Tubes, Raipur for Rs.40 lakhs, bank payment voucher for Rs.20 lakhs being the cheque issued to make demand draft numbers 000083, 000084, 000085 (Ex.P36 to P38) in favour of G.S.Sridhar. 24.11.1999 }Legal notices by Union Bank of India demanding 01.01.2000 }repayment of loan amount.
41.The above sequence of events prima facie reveal the dishonest intention on the part of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao in availing loan for the frm.
At one juncture it was argued by the learned counsel for A4 that M/s.
Master Steel Tubes is not arrayed as accused and that A4-M.Sudhakar
Rao alone is prosecuted. It may be noted that by virtue of the partnership deed dated 15.09.1998 vide clause 9 to 11 A4-M.Sudhakar
Rao also is authorized to open bank account and operate it. He is also authorized to raise loans and further he is authorized to maintain all the books of account. By virtue of this partnership deed the accused/A4 cannot now plead that the frm is not arrayed as accused. A4 alone is authorized to open the bank accounts raised loans and also maintain books of account. It must be borne in mind that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao in reality had acted in accordance with these terms in the partnership deed and cannot now claim any immunity.
26
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
42.Learned counsel in the course of arguments relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M N G Bharateesh
Reddy V Ramesh Ranganathan and Another in 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 701 wherein it was held that an alleged breach of contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the ofence of criminal breach of trust. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed the ingredients of the ofences under Sec.415 IPC. Learned counsel also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Ram Sharan
Chaturvedi V The State of Madhya Pradesh in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
709 wherein it was held that the principal ingredients of the ofence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit such an ofence which can be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Learned
Counsel also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Shelila Sebastian V R.Jawaharaj and Another etc.,(11th May, 2018 downloaded from Indian Kanoon).The judgment pertains to Sec.
465 of IPC for which A4-M.Sudhakar Rao is not charged. Hence, the citation is not helpful to the accused.
43.With regard to purpose of Sec.313 Cr.P.C. learned counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai
Prakash Tiwari V State of Madhya Pradesh in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
658. In the present case there is no argument about non compliance of
Sec.313 Cr.P.C. As such this judgment is not useful to A4-M.Sudhakar
Rao. With regard to the absence of M/s. Master Steel Tubes as accused in this case learned counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Gauhati in the case of Gopal Chandra Paul Vs. State of Assam (11 th
February, 2004, downloaded from Indian Kanoon). The case 27
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
pertains to provisions of Food Adulteration Act. The facts and circumstances are entirely diferent and applicability of statutory provisions is also diferent from the present case. More over as already discussed, A4-M.Sudhakar Rao by virtue of partnership deed alone is authorized for opening bank accounts availing loans and maintaining accounts.
44.Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Satye Singh & Another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court discussed the scope of Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act. It was held that the prosecution is not relieved on its duty to prove the guilt of accused without proving the basic facts. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court also held that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but the prosecution should prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused alone is the ofender.
45.Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 wherein it was held that when two views are possible arising out of circumstantial evidence the one i.e., favourable to accused must be adopted.
46.Learned counsel also relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Parminder Kaur @ P.P.Kaur @ Soni Vs. State of Punjab in
(Crl. Appeal No.283 of 2011 (down loaded copy of LiveLaw).
Learned counsel relied on relevant portion relating to compliance of 28
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Sec.313 Cr.P.C. As already stated there is no argument about non compliance of Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
47.I have carefully perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel and there is no dispute about the legal propositions contained therein. The main judgment cited by learned counsel is M N G
Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan and Another in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701. Thejudgment elaborately dealt with the ofence under Sec.405, 415, 420 IPC Learned counsel argued that in order to constitute ofence of cheating the prosecution has to establish the dishonest intention on the part of accused since inception.
48.Now it has to be seen whether there is dishonest intention on the part of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao while availing loan from the bank and later diverting the loan amount.
49.As already stated accused No.4 is admitting the availing of bank loan. At the outset it may be noted that certain crucial documents were seized from his house. The prosecution examined PW.2 – Search witness in this connection. Nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination of the witness in support of the case of accused. The plea of accused as can be seen from his written statement is that only because of disturbance created by the bank he was unable to run the industry and consequentially sustained heavy loss. It appears that the accused is not seriously disputing the search and seizure proceedings.
PW1 is also a crucial witness in whose presence the CBI conducted search of M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes Private Limited and seized several documents. Considering the plea raised by A4 this Court is not discussing the sanctity or otherwise of search and seizure of several 29
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
documents. It is said that a search may be illegal but outcome is legal.
The line of cross examination adopted by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao also indicates that he is not denying or disputing several documents relied on by the prosecution. It is noted that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao is disputing
Ex.P.24 lease deed. This aspect will be addressed at a later stage.
50.Reverting to dishonest intention, it must be noted that by the date of applying for loan i.e., 14.10.1998 the accused was in need of money which fact is relevant under Section 8 read with Ilustration
(b) of Indian Evidence Act. The only property A4-M.Sudhakar Rao had is property at Patancheru that was purchased for Rs.1,25,000/- on 05.10.1998. A4 purchased an extent of 4033 Sq. yards @ Rs.200/- per sq.yard. worth of Rs.8,06,600/-. This transaction was on 5-10-1998. By 10.10.98 the A4 obtained valuation certifcate from M/s. Jagannadha
Rao and Associates wherein the value of the property is infated to
Rs.1,20,99,000/-. In general, the market value is much higher than the document value but still the amount of Rs.1,20,99,000/- is highly abnormal and improbable. It is surprising that within a short span of just fve days the value increased. A4-M.Sudhakar Rao applied to the bank by ofering this property as collateral security. The accused did not place any valid material as to how this valuation is arrived within a short period. Though A5- V.Jagannadha Rao who issued valuation certifcate was discharged from this case, that discharge pertains to his role only.
In other words it is for the accused to explain how he obtained such infated valuation certifcate. In general valuation certifcate will be given only on the information and data furnished by applicant. The prosecution proved the foundational fact that there is gross infation in 30
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
the value of collateral security furnished by the A4-M.Sudhakar Rao.
The onus now shifts on him to explain the reasons and circumstances.
A4 did not choose to place any record that there is a sudden surge in the value of the property in the surrounding area. No comparitive sale deeds pertaining to the same area like those fled in land acquisition cases are placed before the Court. In the absence of any circumstances to the contra it can be said that the accused had fraudulently obtained market value certifcate for the property purchased by him at
Patancheru.
51. LEASE DEED:
As seen from Ex.P7 loan fled there are two lease deed. The frst one is Ex.P24 registration extract of lease deed dated 23.09.1998 with PW.9 -B.Santha Rao. This document clearly reveals that the lease period is for 5 years only. The accused is denying this document placing reliance on another sale deed dated 15.10.1998. According to him lease is for a period of 15 years. A perusal of this lease deed dated 15.10.1998 relied on by the accused No.4 reveals a faw in his case.
A4-M.Sudhakar Rao addressed a letter Branch Manager, Union Bank of
India dated 14.10.98 (Page 52 of Ex.P7 (LD.50)) seeking loan. He clearly stated that the promoters acquired on lease 20 TPD Steel Tube manufacturing unit in working condition of industrial area, Ranasthalam,
Srikakulam District. Obviously A4-M.Sudhakar Rao is referring to the present property that was leased to him by PW.9. This indicates that by 14.10.98 itself there was a lease. This piece of evidence fortifes the case of prosecution that Ex.P.24 lease deed dated 23.09.98 is acted upon. It is a registered document which carries certain sanctity with it.
31
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
As per this document the lease period is only for 5 years. The evidence of PW.9 lessor – B.Santha Rao also supports this view. It might be a fact
PW.9 might have not taken any steps such as issuing notice to A4 after knowing about Ex.P-7 lease deed. This conduct of PW.9 is independent from the facts of this case. The fact remains that there was a lease agreement dated 23.09.98 for a period of fve years only and that such a crucial fact is suppressed by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao to the bank. It is also pertaining to look into the technical report submitted by A3-
B.Ramakanath to the Chief Manager recommending loan. In this report
A3 had clearly mentioned that the frm had acquired lands and buildings in Ranasthalam on a lease for a period of 15 years efecting from 23.09.98. This report is based on the personal visit of A3 to review the infrastructural facilities available at the project location. In the preamble of technical report itself A3- B.Ramakanth made it clear that technical report is based on project report and other information submitted by the frm, discussions held with Mr.Sudhakar Rao. Thus it can be safely concluded that the technical report of A30 based on the information furnished by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao himself that the lease is for a period of 15 years. As already stated it is noted from Ex.P.24 lease deed dated 23.09.98 that the lease is for a period of 5 years. In the light of above discussion it can be said that A4 suppressed the material fact even before sanction of loan. Therefore, dishonest intention is clearly seen on the part of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao from the date of very inception. Apart from that the legal opinion dated 14.10.98 of Sri
G.V.Krishna Rao. Advocate and notary to the Chief Manager of the bank also refers to the lease deed dated 23.09.98. In fact Ex.P7 loan fle 32
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
consists of a photostat copy of lease deed at pages 158 to 161. At page 2 of lease deed there is a clear mention that lease for the period of 5 years. These circumstances clearly establish the dishonest on the part of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao from inception.
52.As per the available evidence A1-P.N.Mathur the then Chief
Manager sanctioned loan on 04.11.1998. The sanction advice was prepared by A2 and technical report was prepared by A3. At this stage a perusal of Ex.P19 investigation report indicates that A1 did not make any eforts to know the actual valuation of the collateral security at
Patancheru. It cannot be said that A1 who is mainly responsible for approving loan is not aware of the fnancial position of M/s. Master Steel
Tubes by the date of loan. At page 3 of Ex.P19 investigation report chronology of events is narrated. It appears that even before the party applied for loan on 14.10.98, there was inspection by the technical ofcer on 24.09.98 itself. Immediately after application i.e., on 14.10.98 the technical ofcer gave his report on 15.10.98. Within a short time, A1 approved the loan. On the next day i.e., 05.11.98 the bank gave DD for
Rs.40 lakhs in favour of M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Strips for supply of raw material. Thus the entire loan process is completed within a short time hastily. It is stated at page 5 of Ex.P19 that the Regional ofce,
Visakhapatnam was not convinced about the valuation of the property as to how the land registered on 05.10.98 for Rs.1.25 lakhs can be valued 100 times for 1.20 crores within a week. There was a protracted correspondence in this regard. After that A1-P.N.Mathur is said to have inspected the site and enquired. This time the value of the property is arrived at Rs.52 lakhs at the rate of Rs.1400/- per sq. yard. A4 is not 33
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
disputing these aspects nor challenged Ex.P19. It can be safely concluded that A1-P.N.Mathur arrived at the correct market value only after disbursing the loan. At the cost of repetition it is stated that the loan was approved on 04.11.98 whereas A1-P.N.Mathur inspected the site subsequently and submitted report on 19.04.99 (Pg.5 of Ex.P19).
As already stated conspiracy is hatched in a secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available. Prosecution therefore relied on the circumstantial evidence in the nature chronological events.
53.At this juncture I came across the judgment in A.H.Desai Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 Mysore 46) whereinit was held that acts and declaration of conspirators in the furtherance of the common desire or anything said or done or written by any of the such persons in reference to their common intention and the evidence of conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances both before and after the commission of the ofence may be given in evidence to support or prove the ofence of conspiracy.
54.In the present case the conduct of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao before availing loan by infating the market value and the conduct of A1-
P.N.Mathur in approving the loan without ascertaining the particulars and facilitating the loan process can be called as conspiracy. Only when the Regional Ofce, Visakhapatnam was not satisfed with the valuation of the property, A1 appears to have made a personal inspection as can be seen from the averments in Ex.P.19 report and LD.55 report of A1-
P.N.Mathur dated 19.04.99. This is not a case of mere deviation from established procedure in granting loan by A1-P.N.Mathur. Instead it is something more than a mere lapse of duty on his part. Huge public 34
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
money is involved and a loan was granted without taking minimum precautions. In this regard the conduct of both A1-P.N.Mathur and A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao is relevant under Sec.8 of Indian Evidence Act.
Conspiracy can be safely inferred from the facts and circumstances.
55.An incidental question that arises at this stage is whether A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao alone can be prosecuted for the ofence under Sec.
120-B IPC in view of death of A1-P.N.Mathur. In general it is said that a sole ofender cannot conspire with himself; but in the present case A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao is party along with A4 and some others. The prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy on the part of other accused.
Had A1-P.N.Mathur been alive, he would have been convicted. Owing to his death the case against him was abated. The fact remains that A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao along with A1-P.N.Mathur are parties of conspiracy and as such A4-M.Sudhakar Rao can still be convicted under Sec.120-B IPC.
[Bimbadhar Pradhan Vs. State of Odissa in AIR 1956 SC 469 and 1956 SCR 206].
In the light of above discussion it can be said that the prosecution established the charge under Sec.120-B against
A4-M.Sudhakar Rao.
56. DIVERSION OF FUNDS:
It is alleged that after availing loan by M/s. Master Steel Tubes, the Union Bank gave DD dated 05.11.98 for Rs.40 lakhs in favour of M/s.
Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes. Letter dt.5-11-1998 addressed by Union
Bank of India to M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Strips. The contents of the letter is relevant. The bank asked M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Strips and Tubes Private Limited to supply required raw material for M/s.
35
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Master Steel Tubes. That means Rs.40 lakhs is clearly meant for supplying raw material. This letter bears the signature of A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao acknowledging the receipt of it. On the same day a letter was written by M/s. Master Steel Tubes requesting M/s. Krishna
Iron and Steel Strips and Tubes to return Rs.20 lakhs to
G.S.Sridhar, Hyderabad. The prosecution adduced cogent evidence by producing Ex.71 bank receipt voucher of M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel
Strips and Tubes bank payment voucher of M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel
Strips dated 05.11.98. It is clear that Rs.40 lakhs was deposited into the account of M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Strips and Tubes. There after basing on Ex.P.69 request letter of M/s.Master Steel Tubes dated 05.11.98 M/s. Krishna Iron and Steel Strips and Tubes obtained Ex.P.36 to P.38 (three demand drafts for Rs.9 lakhs, Rs.9 lakhs and RS.2 lakhs) in favour of G.S.Sridhar. Thus Rs.20 lakhs was diverted to G.S.Sridhar out of the loan amount of Rs. 40 lakhs given by Union Bank of India for the purpose of raw material. Originally the Managing Director of M/s.
Krishna Iron and Steel Strips and Tubes was also arrayed as an accused in the case but later his name was deleted. It is pertinent to note that all these facts are spoken by PW.5 Sankara Rama Subrahmaniyan (Ex.P19 investigation report) and PW.6 – B.Balayya who also conducted investigation along with PW5. It is noted that this portion of evidence regarding diversion of loan amount to G.S.Sridhar, Hyderabad is not specifcally denied by A4. In other words the cross examination is silent on this crucial aspect.
57.It is not the case of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao that he is ignorant about the happenings in the partnership frm. It is understood from 36
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
available record that the guarantor M. Raghavendra Rao is none other than brother of A4- M.Sudhakar Rao. As already discussed by virtue of terms and conditions in partnership deed of M/s. Master Steel and
Tubes, it is M.Sudhakar Rao who is exclusively authorized to operate bank accounts, raise loans and maintaining accounts. It is also not the case of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao that the guarantor had misused money. No such suggestions were given to the material witnesses in their cross examination. The only plea of the A4 as seen from his written statement is that the bank created disbursed, due to which he could not run the unit and consequentially sufered heavy loss. Therefore, in the absence of any other circumstances to the contra it is for the accused to explain how he purchased raw material worth of Rs.40 lakhs even after diverting Rs.20 lakhs to G.Sridhar, Hyderabad. The prosecution proved the foundational facts by way of above referred documentary evidence as well as oral evidence - in particular through the evidence of PW.5 and 6. The onus now shifts on A-4 to explain the stand. These facts are especially within the knowledge of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao. He did not place any material to rebut the evidence of prosecution. It is a settled law that burden of proof always lies on the prosecution. The onus alone shifts from one party to other. The prosecution discharged the initial burden of proof about certain irregularities in diverting the loan amounts and it is for the A4 to explain the circumstances. The accused was aforded an opportunity under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which he fled his written statement only stating that due to the disturbance created by the bank he could not run the unit. The accused did not choose to explain the diversion of loan amount to G.S.Sridhar. The main plea of 37
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
accused No.4 is that he ofered one time settlement by crediting
Rs.12,50,000/- to bank. In my considered opinion, this part payment made by A4-M.Sudhakar Rao after allowing of O.A.No.86/02 by Debts
Recovery Tribunal dated 25.03.2004 will not absolve him from criminal liability as per settled legal position. As already stated A4 fled copies of recovery certifcates in O.A.No.86/2002 and his correspondence with the bank ofering to settle the due amount.
58.At this juncture I came across the observations of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikram
Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 563 : 2014
SCC OnLine SC 745. These observations fortify my view that ofering
OTS and payment of part of loan amount is of no avail to A-4
M.Sudhakar Rao.The relevant portion is extracted as hereunder:
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Be it stated, that availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fscal impurity and, in a way, fnancial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of fnance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefts it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the fnancial interest of the society. The gravity of the ofence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skilfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in our view, would defnitely fall in the category of ofences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis. Its implications have its own seriousness, for it creates a concavity in the solemnity that is expected in fnancial transactions. It is not such a case where one can pay the amount and obtain a “no dues certifcate” and enjoy the beneft of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the hypostasis that nothing 38
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
more remains to be done. The collective interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves...”
59.A thorough reading of entire material available on record indicates that A4-M.Sudhakar Rao cheated the bank in availing loan by infating the value of his property at Patancheru, Hyderabad. The prosecution established these acts of dishonest intention coupled with conspiracy on the part of A4-M.Sudhakar Rao ever since inception i.e., even before availing loan. The prosecution also introduced evidence with regard to proximity of time in which the loan was applied; sanctioned; relevant correspondence and receiving of demand drafts and transfer of money to G.S.Sridhar on the same day i.e., 05.11.98.. All these circumstances are interwoven and hence relevant under Sec.6 (Res Gestae), Sec.8 (conduct), Sec.9 (introduction of facts relating to time and place) and Sec.10 (conspiracy). The chronology of the events
before and after sanction of loan thus strengthens the case of
prosecution to a large extent.
60. Charge under Sec.471 IPC:
With regard to charge under Sec.471 IPC the prosecution did not place any satisfactory material to show that A4 had used a forged document. It is borne by evidence that the loan was sanctioned to accused basing on legal opinion. The other allegation against accused is that he ofered collateral security without knowledge of the owners with regard to property situated at Etcherla village, Srikakulam Ddistrict.
39
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.10 Ch.Vijaya, PW.11-
Ch.Venkata Seetha Ram and PW.12 – Ch.Ravi Kumar. The sum and substance of their evidence is that the family possessed Ac. 3.50 cents of land at Etcherla village of Srikakulam District. PW.10 handed over photostat copies of land pass books of that land to Pemmineni Ashok (lady). PW.11 deposed that the said Ashok (lady) introduced A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao stating that he will purchase landed property. PW.1 did not receive any advance amount from A4- M.Sudhakar Rao. PW.12-
Ch.Ravi Kumar stated that one Ashok (lady) who had acquaintance with his father took passbooks from his father. The family has Ac. 0.07 cents of land at Etcherla village. PW.12 never stood as guarantor to any third party. In his cross examination he stated that no legal notice was given against Ashok to return pass book. No police report was also given.
Likewise PW.11 in his cross examination stated that at CBI ofce he subscribed a number of signatures on white papers given by CBI ofcials. Similarly PW.10 also deposed she did not lodge any police complaint with Ashok (lady), when shedid not return the pass books.
The evidence of Pws.10 to 12 is not sufcient to conclude that A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao induced them to part with the pass books or property and thereby created an equitable mortgage. The inaction on the part of
Pws.10 to 12 to get back their pass books to a large extent discredits the veracity of these witnesses. The witnesses themselves were not sure about any mortgage transactions as can be seen from their evidence. Therefore, their evidence does not inspire much confdence.
61.With regard to Ex.P7 lease deed dated 15.10.98 PW.9 B.Santha
Rao is denying his signatures on that document. PW.9 admitted Ex.P24 40
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
another lease deed dated 23.09.98. According to the bank it acted on
Ex.P.24 – lease deed only. This aspect is already discussed supra. The point that remains to be decided is whether A4- M.Sudhakar Rao submitted Ex.P7 lease deed for 15 years to bank. Already this Court came to a conclusion that Ex.P.24 lease deed which is registration extract is acted upon by the bank. A photostat copy of said registered lease deed 23.09.98 is part of Ex.P7 (Pages.158 to 161). In order to prove that Ex.P7 is a forged document, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence. It appears that the document was not sent to an expert for opinion. Under these circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove A4- M.Sudhakar Rao used a forged document as genuine. Similar is the case with other documents like invoice and lorry receipts. There is paucity of evidence to conclude that lorry receipts are fake. There is only stray evidence of one of the lorry suppliers namely P.W-3 T.Gopi Krishna that the invoice delivery copies from numbers 315 to 319 and 321 to 323 do not belong to their frm.
Immediately thereafter PW3 stated that these invoices belong to another load booked by them through other lorries but not through this lorry. Thus there is ambiguity about the genuineness of these invoices, that went unexplained through out case of prosecution. In my considered opinion this piece of evidence cannot be magnifed to conclude that the invoices are fake and that A4- M.Sudhakar Rao used them as genuine.
Car loan:
62.With regard to car loan it is already stated that A7 alone is charged with this and there was no evidence to connect him with the 41
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
ofence alleged.
63.With regard to infating of security it is stated by PW.5 and
PW.6 that the collateral security ofered was found inadequate by
Regional ofce and it sought for additional security. Both PW.5 and 6 stated that the additional security is brought for a meager value of Rs.6 lakhs whereas the valuation report stated the value as Rs.46 lakhs. The prosecution examined Pws.14 – P.Someswara Rao with regard to furnishing of market value of lands at Etcherla village. He deposed that late B.Nageswara Rao Sub-registrar, Ponduru, Srikakulam district issued the valuation certifcate. In this regard the prosecution did not place any record to show that A4- M.Sudhakar Rao ofered the property at
Etcherla as collateral security. Except the oral evidence of Pw.5 and
PW.6 no connected material is brought to the notice of this Court.
Apart from that even according to PW.14 the valuation was issued on the request of Ch.Venkata Seetja Ram. The prosecution did not place any record to show that the accused ofered the loans covered in
Ex.P.25 valuation certifcate towards collateral security. Ex.P.25 covers an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in S.No.9/86; Ac.2.51 cents in S.No.11/1P.
Prosecution thiu failed to connect A4 with Ex.P.25 valuation certifcate pertaining to Etcherla village. The prosecution further failed to connect other accused namely A1, A3, A6 and A7 for ofence under Sec.471 IPC.
There is also no evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect A3, A6 and A7 for the ofences under Sec.468 IPC. There is no material to show that these accused committed forgery.
64.In the light of above discussion it can be said that the prosecution proved the ofence of conspiracy punishable under Section 42
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
120-B IPC and the ofence under Sec.420 IPC against A4- M.Sudhakar
Rao. The prosecution failed to connect remaining accused namely A3,
A6 and A7 with the ofence under Sec.420 IPC. Accordingly points 1 to 4 are answered.
65.To conclude it can be said that the prosecution proved the ofence under Sec.120-B IPC, 420 IPC against A4- M.Sudhakar Rao and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.248(2). It is further held that the prosecution failed to prove the ofences under Sec.120-B against A3, A6 and A7 and accordingly they are acquitted. The prosecution also failed to prove the ofence under Sec.468 IPC and 471 IPC against A3, A4, A6 and A7 and accordingly they are acquitted. The prosecution further failed to prove the ofence of criminal misconduct against A3 and A7 under Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly they are acquitted.
66.In the result, A3 and A7 are found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accordingly, A3 and A7 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
A6 is found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC. Accordingly, A6 is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
A4 – M.Sudhakar Rao is found guilty for the ofences under
Secs. 120-B and 420 rof IPC and is convicted under Section 248(2)
Cr.P.C. A4 is found not found not guilty for the ofence under Secs. 471
IPC and is acquitted for the said ofence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
43
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
The case against A1 and A2 stands abated. The case against
A5 and A8 is discharged as per the orders in Crl.M.P.209/2004 and 379/2004 dated 14.10.2004.
A3, A6 and A7 are directed to execute a personal bond for
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one surety within two weeks from the date of this judgment i.e. 29.12.2023 which shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of Criminal
Procedure Code.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court, this the29th day of December, 2023.
Sd/- C.N.Murthy
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
A3, A4, A6 and A7 are present.
Heard A4-M.Sudhakar Rao. A4 submitted that he has health problems i.e., Cardiac problem, Diabetics and Spondylitis problem. His family consists of his wife and daughter aged 15 years. The daughter is studying. His wife is also sufering from health problems. His statement is recorded separately.
Heard. Learned public prosecutor and also learned counsel for
Accused No.4. Learned counsel prayed to take a lenient view.
Considering the fact that A4 had already paid Rs.12,50,000/- towards discharge of loan amount and upon hearing the submissions of learned public prosecutor, learned counsel for A4 and upon hearing accused this
Court is of the opinion that the ofence involves the fnancial fraud that efects the Nation. The manner in which the ofence is committed and considering the modus operandi, this Court is of the opinion that a 44
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years would meet ends of justice for the ofence under Sec.420 IPC. Accordingly A4-
M.Sudhakar Rao is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of 5 years and also pay a fne amount of Rs.5000/-
(Rupees fve thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer
Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence
under Sec.420 IPC. A4- M.Sudhakar Rao is further sentenced to undergoSimple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also pay
a fne amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in
default of payment of fne to sufer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.120-B IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period undergone by
A4 from 07.09.2000 to 26.09.2000 shall be set of under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
Accused No.4 is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment. Free copy of this judgment supplied to him today.
Sd/- C.N.Murthy
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
PPENDIX OF EVIDNE F APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.W.1: M.V.Krishna Rao P.W.2: K.Satyananda Rao P.W.3: T.Gopi Krishna P.W.4: V.Venklatarama Naidu P.W.5: Sankara Rama Subrahmaniyan P.W.6 : B.Balayya P.W.7: Manmohan Saigal P.W.8: A.Snjeeva Reddy P.W.9 :B.Santha Rao P.W.10: Ch.Vijaya P.W.11: Ch.Venkata Seetha Ram P.W.12: Ch.Ravi Kumar 45
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
P.W.13 : N.Saidi Reddy P.W.14 : P.Someswara Rao P.W.15 : G.Subramanyam P.W.16 : Bupendra Kumar Tiwari P.W.17 : Mehfooz Rahman P.W.18 : S.D.Varma P.W.19 : Anil Kumar Jaggi P.W.20 : Dr.Haribandhu Pradhan P.W.21 : M.Lakshmana Rao P.W.22 : N.Subba Rao P.W.23 : D.Raghava Raju P.W.24 : D.B.A.Narayana P.W.25 : M.Krishna Murthy P.W.26 : M.Bhupal Reddy P.W.27 : K.Lokeswara Rao P.W.28 : A.Satya Babu P.W.29 : U.V.Bhaskar Rao P.W.30 : D.L.N.Varma
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE F
- Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P.1: Search list dt.7.6.2000 Ex.P.2: Search list dt.7.6.2000 between 8 A.M. and 9 A.M. Ex.P.3: Search list dt.7.6.2000 between 9:20 A.M. and 12:45 P.M. Ex.P.4: Journal voucher from Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes pvt. Ltd. dt.18-12-1998. Ex.P.5: Consignee copies bunch Ex.P.6: File containing invoices, weighment slips, over load slips, received weighment slip, insurance copies, Form-32 of weigh bill at Chattisgarh, fne receipt of Odisha and consignee copies. Ex.P.7 : File containing loan application, project report, partnership deed, registration certifcate, party application, technical appraisal report, credit reports on the partners, process note, sanction of loan, sanction advise, lease deed submitted by Master Steel Tubes, transport invoices copies, legal opinions and valuation report Ex.P.8: Application of car loan. Ex.P.9:Statement of account of Master Steel Tubes along with process note for sanction of car and copy of legal notices Ex.P.10: L.C.document Ex.P.11: Inter ofce letter,dt.03.02.1999 given by A2 Ex.P.12: Application for cancellation of fxed deposit of Rs.20 lakhs Ex.P.13: Registration extract of sale deed, dt.05.10.1998 Ex.P.14: Pattadar pass book of Chigurupalli Lakshmana Rao Ex.P.15: Pattadar pass book of Chigurupalli Venkata Seethram Ex.P.16: Title deed of Chigurupalli Venkata Seethram Ex.P.17: Title deed of Chigurupalli Lakshmana Rao Ex.P.18: Another L.C.document, dt. 30.03.1999 Ex.P.19: Investigation report along with seizure memo 46
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.20: Bunch of papers containing details of letter dt. 03.02.1999 of Tamala Reddy valuation report submitted by V.Narasimham and Associates, Secunderabad. Ex.P.21: Signature of my younger brother namely Subash Saigal on agreement of sale, dt.08.03.1985 ( page No.28 of LD.65 (only signature portion is marked when it is confronted to witness) Ex.P.22: Signature of my brother on photostat copy of registration plan of open land ( page No.61 of LD 65) (Signature portion is only marked when Confederate to witness) Ex.P.23: Seizure memo along with revised scheme of delegation of loaning powers. Ex.P.24: Registration extract of lease deed of A4 with our company. Ex.P.25: Market value certifcate ( Annexure-II) dated 23.04.1999 issued by PW.13 Ex.P.26: Letter, Dt.24.01.2001 addressed by PW.14 Ex.P.27: Carbon copy of Encumbrance Certifcate, dt. 16.06.1999 Certifcate No.111 along with schedule. Ex.P.28: Carbon copy of Encumbrance Certifcate, dt. 16.06.1999 Certifcate No.112 along with schedule. Ex.P.29: Original declaration of Ch.Venkata Seetaram and Ch.Ravi kumar. Ex.P.30: Carbon copies of Lorry Receipts 48 in number prepared and signed by PW.31 Ex.P.31: (Page No.1 of L.D.12) is seizure memo, Dt. 27.04.2001 Ex.P.32: (Page No.2 to 14 of L.D.12) are declaration forms 13 in number for obtaining Marine Insurance policy by Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes Private Ltd., from United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ex.P.33: (Page No.15 of L.D.12) is insurance policy (Cargo) bearing No.7076. Ex.P.34: Photostat copy of ofer letter submitted by Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes Private Ltd., to United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ex.P.35: (L.D.62) is Photostat copy of letter, Dt.07.02.2001 addressed by PW.18 to the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigating, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.36: (Page No.2 of L.D.43) is Demand Draft bearing No.000083 for Rs. 9,00,000/- Ex.P.37: (Page No.3 of L.D.43 ) is Demand Draft bearing No.000085 for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.P.38: (Page No.4 of L.D.43 ) is Demand Draft bearing No.000084 for Rs. 9,00,000/- Ex.P.39: Letter dated 20.08.2001 addressed by PW.20 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam, wherein it was mentioned that as per records of our ofce, M/s Jayanthi Engineering Company, Visakhapatnam was not registered as a manufacturer nor it was a dealer as per Central Excise Act within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam Central Excise Commissionerate. Ex.P.40: Letter dated 17.10.2001 addressed by PW.20 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Visakhapatnam, Wherein it was mentioned that as per records of our ofce, M/s Master Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., Ranasthalam Mandal was registered under Central Excise Act within the jurisdiction of Srikakulam Range Ofce vide registration No.1/99 dated 5.3.1999.
47
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.41: Letter dated 31.10.2001 addressed by PW./20 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.42: Letter addressed by PW.21 and copies of invoices (90 pages) furnished by PW.21 to the Inspector of C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.43: Letter dated 14.05.1999 ( page No.18 of L.D.59) addressed by PW.21 to M/s. J.K. Enterprises, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam Ex.P.44: Containing original and carbon copies of invoices (152 in number) issued by Master Steel Tubes. Ex.P.45: (L.D.24) are the letter and documents mentioned therein Ex.P.46: Account opening form which is part of L.D.44 Ex.P.47: Photostat certifed copies of Transfer Scroll Register and General Scroll Register Ex.P.48: Sale letter dt.28.03.1994 addressed by Branch Manager, A.P.S.F.C., Srikakulam to T.Nagabushana Rao and B.Santha Rao (P.W.9) Ex.P.49: Letter signed by PW.25 under cover of which PW.25 had sent Ex.P.48 to the Inspector of C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.50: Report submitted by Inspector of Income Tax V.Narasimha Murthy Ex.P.51: Letter Under cover of which PW.26 forwarded Ex.P.50 to Income Tax Commissioner. Ex.P.52: Letter dated 4.2.2001 addressed by R.V.Ramana Rao, Superintendent to the Inspector of Police, Ofce of the Superintendent of police, C.B.I., MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.53: True copy of Legal Heir Certifcate issued in favour of family members of late Chigurupalli Lakshmana Rao, R/o Boddepalli Village, is signed by R.V.Ramana Rao. Ex.P.54: True copy of Form-1 Death Certifcate issued in respect of death of Chigurupalli Lakshmana Rao and is signed by R.V.Ramana Rao Ex.P.55: Photostat copy of cheque bearing No.092039 Dt. 31.10.1998 for Rs. 15,00,000/- issued by New Fin Financial Services (P) Ltd. In favour of Central Bank of India, Himayathnagar Branch while seeking for issuance of two Demand Drafts. Ex.P.56: Covering letter, dated 19.07.2001 Ex.P.57: Original Demand Draft bearing No.468722, Dt.31.10.1998 for Rs. 9,00,000/- Ex.P.58: Original Demand Draft bearing No.468723, Dt.31.10.1998 for Rs. 5,98,500/- Ex.P.59: F.I.R. in R.C.09(A)/2000- C.B.I, VSP Ex.P.60: Search warrant dated 05.06.2000 issued by this court for search of house of A4. Ex.P.61: Search warrant dated 05.06.2000 for search of ofce of A4. Ex.P.62: File which contains Exs.P.21 and P.22 (already marked) Ex.P.63: File which contains Exs.P.30 lorry receipts 48 in number (already marked) Ex.P.64: File which contains Exs.P.43 letter (already marked) Ex.P.65: File which contains pending bills of R.D.R. Suppliers regarding 13 K.V.Generator Set, telephone bills of J.T.M.Mobile-113 pages. Ex.P.66: The Master Steel fle pertaining to sale bills ( 124 pages) Ex.P.67: Bunch of invoices containing details of the material supplied by M/s Sri Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes Pvt. Ltd., to Master Steel Tubes ( consisting of 14 sheets) 48
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.68: Papers containing details of application for Demand Draft
dated 5.12.1998 for Rs. 66,887/- and letter dated 05.11.1998
of M.Rahavendra Rao addressed to M/s Sri Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes pvt. Ltd, Raipur requesting for supply of material (consisting of two sheets) (copy of application fro demand and letter) Ex.P.69: Letter dated 05.11.1998 and photostat copies of three Demand Drafts. Ex.P.70: Bank payment voucher for Rs.66,884/- (it is torn condition) Ex.P.71: Bank receipt voucher dated 5.11.1998 for Rs. 40,00,000/- counter foil of Bank of India dated 5.11.1998 for Rs. 40,00,000/- credit voucher of Bank of India for Rs. 40,00,000/- bank payment voucher dated 5.11.1998 for Rs. 20,02,500/- and bank counter foil Rs. 20,02,500/- (consisting of 5 sheets)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE.
Ex.D.1 : Photostat copy of small scale industries policy and guidelines issued by RBI
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-Nil-
Sd/- C.N.Murthy
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
Copies to: The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
// True copy//
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
49
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC- I Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the 29 th day of December, 2023
C.C.No.13/2002
(RC.9(A)/2000- CBI, VSP)
Date of ofence: During the year 1998 Date of report or complaint: 09.10.2002 Date of apprehension of accused: 07.09.2000 (A4); 24.01.2003 Date of release on bail : 26.09.2000 (A4) Date of commencement of trial: 20.03.2019 Date of close of trial: 04.08.2023 Date of sentence or order: 29.12.2023
Explanation of delay and remarks:
This case was taken on fle on 09.10.2002against the A1 to A8. A1 and A2 died and abated against them. A5 and A8 were discharged. The examination of witnesses was commenced on 20.03.2019.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 30 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.71 marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., on 21.03.2023,28.03.2023. On behalf of accused, no one was examined but Ex.D1 was marked.
The trial was completed on 04.08.2023. Judgment is pronounced on 29.12.2023.
Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 13/2002 on the fle of I Addl.
Special Judge for C.B.I., Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Complainant : State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam.
50
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Name of the accused :
1.P.N.Mathur, S/o late K.N.Muthur, 58 years, Formerly Chief Manager, Small Scale Industries Finance Branch, Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, Presently Chief Manager, U.B.I., Service Branch,WatchelMolla Building, Kolkata. (case against A.1 is abated on 26-07-2021)
2.T.Tamala Reddy (Died)
(case against A.2 is abated on 05-09-2003)
3.B.Rama Kanth, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged 37 years, Formerly Dy. Manager(Tech), S.S.I. Finance Branch, Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, Presently Manager(Tech), Union Bank of India, Regional Ofce, Broadway, Chennai.
4.M.Sudhakar Rao, S/o M.V.Hanumatha Rao, age 34 years, Managing Partner, M/s Master Steel Tubes, C/o M.V.Rama Rao, D.No.2-2-160/A, Tilak Nagar, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.
5.V.Jagannadha Rao, S/o late Ramalingam. (Discharged) (A5 was discharged as per orders of this Court
dated 14.10.2004 in Crl.M.P.209/04)
6.B.Nageswara Rao, S/o Jagga Rao, aged 42 years, Flat No. G-1, Amba Enclave, Lalitha Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
7.A.S.Bhagawan, S/o late Venkata Ratnam, age 40 years, Formerly Computer Clerk, UBI, S.S.I, Finance Branch, Visakhapatnam, Presently at UBI, Gopalalpatnam Branch.
8.M.R.K.Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy. (Discharged)
(A8 was discharged as per orders of this court
dated 14.10.2004 in Crl.M.P.379/04)
Ofence: U/Sec.120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding:
In the result, A3 and A7 are found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, A3 and A7 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
A6 is found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC. Accordingly, A6 is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
51
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
A4 – M.Sudhakar Rao is found guilty for the ofences under Secs. 120-B and 420 rof IPC and is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. A4 is found not found not guilty for the ofence under Secs. 471 IPC and is acquitted for the said ofence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The case against A1 and A2 stands abated. The case against A5 and A8 is discharged as per the orders in Crl.M.P.209/2004 and 379/2004
dated 14.10.2004.
A3, A6 and A7 are directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one surety within two weeks from the date of this judgment i.e. 29.12.2023 which shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
Heard. Learned public prosecutor and also learned counsel for Accused No.4. Learned counsel prayed to take a lenient view. Considering the fact that A4 had already paid Rs.12,50,000/- towards discharge of loan amount and upon hearing the submissions of learned public prosecutor, learned counsel for A4 and upon hearing accused this Court is of the opinion that the ofence involves the fnancial fraud that efects the Nation. The manner in which the ofence is committed and considering the modus operandi, this Court is of the opinion that a punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years would meet ends of justice for the ofence under Sec.420 IPC. Accordingly A4- M.Sudhakar Rao is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
a period of 5 years and also pay a fne amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees
fve thousand only), in default of payment of fne to sufer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the ofence under Sec.420
IPC. A4- M.Sudhakar Rao is further sentenced to undergoSimple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also pay a fne amount of
Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fne
to sufer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the ofence under Sec.120-B IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period undergone by A4 from 07.09.2000 to 26.09.2000 shall be set of under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Accused No.4 is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment. Free copy of this judgment supplied to him today.
Sd/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC- I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
52
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
Copies to:
The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
// True copy//
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
53
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP. 54
CC.13/2002, dt. 29.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
1
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
APVS200000042017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC: I Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the 28 th day of March, 2025
C.C.No.17/2017
RC.No.18(A)/2015/CBI-VSP
Between:
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam.
.…Complainant And :
Talla Narayana Rao, s/o Late Bhagavan Das, aged 52 years, R/o Door No.1-92, Post Office Street, Sativada, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District – 532 405.
…Accused
This case came on 26.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.U.Akhila, learned Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Y.V.Prasad, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB Visakhapatnam filed a charge sheet 2
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are that the accused worked as Branch Post Master, Sativada, Srikakulam District. PW7
R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala is the Sub Post Master, Gara. PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy was the Asst.Superintendent of Post Office, West Sub Division, Srikakulam.
PW1 J.Prasad Babu was the Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam
Division.
3.In order the enhance the livelihood security in rural areas, National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (later renamed as Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) aimed at providing at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household where the adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The benefit disbursement system was designed and developed by A.P.Online to facilitate disbursements of Government entitlements to the beneficiaries. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Posts and A.P.Online [a venture of TATA Consultancy Services] entered into a tripartite agreement for disbursements of benefits to beneficiaries like wages under MGNREGS
Scheme.
4.The accused who worked as Branch Post Master, Sativada had jurisdiction over three villages viz., Sativada, Nizamabad and Kotturu
Syrigam with regard to disbursement of wages to the beneficiaries under
MGNREGS. PW2 Ravi Swaroopa Rani was the Mandal Parishad Chief
Officer/Project Officer at Gara Mandal for implementation of MGNREGS,
Gara Mandal.
3
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
5.It is averred that PW7 R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala, Sub Post Master, Gara
Sub Post Office used to entrust requisite amounts to accused on proper acknowledgment through B.O daily slips as per the liability mentioned on the back side of B.O. daily account for disbursement of wages to the MGNREGS beneficiaries. The accused entered these amounts in his B.O. daily account.
The accused was also supplied with three POTD machines for Sativada,
Nizamabad and Kotturu Syrigam villages. The accused has to take finger prints of the beneficiaries; enter their account number on the withdrawal option of POTD machine; make payment to beneficiaries equal to the amount mentioned in the printed receipt generated by the POTD machine. At the end of the day, accused has to generate summary of transactions and the total amount paid to the beneficiaries on that day of all three POTD machines. It is averred that this POTD machine is directly linked to
A.P.Online Data Center where the withdrawal of wages by the beneficiaries is directly captured by the A.P.Online Data Center. The data center immediately generates details in the Benefit Disbursement Portal which is similar to online transactions made in the bank using auto synchronization process.
6.It is averred that the accused accounted higher amounts than that of actual disbursement amounts to MGNREGS beneficiaries and thus misappropriated various amounts to a tune of Rs.1,01,22,386/- for the period from 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015. On the strength of complaint lodged by PW1
J.Prasad Babu the instant case is registered against the accused and also
PW7 R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala, PW6 M.Srinivas Reddy and P.Trinadh. Since the involvement of PW7 R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala, PW6 M.Srinivas Reddy and
P.Trinadh is not established, they were not charge sheeted. It is further averred that after detection of fraud, the accused remitted Rs.90,70,350/- on 4
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
various dates.
7.PW9 K.V.Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Competent Authority issued
Ex.P67 sanction against the accused to prosecute him. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.
8.It is seen from the record that this Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were served on him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations made by the prosecution.
9.After hearing both sides and on consideration of material on record, charges under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused by this Court and the same were read over and explained to him, for which he denied charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10.To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.11 on it’s behalf and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.71.
11.Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by stating the incriminating circumstances available against him in the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.
12.Heard. Learned Public Prosecutor filed written arguments. Perused the same.
13. ARGUMENTS:
5
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Learned Public Prosecutor reiterated the arguments in the written arguments stating that the accused worked as Branch Post Master of
Sativada to whom the Postal Department allotted three POTD machines to disburse wages to NREGS beneficiaries. The prosecution proved that the accused had received cash from Sub Office, Gara headed by PW7
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala by giving proper acknowledgment vide Ex.P61 B.O.
slips. The accused did not dispute receiving of cash from Sub Office, Gara.
Thereafter the accused made payments to NREGS beneficiaries but falsely increased the number of beneficiaries and amounts in the accounts maintained by him such as B.O. daily accounts, B.O. account and NREGS journal. He sent B.O. daily accounts viz., Exs.P46 to P56 to Sub Office,
Gara. where PW7 R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala, Sub Post Master has to verify these entries with the figures contained in NREGS portal but due to pressure of work, net work issues, PW7 did not verify the entries. Taking advantage of this situation, accused submitted false accounts and thereby got illegally benefited. The total misappropriation is arrived at Rs.1,01,22,386/- for the entire period from 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015. Learned PP submitted that on 09.09.2015 PW7 noticed alterations in POTD slips submitted by the accused.
On suspicion PW7 verified A.P.Online portal and found difference in online payment figures. The matter was brought to the notice of higher authorities who ordered an internal enquiry where the accused admitted his guilt vide
Ex.P19 and also Ex.P57 statements. The accused stated that due to financial difficulties he committed the fraud and promised to repay the amounts within a short time. Learned PP submitted that accordingly the accused remitted Rs.90 lakhs. Learned PP submitted that the figures shown in Ex.P18 online retrieved data are correct. Learned PP submitted that as per the evidence of PW3 M.Seshu when once these figures are uploaded it is 6
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
not possible to change the data in any of the servers. All the withdrawal transactions for NREGS beneficiaries is automatically reflected in A.P.Online portal. Learned PP concluded that had the accused paid money to more beneficiaries then he would have obtained their biometric which would be automatically reflected in online portal. The accused did not produce any material to substantiate his case. Thus, the prosecution established the entrustment of cash to accused and also the fraud committed by him.
Learned PP further submitted that only one FIR is registered against accused. However, two charge sheets were filed based on the period of work of accused. The first charge sheet pertains to the period from 22.10.2013 to 27.09.2014 and it is subject matter of C.C.No.16/2017. The present case pertains to the next period i.e. from 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015. The original documents are filed in C.C.No.16/2017.
14.On the other hand learned counsel for the accused submitted that at the outset there is difference in the fraud amount calculated by the Postal
Department. Learned counsel submitted that originally FIR was registered against the accused, PW6 M.Srinivas Reddy, PW7 R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala and
Trinadh. These persons conspired together and made the accused a scapegoat. Learned counsel submitted that without any basis their names are deleted from the charge sheet. Learned counsel submitted that the higher authorities of accused did not properly check the records to know if there is any fraud. Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P67 sanction order is also not correct and there is difference in the amount and beneficiaries mentioned therein. Learned counsel further argued that the complaint was lodged before CBI on 28.12.2015 by PW1. Two months before that date, the accused had already remitted Rs.90 lakhs. In spite of it, the accused was put off from duty and he was paid salary till 2020 on the promise to reinstate 7
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
him after enquiry. Learned counsel elaborated that the higher authorities of accused promised that the he will be reinstated into service if he pays the money. Accordingly accused had remitted the amount but the case is foisted against the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the accused is confining his liability to Rs.90 lakhs only but not Rs.1,53,00,000/- as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel argued that the charge sheet is silent about the reasons for deleting other accused in this case. There is also no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses. According to learned counsel. PW7 had to check the correctness of the figures sent by the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the accused studied only 10th class and he kept with him what all the B.O. slips (Ex.P61) received from
PW7. It was argued that the accused cannot say the correctness of the entries in Ex.P61 B.O. slips. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution did not examine any beneficiaries to show that excess payments were made. Without verifying the facts, PW1 lodged a false complaint. The original records are concealed by PW1 at his office. To save PW6 M.Srinivas
Reddy, PW7 Sakuntala and Trinadh, the present case is foisted against the accused. Learned counsel argued that the CBI did not obtain signature of
PW1 in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that PW1 and PW7 were recalled for further cross examination. PW1 admitted that there is type mistake with regard to entry for January 2013. Theretofore the entire calculation is wrong.
15.Learned counsel further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no corroboration from other witnesses.
The alleged sections of law are not attracted to the facts. Learned counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in a case of Arishapoga
Nagarathnam @ Nagaraju vs. State of A.P. [2024 (3) ALD (Crl.) 750 (A.P.)]
8
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
in support of his submissions. Learned counsel submitted that the antecedents of accused are not verified before registering this case. I have perused the judgment relied on by the learned counsel and it is seen that it pertains to a trap case registered by ACB. The facts are entirely different. It appears this judgment is not of much use to the case of the accused. On facts this judgment can be distinguished.
16. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
PW1 Janapala Prasad Babu the then Superintendent of Post Offices,
Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam deposed that on 01-06-2013 their department entered into a tripartite agreement with Rural Development
Department of Andhra Pradesh and AP Online with regard to disbursement of wages under NREGS and Social Security Pension and identified Ex.P-1 (L.D.6) operational guide lines issued by their department; Ex.P-2 (L.D.7) instructions dated 16.06.2014 issued by him to post masters, Srikakulam
Head Office and other officials in Srikakulam Division; Ex.P-3 (L.D.8) instructions dated 02.05.2014 issued by him to post masters/SPMs/SDHs with regard to cash conveyance charges; Ex.P-4 (L.D.3) copy of Tripartite agreement.
17.PW1 deposed that on 09-09-2015 he came to know from PW7
Sakuntala, Sub-Post Master, Gara Sub-Post Office informed that there is difference in between NREGS amounts in the branch office daily account and the benefit disbursement portal and that on his instructions PW8 Arbind
Panda and Sairam Kumar verified the records and ascertained that a fraud of approximately Rs.1,50,00,000/- was committed.
18.PW1 further deposed that he formed three squads and got verified all the transactions at Sathivada branch post office and that on 12-9-2015 PW6 9
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
M.Srinivasa Reddy, Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam West
Sub-division submitted a preliminary report Ex.P-6 (L.D.30) thatthere is a total difference of Rs.1,54,00,000/- between benefit disbursement portal and
Branch office Daily account.
19.PW1 deposed that on 28-12-2015 he lodged Ex.P5 complaint with
CBI, Visakhapatnam alleging that a fraud of Rs.1,53,00,000/- took place at
Sativada branch post office in relation to NREGS amounts by making corrections with pen in the POTD receipts and that the said corrected amounts were entered in the Branch Office daily accounts, Sathivada Branch
Post office.
20.PW2 Ravi Swarupa Rani the then MPDO, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam
District and also Program Officer, NREGS from 2011 to 2013 deposed that she along with L.W.3 R.Satyavathi used to supervise the entire NREGS work including issuing of job cards, entrusting of working etc., generating pay orders and uploading Fund Transfer Orders through digital key to Central server of Commissioner, Rural Development and that data will be shared to
A.P. Online and Postal Department which cannot be altered.
21.PW3 Mukku Seshu, the then Software Engineer, A.P.Online Limited deposed their department supplied POTD machines to the postal department for disbursement of wages and that upon the appearance of beneficiaries affixing his bio-metric, a slip will be generated containing the relevant details such as job card number, account number, withdrawal amount and that simultaneously this transaction is also reflected in their data base servers which cannot be changed once data is uploaded.
22.PW3 deposed that on the request of CBI in the year 2016 he retrieved data from their server pertaining to Sathivada, Nizamabad for the period from 10
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
01.09.2013 to 09.09.2015 and for the village Kothuru Syragam for the period from 01.09.2013 to 31.03.2014 and furnished to CBI and identified Ex.P18 proceedings along with retrieved data and Sec.65-B Evidence Act
Certificate.
23.PW4 L.Sri Kalyan, the then Inspector of Posts, East Sub-Division,
Srikakulam for the period from 2013 to 2017 deposed that on 10.09.2015 on the instructions of their Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam Division he recorded Ex.P19 statement of accused Talla Narayana Rao, Branch Post
Master, Sativada Branch Office in his handwriting in connection with embezzlement of NREGS payments by him under which accused confessed misappropriation of NREGS amounts due to his financial difficulties and further accused prayed time to return the misappropriated amount and accordingly on 10.09.2015 accused paid Rs.4,63,350/- into Srikakulam Head
Office postal account in respect of the NREGS amounts misappropriated by him.
24.PW5 Hamsa Sathi Babu, the then Post Master, Head Post Office,
Srikakulam for the period from September, 2014 to May, 2018 deposed that accused used to visit their Head post office at Srikakulam for remitting the misappropriated money by him relating to NREGS payments and other accounts by the accused. PW5 identified Exs.P20 to P39 requisition letters written by accused permitting to deposit money and further identified Ex.P40 certificate of credit dated 05.01.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- issued by him.
25.PW6 Mule Srinivas Reddy, the then Asst. Superintendent of Post
Offices, Srikakulam West Sub-Division from 12.06.2014 to July, 2016 deposed that in the year 2015 accused Talla Narayana Rao worked as
Branch Post Master, Sativada. On 09.09.2015 PW6 came to know from 11
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
PW7 Sakunthala, Sub-Post Master, Gara that there is difference of
Rs.1,20,000/- in NREGS payments shown in B.O. Daily Account and Online portal and that there are some corrections in POTD consolidation slip of
Sativada Branch Office and some more discrepancies in NREGS payments of Sativada Post Office and that he informed the same to PW1
Superintendent of Post Offices.
26.PW6 deposed that he received Ex.P19 statement recorded by PW4
L.Sri Kalyan; visited Gara Sub-Post Office and seized relevant records and also POTD machines of Sativada and narrating all these facts he submitted
Ex.P-6 preliminary report to P.W.1 Superintendent of Post Offices.
27.PW6 further deposed that he visited Sativada Branch Post Office with his team; seized Exs.P-43 to P56 B.O. accounts, NREGS journal and B.O.
Daily Accounts. After noticing discrepancies in the NREGS payments made at Sativada Branch Post Office for the period from October, 2013 to
September, 2015 he called accused to his office at Srikakulam and sought his explanation. Accused appeared before him and confessed that he committed fraud in NREGS payments. Accused further wrote Ex.P-57 several statements in his own hand writing confessing commission of fraud giving date wise details. Accused utilized NREGS payments for his personal use.
28.PW6 deposed that accused voluntarily repaid about Rs.90,00,000/- to the Department at Srikakulam Head Post Office on several dates.
29.PW6 deposed about the modus operandi of accused in commission of fraud and stated that the accused at the end of the day after collecting the consolidated NREGS payment slip from POTD machine used to alter the figures manually for a higher amount in the consolidated NREGS payment 12
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
slip as if there are more number of beneficiaries than the original beneficiaries. The accused used to mention this figure in Branch Office
Daily Account submitted to the Sub-Post Office, Gara and also in the Branch
Office Account at Sativada but the Online portal gives the exact information about the total number of beneficiaries and payments of that particular day.
30.PW6 deposed that after completion of enquiry he submitted the detailed report Ex.P-58 to Superintendent of Post Office, Srikakulam incorporating date wise details of NREGS payments as per Online portal and the figures mentioned in the B.O. Daily Account and the excess charged amount which is the fraud amount.
31.PW7 Rangabatla Venkata Narasimha Satya Sai Sakuntala, the then
Sub-Post Master, Gara, Srikakulam District during 2012-2015 deposed that accused was the branch post master at Sathivada branch post office during relevant period and that whenever cash is required, accused used to approach them with B.O daily account by mentioning the cash requirement.
They used to supply cash to maximum limit of Rs.2 lakhs by obtaining acquaintance of accused on B.O. slip and in turn accused used to mention the receipt of cash in B.O. daily account.
32.PW7 further deposed that NREGS consolidated payment slips generated by POTD machine will be enclosed to B.O. daily account and sent to Sub-Post Office where they prepare a consolidated list of transactions with regard to NREGS payments made at B.O (branch offices) and Gara sub-post office. These records along with S.O. daily account is sent to Head Post
Office.
33.PW7 deposed about supplying POTD machines to accused who was the branch post master for Sathivada branch that covers three villages 13
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
namely Sathivada, Nizamabad, Kotturu Syregram.
34.PW7 deposed that on 09.09.2015 she noticed that the numeral “1” in
POTD slip was altered as “7” and that this POTD slip was submitted by accused along with B.O daily account to their Sub-Post Office and that on suspicion when she verified the same in A.P. On-line Portal she found that there is difference in On-line payment figure and POTD slip and hence she immediately informed the same to P.W6 ASP M.Srinivasa Reddy on the same day.
35.PW7 deposed that on the instructions of PW6 ASP M.Srinivasa Reddy, she verified the previous records for the month of September, 2015 also and noticed differences in the figures mentioned in A.P. On-line Portal and B.O daily account with regard to NREGS payments of Sathivada Branch Post
Office and informed the events to P.W6 ASP M.Srinivasa Reddy and PW1
Superintendent of Posts J.Prasad Babu and submitted records to PW8
Arbind Panda.
36.PW7 deposed that PW8 Arbind Panda, ASP-cum-Nodal Officer for
NREGS and Sairam Kumar, Office Assistant, NREGS verified the records and found that there was a fraud of nearly Rs.1.53 crores.
37.PW7 further deposed that accused used to acknowledge the cash received by him in the Branch Office slip and also in the B.O daily account and it is also reflected in B.O account. A copy of branch office slip containing acknowledgment of accused will be retained by their office.
38.PW7 identified her signature and hand writings of accused in Ex.P-61 (L.D-34 to L.D-43) B.O slips from 01.11.2014 to 09.09.2015.
39.PW7 deposed that the POTD slip and B.O daily account submitted by 14
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
accused alone was the basis for preparing consolidated NREGS payment list and accordingly PW7 sent S.O daily account to Head Office without knowing the fraud committed in branch office daily account.
40.PW7 identified Exs.P62 to P.66 S.O daily accounts submitted by her to
Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS consolidated payment list.
41.PW7 identified Ex.P-18 data retrieved from A.P. On-line portal with regard to NREGS payments made at Sathivada Branch Post Office for the relevant period and further stated that on verification it is found that there is a variation in the NREGS payments figures in Ex.P-18 On-line data and that of
Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-44 Sathivada B.O accounts and Sathivada B.O daily account and Ex.P-45 NREGS journal.
42.PW8 Arbind Panda, then Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Srikakulam during April, 2013 to November, 2016 and Nodal Officer for
NREGS and SSP for Srikakulam District deposed that on 09.09.2015 on the instructions of P.W-1 J.Prasada Babu he downloaded NREGS payments pertaining to September, 2013 to October, 2015 from A.P.On-line portal pertaining to Sathivada branch Post Office and noticed that in B.O daily account of Sathivada branch office, the NREGS payments were charged in excess when compared to A.P.On-line portal figures and variation is to a tune of Rs.1.5 crores approximately.
43.PW8 further identified Ex.P-46 to Ex.P-56 B.O daily accounts of
Sathivada branch post office for the period from November, 2014 to
September, 2015 and informed the variations to PW1 J.Prasad Babu over phone.
44.PW9 Kanukollu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, the then Adhoc 15
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Disciplinary Authority & Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Visakhapatnam issued Ex.P-67 prosecution sanction order against accused.
45.PW10 K.Padmavathi, the then Ledger Clerk deposed that she was entrusted with entering SB account transaction in computer system and comparison of NREGS LOTs with S.O. daily account of concerned Sub Post
Offices. Her superiors viz., S.B.C.O. (Savings Bank Control Organization) will again scrutinize LOTs, vouchers relating to S.B. and R.D. accounts.
46.PW11 N.Joga Rao, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam from 06.10.2020 deposed that his colleague Inspector V.S.R.Sharma registered a case in RC.No.18(A)/2015/CBI/VSP on 28.12.2015 against accused Talla Narayana Rao (branch post master), P.W-7
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala (sub-post master), P.Trinadh (mail overseer), P.W-6
M.Srinivas Reddy(Asst. Superintendent of Posts) and issued Ex.P-69 FIR and after completion of investigation V.S.R.Sharma filed charge sheet against accused.
47.Upon hearing the submissions of learned PP and learned counsel for the accused, the following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the prosecution established the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the property entrusted to him by abusing his official position as public servant within the meaning of Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) and (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
48.Before starting discussion I am inclined to refer to the observations of 16
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Sulekha Chatterjee and Another Vs.
Union of India and Others (2023 SCC Online Calcutta 2242):
“8. Post office, in many cases, do not only act as the nation's preferred carrier of words and emotions, but also serve as the guardian of its savings. It is the trust that has been built over decades that citizens place on their local post offices and it is the sacred duty of the postal department to forever and continuously uphold that trust. The breach of that trust, is not just limited to only the person who is affected by that breach, but can also affect the conscious and trust of the citizenry towards the postal system, which is the lifeblood of Indian republic, at large…”
49. POINT NO.1: For the sake of convenience and brevity, the discussion for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC is taken up together as they are interlinked with each other.
50.Section 409 and 477-A of IPC:
Coming to the charges under Sections 409 of IPC and 477-A of IPC admittedly accused is a public servant working in Postal Department. In order to bring home an offence under Section 477-A of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that:
1. the accused at the relevant time was an employee
2. acting in that capacity the accused destroyed, altered, falsified any book, valuable security of account which belonged to his employer or had been received by him for and on behalf of his employer
3. the accused committed the offence with an intention to defraud.
17
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
51.Now in the light of above ingredients, the facts of the present case are to be appreciated. In this case, admittedly accused worked as Branch Post
Master, Sativada during the relevant period. As per the case of the prosecution the misappropriation with regard to payment of wages to NREGS beneficiaries occurred on various dates. In fact PW7 R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala gave a clear picture in a tabular form in her evidence stating the date, figures appearing in A.P.Online portal, B.O.daily account, B.O. account and NREGS journal. Admittedly the accused is maintaining B.O. daily account, NREGS journal and B.O. account. For the sake of convenience, this portion of evidence of PW7 is extracted hereunder:
A.P.On-line B.O. daily NREGS B.O. account Date Portal in Rs. account in Rs. Journal in Rs. in Rs.
05.11.2014-1,0731,0731,073 12.11.20142,18712,18712,18712,187 23.11.2014-13,71413,71413,714 10.12.20141,48571,48571,48571,485 14.12.201411,68316,83016,83016,830 28.12.20142,98020,99520,99520,995 29.12.20143,16513,16513,16513,165 30.12.20141,37011,37011,37011,370 02.01.20153,18813,18813,18813,188 04.01.201584211,84211,84211,842 18
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
05.01.201554611,54611,54611,546 09.01.20152,59012,59012,59012,590 11.01.20151,04828,60228,60228,602 12.01.20151,48071,48071,48071,480 18.01.2015-33,95633,95633,956 19.01.201540011,40011,40011,400 20.01.20151,62411,62411,62411,624 23.01.20157,17317,17317,17317,173 26.01.20151,49012,16712,16712,167 28.01.2015-11,49011,49011,490 02.02.201583980,77180,77180,771 04.02.20157474,11174,11174,111 09.02.2015-79,85879,85879,858 11.02.20153,16913,16913,16913,169 12.02.20151,49017,49017,49017,490 13.02.20151,92971,92971,92971,929 15.02.2015-76,87876,87876,878 03.03.20151,52275,22175,22175,221 04.03.201529,89988,29188,29188,291 19
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
05.03.201526,51086,51086,51086,510 06.03.20155,46754,67154,67154,671 10.03.2015 9371,46,0001,46,0001,46,000 12.03.20153,68136,81136,81136,811 13.03.20155,99759,97159,97159,971 15.03.20153,03631,45831,45831,458 17.03.201565,2521,83,2631,83,2631,83,263 18.03.20151,12,1002,12,1002,12,100 2,12,100 19.03.201535,15695,15695,15695,156 22.03.201540,1251,80,1981,80,1981,80,198 23.03.20152,4221,43,6671,43,6671,43,667 24.03.20151,07,7182,07,7182,07,7182,07,718 25.03.201516,6811,91,7201,91,7201,91,720 26.03.20159,8381,75,0621,75,0621,75,062 27.03.20155,66656,66156,66156,661 29.03.20153,38478,30578,30578,305 30.03.20151,41,6582,61,6582,61,6582,61,658 03.04.20151,11578,88678,88678,886 06.04.20158,75287,52187,52187,521 20
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
07.04.201545,8471,45,8471,45,8471,45,847 08.04.20151,79,9721,99,9721,99,9721,99,972 09.04.20154,3451,11,0781,11,0781,11,078 10.04.20151,15,0852,35,0852,35,0852,35,085 11.04.201518,65778,65778,65778,657 14.04.201545,9421,45,9421,35,9421,35,942 15.04.201528,1361,28,1361,28,1361,28,136 16.04.20155,85158,51258,51258,512 19.04.201530,0151,58,2991,58,2991,58,299 20.04.201527,20887,19887,19887,198 21.04.20154,89048,90148,90148,901 23.04.201513,82673,82673,82673,826 27.04.20151,97,7332,47,7332,47,7332,47,733 28.04.20151,53,7812,63,7812,63,7812,63,781 29.04.201551,87681,87681,87681,876 30.04.20151,23,3831,83,3831,83,3831,83,383 01.05.201599,1101,69,1101,69,1101,69,110 04.05.20151,87,9244,22,9924,22,9924,22,992 06.05.2015--52,73152,731 21
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
07.05.2015-82,73182,73182,731 08.05.201527,43087,43087,43087,430 10.05.20157,87080,51180,51180,511 14.05.201514,2862,16,8292,16,8292,16,829 17.05.201513,9062,06,4912,06,4912,06,491 18.05.201526,2811,94,2751,94,2751,94,275 19.05.201510,3312,60,6752,60,6752,60,675 21.05.201556,60186,60186,60186,601 22.05.20159,78397,83197,83197,831 24.05.20151,15,4682,67,9142,67,9142,67,914 25.05.201531,8551,31,8551,31,8551,31,855 26.05.20152,05,9813,65,9813,65,9813,65,981 27.05.20152,16,1302,68,1302,68,1302,68,130 31.05.201530,3391,74,9671,74,9671,74,967 01.06.20156,17061,70161,70161,701 02.06.20156,8851,30,5521,30,5521,30,552 07.06.20151,94,9972,63,3042,63,3042,63,304 08.06.20152,36,6303,56,6303,56,6303,56,630 09.06.201571,7101,71,7101,71,7101,71,710 22
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
10.06.201527,99787,99787,99787,997 11.06.201540,9281,40,9281,40,9281,40,928 12.06.201518,03578,03578,03578,035 14.06.201581,9413,38,1843,38,1843,38,184 16.06.20152,33,5973,53,5973,53,5973,53,597 17.06.20151,33,6371,93,6371,93,6371,93,637 18.06.20151,98,8272,58,8272,58,8272,58,827 19.06.20159,2071,80,3621,80,3621,80,362 21.06.201579,4353,30,3133,30,3133,30,313 24.06.20152,82512,03812,03812,038 26.06.2015-1,48,5511,48,5511,48,551 02.07.201577,6442,12,7052,12,7052,12,705 03.07.201535,2141,35,2141,35,2141,35,214 05.07.201532,26299,11599,11599,115 07.07.20152,0047,0637,0637,063 08.07.20155,57785,21485,21485,214 09.07.20152,02,6333,02,6333,02,6333,02,633 10.07.20151,99,2333,69,2333,69,2333,69,233 12.07.20152,08,1792,72,6662,72,6662,72,666 23
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
13.07.20151,56,2242,78,6932,78,6932,78,693 14.07.20152,17,0433,17,0433,17,0433,17,043 16.07.201597,0111,97,0111,97,0111,97,011 19.07.201523,2343,89,7673,89,7673,89,767 22.07.2015-48,05048,05048,050 24.07.20152,1426,2536,2536,253 26.07.20153,52060,57160,57160,571 28.07.201521,1761,54,4171,54,4171,54,417 30.07.201512,44572,63372,63372,633 02.08.2015-1,50,8721,50,8721,50,872 05.08.201512,46075,20175,20175,201 06.08.201510,88772,46072,46072,460 09.08.201537979,70079,70079,700 16.08.20151,50571,85371,85371,853 17.08.20151,24,9691,64,9691,64,9781,64,978 19.08.201538,7211,68,8811,68,8811,68,881 20.08.201518,82778,82778,82778,827 21.08.20151,31,9632,91,9632,91,9632,91,963 23.08.20159,57253,07053,07053,070 24
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
24.08.20151,37,1561,67,1561,67,1561,67,156 25.08.20151,21,6311,61,6311,61,6311,61,631 26.08.20158,1441,10,5401,10,5401,10,540 27.08.20152,3981,02,3961,02,3961,02,396 31.08.20157,00170,01170,01170,011 03.09.201589424,29224,29224,292 04.09.20155,62996,29196,29196,291 06.09.20154,28096,29196,29196,291 08.09.201530,3171,52,5471,52,5471,52,547
52.In fact PW8 Arbind Panda also deposed the same figures with regard to A.P.Online portal and B.O. daily account submitted by the accused.
Ex.P18 is the retrieved data from online portal along with Section 65-B
Evidence Act certificate. PW7 gave her evidence basing on Ex.P18 retrieved data only with regard to the figures appearing in A.P.Online portal. In his evidence, PW3 M.Seshu made it clear that once the figures are uploaded in server, they cannot be changed. Admittedly whenever NREGS wages are paid to beneficiaries through POTD machines, the data is automatically synchronized and uploaded to A.P.Online disbursement portal. The accused did not dispute the procedure with regard to automatic synchronization of the figures in A.P.Online portal. Nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination of PW3 who retrieved the data. It is his evidence that their department supplied POTD machines to Postal Department for disbursement of wages.
25
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
After the beneficiary affixes his biometric, a slip will be generated containing the relevant details such as job card number, account number and withdrawal amount. Simultaneously this transaction is also reflected in their data base servers. It is seen from the cross examination of PW1 that the source and authenticity of Ex.P18 retrieved data remain unaffected. Except disputing that the figures stated in Ex.P18 are not correct, the accused did not say how and why they are incorrect. As already stated the accused is not disputing the procedure of automatic synchronization of withdrawal figures in
A.P.Online portal.
53.In fact PW2 R.Swaroopa Rani, Program Officer, NREGS also stated that she used to supervise the NREGS work including generating of payment orders uploading of fund transfer orders through digital key into the central server of Commissioner, Rural Development. That data will be shared to
A.P.Online and Postal Department. Once uploaded data cannot be altered.
In her cross examination, PW2 reiterated that she has knowledge that data uploaded is automatically shared with A.P.Online and Postal Department immediately. Nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit her testimony.
54.Exs.P46 to P56 are the B.O. daily accounts submitted by the accused to Sub Post Office, Gara. Exs.P43 and P44 are B.O. office accounts maintained by the accused at his office. Ex.P45 is NREGS journal for the period from 23.10.2013 to 09.09.2015. As understood from the arguments, the accused maintained Ex.P43, P44 B.O. accounts with him. He also maintains Ex.P45 NREGS journal which contains the number of beneficiaries and payments made to them. The accused has to submit Exs.P46 to P56
B.O. daily accounts containing the details of cash received and paid by him.
26
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
He has to submit this daily to Sub Office, Gara headed by PW7
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala. Exs.P43 to P56 are marked through PW6 M.Srinivas
Reddy, the then Asst.Superintendent of Post Office. It is his evidence that on 09.09.2015 he received information from PW7 Sakuntala, Sub Post Master,
Gara when she noticed difference in NREGS payments shown in B.O. daily account and online portal of Sativada Branch Post Office. At that time PW6 was about to board a train to Hyderabad. On his instructions PW7 further verified records and found some more discrepancies in NREGS payments of
Sativada. PW6 informed the events to PW1 J.Prasad Babu, Superintendent of Posts and PW8 Arbind Panda, Nodal Officer over phone. PW6 joined duty on 12.09.2015. In the meanwhile PW4 L.Sri Kalyan recorded Ex.P19 extra judicial confession statements of accused. On his return, PW6 visited Gara
Sub Post Office and seized relevant records. He submitted Ex.P58 report.
After some days P.W1 constituted three teams to probe into irregularities.
PW6 was also a team member. It is the evidence of PW6 that he noticed discrepancies in NREGS payments made at Sativada Branch Post Office.
The accused gave several statements vide Ex.P57 (L.D.30 sheet 9 to 25).
PW6 stated that the accused confessed that he utilized NREGS payments for his personal use. Accused further voluntarily repaid Rs.90 lakhs to the department on several dates. After completion of enquiry PW6 submitted
Ex.P58 detailed report to Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam. PW6 was cross examined on behalf of the accused and it is noted that the accused did not deny sending of Exs.P46 to P56 B.O. daily accounts to Gara
Sub Post Office. The accused also did not deny maintenance of Exs.P43,
P44 Branch Office accounts and Ex.P45 NREGS journal. In the course of cross examination it was suggested to PW6 that PW7 Sakuntala, PW6
M.Srinivas Reddy, PW1 J.Prasad Babu and Trinadh threatened the accused 27
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
and forcibly made him to pay Rs.90 lakhs. It was also suggested that the confessional statements of accused are not voluntary. The sum and substance of these suggestions are that the accused was threatened and forcibly made to pay Rs.90 lakhs to the department. These suggestions do not have any force since the accused himself in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
examination stated that his department officials promised to reinstate him if he pays Rs.90 lakhs. Therefore the accused paid Rs.90 lakhs. In other words the accused never stated that he paid Rs.90 lakhs due to threat.
According to accused he paid Rs.90 lakhs only because of the promise made by his department officials. He did not state about any threat. Contrary to this it was suggested to the material witnesses as if they threatened the accused and made him to pay Rs.90 lakhs.
55.As understood from the submissions of learned counsel, the accused is challenging the deletion of PW6 M.Srinivas Reddy, PW7
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala and Trinadh from this case. It may be noted that the accused did not challenge these deletions at appropriate state nor challenged the order of taking cognizance at the earliest point of time.
Having participated in trial, the accused cannot at this stage raise these objections and claim parity with other offenders. A perusal of record and more particularly the evidence of PW7 indicates that she was given ID and password to access A.P.Online portal in the year 2015. Though she is bound to verify A.P.Online portal with the figures submitted by the accused, yet she did not do so. The other reason given was that due to net work issues and heavy work she could not check A.P.Online portal. For this a departmental enquiry was initiated against PW7 in which she found guilty and ordered to pay Rs.13 lakhs. She paid Rs.One lakh initially and since then paying
Rs.12,500/-. It appears the Postal Department had already taken action 28
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
against PW7.
56.The fact that PW6, PW7 and Trinadh were not charge sheeted cannot be a ground to exonerate the accused. A careful perusal of record indicates that the prosecution established the source and authenticity of Ex.P18 retrieved data containing the correct figures. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not cross examine PW7 on Ex.P18 figures retrieved from online portal. The correctness of Ex.P18 figures is not disputed as seen from the cross examination of PW7. In fact PW8 Arbind Panda, Nodal Officer also corroborated the version of PW7. He deposed that he downloaded NREGS payments from A.P.Online portal during the relevant period and compared them with the B.O. daily accounts of Sativada Branch Post Office. He also noticed that NREGS payments were charged excess when compared to
A.P.Online portal figures. Except suggesting that the variations are not correct, the accused could not discredit the evidence of PW8. It is significant to note that no animosity or enmity is attributed to either PW7 and PW8 to speak against the accused. There is nothing particular to disbelieve the evidence of PWs7 & 8 and their evidence inspires confidence.
57.At this stage it is appropriate to look into the extra judicial confessions of accused. It is reiterated that the accused voluntarily paid Rs.90 lakhs to the department after the fraud was detected. As per the answers given by him in Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination, he paid Rs.90 lakhs due to promise.
Ex.P19 is the first confessional statement recorded by PW4 in the first instance. The fraud came to light on 09.09.2015. Ex.P19 statement of accused was recorded on the next day i.e. on 10.09.2015 where the accused apart from confessing the commission of fraud, also gave his modus operandi. Thereafter in the course of enquiry the accused gave several 29
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
statements vide Ex.P57 (14 nos.) giving in detail of the fraud committed by him. This was given before PW6 M.Srinivas Reddy. A combined reading of the answers given by the accused in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination coupled with Exs.P19 and P57 extra judicial confessions rule out the possibility of any threat or coercion by the Postal Department.
58.As already stated PW1 and PW7 were recalled for further cross examination. The entire case of accused is revealed in the suggestions given to PW1. A fatal suggestion was given to PW1 stating that the accused committed fraud of Rs.90 lakhs and that the accused paid that Rs.90 lakhs along with another Rs.2,50,000/-. PW1 answered in-affirmative. PW1 further added that the entire fraud amount is Rs.1,53,77,868/-. As seen from the arguments of learned counsel and also as per the suggestions given in the cross examination of witnesses in particular to PW1, the accused is confining his liability to fraud amount of Rs.90 lakhs but not Rs.1,53,77,868/-. It may be noted that the exact quantum of misappropriated amount is not in question. As per settled law misappropriation of even a single rupee is also a punishable offence. Now the accused himself is suggesting to PW1 and admitting his liability that he committed fraud of Rs.90 lakhs and that he repaid this Rs.90 lakhs together with another Rs.2,50,000/-. In my considered opinion mere repayment of misappropriated amount will not dilute the offence. Therefore the fact that the accused had repaid Rs.90 lakhs to department being the fraud amount cannot be a ground to acquit him. By his own answers and extra judicial confessions and suggestions, the accused admitted that he committed fraud to an extent of Rs.90 lakhs and repaid it. It might be a fact that there are variations in the calculations arrived by the
Postal Department but this is not a civil suit for recovery of money and as such, this Court is of the opinion that the variations in the exact 30
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
misappropriated amount is not material. In the last page of charge sheet, the
CBI gave a comparative table showing the actual withdrawals noted in
A.P.Online portal and withdrawals as claimed by accused. As already stated the accused did not dispute online calculations as seen from the cross examination of PW7. This Court already gave a finding about the authenticity of A.P.Online figures. This amount is deducted from the amount claimed by the accused and the balance amount is shown as misappropriated amount
Having admitted commission of fraud and repayment of Rs.90 lakhs, the accused cannot confine his liability to Rs.90 lakhs only which is without any basis. In the absence of any material to the contra the accused cannot fix his liability for himself. There is also no evidence to show that the Postal
Department asked accused to pay only Rs.90 lakhs towards his liability.
When once the accused is admitting his liability by way of extra judicial confessions and suggestions and answers in Section 313 Cr.P.C.
examination, no further proof is necessary to conclude that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC.
59.ENTRUSTMENT: Learned PP submitted that Ex.P18 retrieved online figures is a crucial document that gives a clear picture about the case. This document contains correct total withdrawals of Branch Post Office, Sativada as Rs.80,00,354/-. As against this the accused had shown a total amount of
Rs.1,81,22,740/- towards withdrawals as per records submitted by him. It was argued that the total misappropriated amount is Rs.1,81,22,740 – Rs.
80,00,354 = Rs.1,01,22,386/-. Thus, it was argued that the accused by showing this total amount of Rs.1,01,22,386/- to Sub Office, Gara, had received cash and accordingly committed misappropriation. It may be noted that the accused is not disputing receipt of cash from Sub Post Office, Gara vide Ex.P61 B.O. slips. Basing on the information furnished by him regarding 31
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
requirement, the Sub Office gives him cash. Thus, the prosecution proved entrustment of Rs.1,81,22,740/- to accused.
60. SANCTION: Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P67 sanction is defective. The fraud amount is different and hence, the sanctioning authority did not properly consider the material placed before him. I perused the evidence of PW9 K.V.L.Narasimha Murthy who issued Ex.P67 sanction orders. In his cross examination he stated that Ex.P67 sanction order given by him does not refer to B.O. daily accounts. To his memory he verified
POTD slips sent to him. As per Ex.P67 the total entrusted amount was
Rs.2,81,66,337/- during the period from 22.10.2013 to 09.09.2015. The sanction order further states that the accused misappropriated an amount of
Rs.1,53,77,868/-. It may be noted that two separate charge sheets were filed against accused basing on one FIR i.e. Ex.P69. Learned PP submitted that the present case pertains to the period 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015 and the misappropriated amount is Rs.1,01,22,386/-. The second charge sheet which is subject matter of C.C.No.16/2017 pertains to 22.10.2013 to 27.09.2014 and the misappropriated amount was Rs.52,55,482/-. The original sanction order is marked in C.C.No.16/2017. It appears PW9 issued only one common sanction order for the total amount of misappropriated amount of Rs.52,55,482 + Rs.1,01,22,386 = Rs.1,53,77,868/-. Thus it appears there is no ambiguity in Ex.P67 sanction order. Even assuming for argument sake that there is variation in the exact misappropriated amount, yet it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. In State of Maharashtra vs.
Mahesh G.Jain [(2013) 8 SCC 119] Hon’ble Supreme Court held that grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute an order granting sanction. It was held that :
32
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
“...The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused….”
In the light of above judicial precedent, this Court is of the opinion that
Ex.P67 sanction order is not defective.
61.EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION: The law relating to extra judicial confession is clear. A conviction can be based on extra judicial confession after taking proper care and caution.
62.The accused is alleged to have made an extra judicial confession
before P.W.4 L.Sri Kalyan vide Exs.P19 and P57 before PW6 M.Srinivas
Reddy. At this juncture it is relevant to note some of the judicial precedents to understand the importance of extra judicial confessions. In Narayana
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1985 SCC (Crl) 460] it was held that it is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It would depend on the nature of circumstances, time when confession was made and credibility of witnesses who speak to a such confession.
63.In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M.K.Anthony [1985(1) SCC 505] it was held that there is neither any rule of law nor of a prudence that evidence furnished by an extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless 33
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
corroborated by some other credible evidence.
64.In Tejinder Singh @ Kaka vs. State of Punjab 2013 (12) SCC 503.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that extra judicial confession is a weak form of
evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court further gave certain guidelines to appreciate extra judicial confession. It was held that an extra judicial confession contains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and it is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence and in order to basis of conviction, the extra judicial confession should not be suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
In the present case the extra judicial confessions of accused is amply corroborated by the prosecution evidence and the chain of circumstances is also complete and hence, these extra judicial confessions viz., Ex.P19 and
Ex.P57 can be acted upon and can form a basis for conviction.
65.To sum up, the prosecution established that i.The accused was entrusted with cash of Rs.1,81,22,740/-.
ii. The accused submitted B.O. daily office accounts Exs.P46 to P56 to
Sub Office, Gara by charging excess NREGS payments.
iii. Exs.P46 to P56 did not correspond with the entries in Ex.P18
A.P.Online portal figures.
iv. The accused is the sole custodian of Exs.P43, P44 B.O. accounts and
Ex.P45 NREGS journal.
v. The accused admitted commission of offence by way of extra judicial confessions vide Exs.P19 and P57.
34
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
66.The prosecution proved that the accused at the relevant time was the
Branch Post Master, Sativada and in that capacity, he falsified Exs.P46 to
P56 B.O. daily accounts and that the accused committed the offences with an intention to defraud his department. The prosecution thus discharged the initial burden lying on it with regard to proof of alleged offences. Now the onus shifts on the accused to explain how and why he mentioned more number of beneficiaries and withdrawals against the actual figures contained in Ex.P18 retrieved online data. Admittedly accused alone is in possession of Exs.P43 & P44 B.O. accounts; Ex.P45 NREGS journal. The accused himself sent Exs.P46 to P56 B.O. daily accounts by showing manipulated figures of beneficiaries and NREGS payments. Therefore it is for the accused to explain the circumstances which are within his special knowledge as provided under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The accused did not explain the circumstances even though an opportunity is afforded to him during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The failure of accused to explain the circumstances strengthens the case of prosecution. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution established all the ingredients of the offences under
Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and accordingly, Point No.1 is held against the accused.
67. POINT NO.2: The accused undoubtedly is a public servant during the relevant period. In view of the findings in Point No.1 as a necessary consequence it follows that the accused being the public servant committed the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) and 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to fraudulent misappropriation of money entrusted to him and further abused his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage of public money illegally. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.
35
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
68. POINT NO.3: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, pronounced by me in open Court on this the day 28th day of March, 2025.
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
69.Accused present. Heard. He stated that he is suffering from kidney problem. His wife is suffering from neuro problem. His daughter is married and son is working as a coolie. The accused prayed to take a lenient view.
Learned counsel for the accused also prayed to take a lenient view. Learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that this is an economic offence and hence, lenient view cannot be taken. Learned PP further submitted that no attachment proceedings were initiated against the properties of accused at an earlier stage. The case involves financial fraud that affects the Nation at large.
At this stage I came across the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, (2022) 7 SCC 475 : (2022) 2 SCC (L&S)
335 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 464 at page 481, wherein it was held that mere depositing of the defrauded amount cannot be a mitigating factor. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
17. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore 36
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement.
Further in Sulekha Chatterjee and Another Vs. Union of India and
Others (2023 SCC Online Calcutta 2242) the sanctity of post offices in the country are discussed. The acts of some of the unscrupulous employees committing fraud and the duty of the postal department towards the innocent customers was also highlighted in this judgment. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“8. Post office, in many cases, do not only act as the nation's preferred carrier of words and emotions, but also serve as the guardian of its savings. It is the trust that has been built over decades that citizens place on their local post offices and it is the sacred duty of the postal department to forever and continuously uphold that trust. The breach of that trust, is not just limited to only the person who is affected by that breach, but can also affect the conscious and trust of the citizenry towards the postal system, which is the lifeblood of Indian republic, at large…” 37
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
It is understood that the postal department sustained severe loss both monetary as well as reputation wise due to the acts of the accused. Hence, these judicial precedents and the facts of the present case are kept in mind while sentencing the accused.
At this stage, I came across the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shanti Lal Meena vs State of NCT of Delhi, C.B.I [2015 AIR SCW 3637]. The relevant observations are extracted as follows:
“21.To quote Friedmann, "Generally, the philosophy of deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both the individual offender and other members of society from the repetition of crime, or the imitation on the part of others by similar actions" 11. Unless the courts award appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence under the PC Act and the status of the public servant at the relevant time, people will lose faith in the justice delivery system and the very object of the legislation on prevention of corruption will be defeated. The court is the conscience of the statute and hence its judgments should project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should shake the faith of common man in courts. The judgment on sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the institutional integrity, affecting the credibility of its verdict. Thus, while awarding sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence…” 38
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of accused, his counsel and learned Public Prosecutor, this
Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing imprisonment. With regard to imposing fine no such lenient view can be taken in view of Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act and also the fact that public money is involved. Accordingly, accused is sentenced as follows:
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 409 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 477-A IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
With regard to sentence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) this Court is inclined to refer to Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that while fixing fine amount the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence. Admittedly CBI did not initiate any steps under
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attach the properties of the accused for the offences alleged under Section 409 of IPC as well as the offence under Section Prevention of Corruption Act are schedule offences.
Learned PP submitted that accused is also involved in C.C.No.16/2017 where the fraud amount involved is Rs.52,55,482/-. It may be noted that total misappropriated amount is arrived at Rs.1,53,77,868/-. Out of this amount, 39
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
accused paid Rs.90,00,000/-. Still an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- is remaining which is public money. Had the CBI initiated appropriate proceedings at the earliest point of time, then there would have been chances of recovering this amount by way of attachment and sale under Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944. Since this is not done, Rs.60,00,000/- needs to be imposed as a fine as it is public money. The offence pertains to the year 2013. Nearly a decade elapsed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that public money is involved, this Court is inclined to impose Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) towards fine amount. Accordingly accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Further accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one monthfor the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Total fine amount imposed is Rs.1,000 + 1,000 + 30,00,000 + 1,000
= Rs.30,03,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs and three thousand only).
It is stated that accused was not arrested in this case. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence imposed in C.C.No.16/2017 shall run concurrently in terms of Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
Accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this
Judgment and availability of free legal aid. Free copy of this judgment 40
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
supplied to him today i.e. 28.03.2025.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, pronounced by me in open Court on this the day 28th day of March, 2025.
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
T OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW.1:Janapala Prasad Babu
PW.2:Ravi Swaroopa Rani
PW.3:Mukku Seshu
PW.4:L.Sri Kalyan
PW.5:Hamsa Sathi Babu
PW.6:Mule Srinivasa Reddy
PW.7:R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala
PW.8:Arbind Panda
PW.9:K.V.L.Narasimha Murty
PW.10:K.Padmavathi
PW.11:N.Joga Rao 41
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
F WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
None
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P1:Attested copy of NREGS operational guidelines
Ex.P2:Attested copy of instructions dated 16.06.2014 issued by P.W.01 to the Post Masters.
Ex.P3:Attested copy of instructions dated 02.05.2014 issued to post masters/SPMs/SDHs with regard to cash conveyance charges.
Ex.P4:Attested copy of Tripartite agreement dt.01-06-2013
Ex.P5:Attested copy of complaint
Ex.P6:Attested copy of Preliminary report.
Ex.P7:Pay order for October, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P8:Pay order for November, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages
Ex.P9:Pay order for December, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P10:Pay order for January, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P11:Pay order for March, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P12:Pay order for April, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P13:Pay order for May, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
42
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P14:Pay order for June, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P15:Pay order for July, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages
Ex.P16:Pay order for August, 2015 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P17:Photostat Copy ofSec.65(B) Certificate issued by PW-02.
Ex.P18:Photostat copy of proceedings dt.28.04.2016 along with retrieved data and Sec.65-B Evidence Act Certificate.
Ex.P19:Photostat copy of the Statement of the Accused recorded by P.W.4.
Ex.P20:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.10.09.2015 for Rs.4,63,350/- by accused.
Ex.P21:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.10.09.2015 for Rs.13,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P22:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.11.09.2015 for Rs.10,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P23:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.15.09.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P24:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.15.09.2015 for Rs.3,24,000/- by accused.
Ex.P25:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.16.09.2015 for Rs.90,000/- by accused.
Ex.P26:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.18.09.2015 for Rs.2,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P27:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.21.09.2015 for Rs.1,20,000/- by accused.
Ex.P28:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.23.09.2015 for Rs.3,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P29:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.24.09.2015 for 43
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Rs.1,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P30:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.29.09.2015 for Rs.50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P31:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.05.10.2015 for Rs.20,000/- by accused.
Ex.P32:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.06.10.2015 for Rs.3,55,000/- by accused.
Ex.P33:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.07.10.2015 for Rs.60,000/- by accused.
Ex.P34:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.19.10.2015 for Rs.8,38,000/- by accused.
Ex.P35:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.21.10.2015 for Rs.10,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P36:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.02.11.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P37:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.10.11.2015 for Rs.12,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P38:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.02.12.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P39:Photostat copy of Requisition letter dt.19.12.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P40:Photostat copy of certificate of credit issued by P.W.5 for Rs.2,50,000/- addressed to Superintendent of Post Offices dt.05.01.2016.
Ex.P41:Letters addressed to SBI, Gara by A.Krishnamurthy, Sub Post Master, Srikakulam in the year 2014 (total 10 letters)
Ex.P42:Letters addressed to SBI, Gara by A.Krishnamurthy, Sub Post Master, Srikakulam in the year 2015 (total 44 letters)
Ex.P43:copy of Branch Office Account of Sativada B.O. for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014.
Ex.P44:Branch Office Account of Sativada B.O. for the period from January, 2015 to 09.09.2015.
Ex.P45:Copy of NREGS journal of Sativada B.O. for the period from 23.10.2013 to 09.09.2015.
44
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P46:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for November, 2014.
Ex.P47:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for December, 2014;
Ex.P48:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for January, 2015;
Ex.P49:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for February, 2015;
Ex.P50:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for March, 2015;
Ex.P51:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for April, 2015;
Ex.P52:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for May, 2015;
Ex.P53:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for June, 2015;
Ex.P54:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for July, 2015;
Ex.P55:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for August, 2015;
Ex.P56:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for September, 2015;
Ex.P57:Photostat copy of statements submitted by the accused regarding data wise details of fraud committed.
Ex.P58:Photostat copy of enquiry detailed report submitted to the Superintendent of Post-Office.
Ex.P59:Certified copy of Inspection report dt.02-12-2014.
Ex.P60:Visit report prepared by Trinadh
Ex.P61:B.O. Slips from 01.11.2014 to 09.09.2015.
Ex.P62:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.7 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for 13.11.2014, 11.12.2014, 15.12.2014,29.12.2014, 30.12.2014, 31.12.2014.
Ex.P63:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.7 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 03.01.2015, 05.01.2015, 06.01.2015, 10.01.2015, 45
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
12.01.2015, 13.01.2015, 19.01.2015, 20.01.2015, 21.01.2015, 24.01.2015, 29.01.2015, 03.02.2015, 05.02.2015, 10.02.2015, 12.02.2015, 13.02.2015, 14.02.2015, 16.02.2015.
Ex.P64:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.7 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 04.03.2015, 05.03.2015, 06.03.2015, 12.03.2015, 13.03.2015, 14.03.2015, 16.03.2015, 18.03.2015, 19.03.2015, 20.03.2015, 23.03.2015, 24.03.2015, 25.03.2015, 26.03.2015, 27.03.2015, 28.03.2015, 30.03.2015, 04.04.2015, 07.04.2015, 08.04.2015, 09.04.2015, 10.04.2015, 11.04.2015, 15.04.2015, 16.04.2015, 17.04.2015, 20.04.2015, 21.04.2015, 22.04.2015, 24.04.2015, 28.04.2015, 29.04.2015.
Ex.P65:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.7 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 01.05.2015, 02.05.2015, 05.05.2015, 07.05.2015, 08.05.2015, 09.05.2015, 11.05.2015, 15.05.2015, 19.05.2015, 20.05.2015, 22.05.2015, 23.05.2015, 25.05.2015, 26.05.2015, 27.05.2015, 28.05.2015, 01.06.2015, 02.06.2015, 03.06.2015, 08.06.2015, 09.06.2015, 10.06.2015, 11.06.2015, 12.06.2015, 13.06.2015, 16.06.2015, 17.06.2015, 18.06.2015, 19.06.2015, 22.06.2015, 23.06.2015, 25.06.2015, 27.06.2015,
Ex.P66:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.7 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 03.07.2015, 04.07.2015, 09.07.2015, 10.07.2015, 11.07.2015, 13.07.2015, 14.07.2015, 15.07.2015, 17.07.2015, 20.07.2015, 27.07.2015, 29.07.2015, 31.07.2015, 03.08.2015, 06.08.2015, 07.08.2015, 10.08.2015, 17.08.2015, 18.08.2015, 20.08.2015, 22.08.2015, 25.08.2015, 26.08.2015, 04.09.2015, 05.09.2015, 07.09.2015.
Ex.P67:Copy of sanction order dt.30.06.2016
Ex.P68:Copy of covering letter dt.30.06.2016.
Ex.P69:Attested copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P70:Attested copy of Search list.
Ex.P71:Attested copy of Service and index card details.
46
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARK ED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
NIL
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
Copies to: (1) The Accused (2) The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam through Public Prosecutor.
// True Copy //
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
47
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC: I Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I.Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the 28 th day of March, 2025
C.C.No.17/2017
RC.No.18(A)/2015/CBI/VSP
Date of offence : from 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015
Date of report or complaint : 28.12.2015
Date of apprehension of accused: Not arrested
Date of release on bail : Not applicable
Date of commencement of trial: 03.10.2023
Date of close of trial : 18.03.2025
Date of sentence or order: 28.03.2025
Explanation of delay and remarks:
This case was taken on file on 20.02.2017against the sole accused and made over to III Addl.Special Judge’s Court for CBI Cases,
Visakhapatnam. Subsequently the said Court was shifted to Vijayawada vide orders in ROC No.48/E1/2019 dated 28.09.2022 of Hon’ble High Court of
A.P. and on the ground of jurisdiction as per G.O.Ms.No.09 dated 09.01.2020 the case in C.C.No.17/2017 was transferred to I Addl.Special Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. The examination of witnesses was 48
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
commenced on 03.10.2023.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.71 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., on 14.02.2025. At the stage of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused filed petition in
Crl.M.P.No.245/2025 for recall of PW1 and PW7 and the said petition was
allowed vide orders dated 17.03.2025. Accordingly, PW1 and PW7 were recalled for further cross examination on 18.03.2025. The case was posted for arguments. The case was adjourned from time to time for arguments.
Heard arguments of both sides. Judgment is pronounced on 28.03.2025.
Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No.17/2017 on the file of I
Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I., Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Complainant : State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam.
Name of the accused :
Talla Narayana Rao, s/o Late Bhagavan Das, aged 52 years, R/o Door No.1-92, Post Office Street, Sativada, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District – 532 405.
Offence: Under Section 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)
(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding:
In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 49
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Accused present. Heard. He stated that he is suffering from kidney problem. His wife is suffering from neuro problem. His daughter is married and son is working as a coolie. The accused prayed to take a lenient view.
Learned counsel for the accused also prayed to take a lenient view. Learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that this is an economic offence and hence, lenient view cannot be taken. Learned PP further submitted that no attachment proceedings were initiated against the properties of accused at an earlier stage. The case involves financial fraud that affects the Nation at large.
Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of accused, his counsel and learned Public Prosecutor, this
Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing imprisonment. With regard to imposing fine no such lenient view can be taken in view of Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act and also the fact that public money is involved. Accordingly, accused is sentenced as follows:
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 409 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 477-A IPC, in default of 50
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
With regard to sentence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) this Court is inclined to refer to Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that while fixing fine amount the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence. Admittedly CBI did not initiate any steps under
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attach the properties of the accused for the offences alleged under Section 409 of IPC as well as the offence under Section Prevention of Corruption Act are schedule offences.
Learned PP submitted that accused is also involved in C.C.No.16/2017 where the fraud amount involved is Rs.52,55,482/-. It may be noted that total misappropriated amount is arrived at Rs.1,53,77,868/-. Out of this amount, accused paid Rs.90,00,000/-. Still an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- is remaining which is public money. Had the CBI initiated appropriate proceedings at the earliest point of time, then there would have been chances of recovering this amount by way of attachment and sale under Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944. Since this is not done, Rs.60,00,000/- needs to be imposed as a fine as it is public money. The offence pertains to the year 2013. Nearly a decade elapsed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that public money is involved, this Court is inclined to impose Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) towards fine amount. Accordingly accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
51
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Further accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one monthfor the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Total fine amount imposed is Rs.1,000 + 1,000 + 30,00,000 + 1,000
= Rs.30,03,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs and three thousand only).
It is stated that accused was not arrested in this case. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence imposed in C.C.No.16/2017 shall run concurrently in terms of Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
Accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this
Judgment and availability of free legal aid. Free copy of this judgment supplied to him today i.e. 28.03.2025.
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi Copy to: (1) The Accused (2) The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
52
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
CALENDAR CASE NO.17/2017
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF SENTENCE
Name of the Accused: Talla Narayana Rao
Father’s Name: late Bhagavan Das
Date of Judgment: 28.03.2025
Q:You are found guilty under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . What do say about question of sentence to be found against ?
I am suffering from kidney problem. My wife is suffering from neuro problem. My daughter is married and my son is doing coolie works.
SD/-XXXXXX
[ACCUSED]
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
53
CC 17/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
O/o Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, Dt.28.03.2025.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ACCUSED
I, Talla Narayana Rao, s/o Late Bhagavan Das, aged 52 years, in this case acknowledge the receipt of free copy of Calender and Judgment in
CC.17/2017 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Visakhapatnam on this day i.e.28.03.2025.
SD/-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[TALLA NARAYANA RAO] //Attested//
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I.Cases,
Visakhapatnam.
1
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
APVS200000042015
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC: I Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the 28 th day of March, 2025
C.C.No.16/2017
RC.No.18(A)/2015/CBI-VSP
Between:
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam.
.…Complainant And :
Talla Narayana Rao, s/o Late Bhagavan Das, aged 52 years, R/o Door No.1-92, Post Office Street, Sativada, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District – 532 405.
…Accused
This case came on 26.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.U.Akhila, learned Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Y.V.Prasad, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB Visakhapatnam filed a charge sheet 2
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are that the accused worked as Branch Post Master, Sativada, Srikakulam District. PW8
R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala is the Sub Post Master, Gara. PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy was the Asst.Superintendent of Post Office, West Sub Division, Srikakulam.
PW1 J.Prasad Babu was the Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam
Division.
3.In order the enhance the livelihood security in rural areas, National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (later renamed as Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) aimed at providing at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household where the adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The benefit disbursement system was designed and developed by A.P.Online to facilitate disbursements of Government entitlements to the beneficiaries. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Posts and A.P.Online [a venture of TATA Consultancy Services] entered into a tripartite agreement for disbursements of benefits to beneficiaries like wages under MGNREGS
Scheme.
4.The accused who worked as Branch Post Master, Sativada had jurisdiction over three villages viz., Sativada, Nizamabad and Kotturu
Syrigam with regard to disbursement of wages to the beneficiaries under
MGNREGS. PW2 Ravi Swaroopa Rani was the Mandal Parishad Chief
Officer/Project Officer at Gara Mandal for implementation of MGNREGS,
Gara Mandal.
3
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
5.It is averred that PW8 R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala, Sub Post Master, Gara
Sub Post Office used to entrust requisite amounts to accused on proper acknowledgment through B.O daily slips as per the liability mentioned on the back side of B.O. daily account for disbursement of wages to the MGNREGS beneficiaries. The accused entered these amounts in his B.O. daily account.
The accused was also supplied with three POTD machines for Sativada,
Nizamabad and Kotturu Syrigam villages. The accused has to take finger prints of the beneficiaries; enter their account number on the withdrawal option of POTD machine; make payment to beneficiaries equal to the amount mentioned in the printed receipt generated by the POTD machine. At the end of the day, accused has to generate summary of transactions and the total amount paid to the beneficiaries on that day of all three POTD machines. It is averred that this POTD machine is directly linked to
A.P.Online Data Center where the withdrawal of wages by the beneficiaries is directly captured by the A.P.Online Data Center. The data center immediately generates details in the Benefit Disbursement Portal which is similar to online transactions made in the bank using auto synchronization process.
6.It is averred that the accused accounted higher amounts than that of actual disbursement amounts to MGNREGS beneficiaries and thus misappropriated various amounts to a tune of Rs.52,55,482/- for the period from 22.10.2013 to 27.09.2014. On the strength of complaint lodged by PW1
J.Prasad Babu the instant case is registered against the accused and also
PW8 R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala, PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy and P.Trinadh. Since the involvement of PW8 R.V.N.S.S.Sakunthala, PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy and
P.Trinadh is not established, they were not charge sheeted. It is further averred that after detection of fraud, the accused remitted Rs.90,70,350/- on 4
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
various dates.
7.PW10 K.V.Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Competent Authority issued
Ex.P71 sanction against the accused to prosecute him. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.
8.It is seen from the record that this Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were served on him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations made by the prosecution.
9.After hearing both sides and on consideration of material on record, charges under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused by this Court and the same were read over and explained to him, for which he denied charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10.To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.16 on it’s behalf and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.75. Ex.D1 (Certified copy of FIR filed against P.V.Ramana Murthy, Asst.Superintendent of Post Office, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam District along with copy of complaint against P.V.Ramana Murthy and PW1) is marked through PW1.
11.Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by stating the incriminating circumstances available against him in the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.
5
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
12.Heard. Learned Public Prosecutor filed written arguments. Perused the same.
13. ARGUMENTS:
Learned Public Prosecutor reiterated the arguments in the written arguments stating that the accused worked as Branch Post Master of
Sativada to whom the Postal Department allotted three POTD machines to disburse wages to NREGS beneficiaries. The prosecution proved that the accused had received cash from Sub Office, Gara headed by PW8
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala by giving proper acknowledgment vide Ex.P65 B.O.
slips. The accused did not dispute receiving of cash from Sub Office, Gara.
Thereafter the accused made payments to NREGS beneficiaries but falsely increased the number of beneficiaries and amounts in the accounts maintained by him such as B.O. daily accounts, B.O. account and NREGS journal. He sent B.O. daily accounts viz., Exs.P49 to 60 to Sub Office, Gara.
where PW8 R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala, Sub Post Master has to verify these entries with the figures contained in NREGS portal but due to pressure of work, net work issues, PW8 did not verify the entries. Taking advantage of this situation, accused submitted false accounts and thereby got illegally benefited. The total misappropriation is arrived at Rs.52,55,482/- for the entire period from 22.10.2013 to 27.09.2014. Learned PP submitted that on 09.09.2015 PW8 noticed alterations in POTD slips submitted by the accused.
On suspicion PW8 verified A.P.Online portal and found difference in online payment figures. The matter was brought to the notice of higher authorities who ordered an internal enquiry where the accused admitted his guilt vide
Ex.P22 and also Ex.P61 statements. The accused stated that due to financial difficulties he committed the fraud and promised to repay the amounts within a short time. Learned PP submitted that accordingly the 6
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
accused remitted Rs.90 lakhs. Learned PP submitted that the figures shown in Ex.P21 online retrieved data are correct. Learned PP submitted that as per the evidence of PW4 M.Seshu when once these figures are uploaded it is not possible to change the data in any of the servers. All the withdrawal transactions for NREGS beneficiaries is automatically reflected in A.P.Online portal. Learned PP concluded that had the accused paid money to more beneficiaries then he would have obtained their biometric which would be automatically reflected in online portal. The accused did not produce any material to substantiate his case. Thus, the prosecution established the entrustment of cash to accused and also the fraud committed by him.
Learned PP further submitted that only one FIR is registered against accused. However, two charge sheets were filed based on the period of work of accused. The first charge sheet pertains to the period from 22.10.2013 to 27.09.2014 and it is subject matter of present case. The next case pertains to period from 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015 and subject matter of
C.C.No.17/2017. The original documents are filed in the present case i.e.
C.C.No.16/2017.
14.On the other hand learned counsel for the accused submitted that at the outset there is difference in the fraud amount calculated by the Postal
Department. Learned counsel submitted that originally FIR was registered against the accused, PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy, PW8 R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala and
Trinadh. These persons conspired together and made the accused a scapegoat. Learned counsel submitted that without any basis their names are deleted from the charge sheet. Learned counsel submitted that the higher authorities of accused did not properly check the records to know if there is any fraud. Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P71 sanction order is also not correct and there is difference in the amount and beneficiaries 7
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
mentioned therein. Learned counsel further argued that the complaint was lodged before CBI on 28.12.2015 by PW1. Two months before that date, the accused had already remitted Rs.90 lakhs. In spite of it, the accused was put off from duty and he was paid salary till 2020 on the promise to reinstate him after enquiry. Learned counsel elaborated that the higher authorities of accused promised that he will be reinstated into service if he pays the money. Accordingly accused had remitted the amount but the case is foisted against the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the accused is confining his liability to Rs.90 lakhs only but not Rs.1,53,00,000/- as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel argued that the charge sheet is silent about the reasons for deleting other accused in this case. There is also no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses. According to learned counsel PW8 had to check the correctness of the figures sent by the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the accused studied only 10th class and he kept with him what all the B.O. slips (Ex.P65) received from
PW8. It was argued that the accused cannot say the correctness of the entries in Ex.P65 B.O. slips. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution did not examine any beneficiaries to show that excess payments were made. Without verifying the facts, PW1 lodged a false complaint. The original records are concealed by PW1 at his office. To save PW7 M.Srinivas
Reddy, PW8 Sakuntala and Trinadh, the present case is foisted against the accused. Learned counsel argued that the CBI did not obtain signature of
PW1 in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that PW1 and PW8 were recalled for further cross examination. PW1 admitted that there is type mistake with regard to entry for January 2013. Theretofore the entire calculation is wrong.
15.Learned counsel further submitted that the case is based on 8
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
circumstantial evidence and there is no corroboration from other witnesses.
The alleged sections of law are not attracted to the facts. Learned counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in a case of Arishapoga
Nagarathnam @ Nagaraju vs. State of A.P. [2024 (3) ALD (Crl.) 750 (A.P.)]
in support of his submissions. Learned counsel submitted that the antecedents of accused are not verified before registering this case. I have perused the judgment relied on by the learned counsel and it is seen that it pertains to a trap case registered by ACB. The facts are entirely different. It appears this judgment is not of much use to the case of the accused. On facts this judgment can be distinguished.
16. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
PW1 Janapala Prasad Babu the then Superintendent of Post Offices,
Srikakulam Division, Srikakulam deposed that on 01-06-2013 their department entered into a tripartite agreement with Rural Development
Department of Andhra Pradesh and AP Online with regard to disbursement of wages under NREGS and Social Security Pension and identified Ex.P-1 (L.D.6) operational guide lines issued by their department; Ex.P-2 (L.D.7) instructions dated 16.06.2014 issued by him to post masters, Srikakulam
Head Office and other officials in Srikakulam Division; Ex.P-3 (L.D.8) instructions dated 02.05.2014 issued by him to post masters/SPMs/SDHs with regard to cash conveyance charges; Ex.P-4 (L.D.3) copy of Tripartite agreement.
17.PW1 deposed that on 9-9-2015 PW8 Sakuntala, Sub-Post Master,
Gara Sub-Post Office informed that there is difference in between NREGS amounts in the branch office daily account and the benefit disbursement portal and that on his instructions PW9 Arbind Panda and Sairam Kumar 9
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
verified the records and ascertained that a fraud of approximately
Rs.1,50,00,000/- was committed.
18.PW1 further deposed that he formed three squads and got verified all the transactions at Sativada branch post office and that on 12-9-2015 PW7
M.Srinivasa Reddy, Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam West
Sub-division submitted a preliminary report Ex.P-6 (L.D.30) thatthere is a total difference of Rs.1,54,00,000/- between benefit disbursement portal and
Branch office Daily account.
19.PW1 deposed that on 28-12-2015 he lodged Ex.P5 complaint with
CBI, Visakhapatnam alleging that a fraud of Rs.1,53,00,000/- took place at
Sativada branch post office in relation to NREGS amounts by making corrections with pen in the POTD receipts and that the said corrected amounts were entered in the Branch Office daily accounts, Sativada Branch
Post office.
20.PW2 Ravi Swarupa Rani the then MPDO, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam
District and also Program Officer, NREGS from 2011 to 2013 deposed that she along with L.W.3 R.Satyavathi used to supervise the entire NREGS work including issuing of job cards, entrusting of working etc., generating pay orders and uploading Fund Transfer Orders through digital key to Central server of Commissioner, Rural Development and that data will be shared to
A.P. Online and Postal Department which cannot be altered.
21.PW2 identified Exs.P7 to P19 pay orders pertaining to Sativada,
Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages from September 2013 to September 2014.
22.PW3 G.Mohan Rao, the then Divisional Accounts Officer, Panchayat 10
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Raj Institution Division, Srikakulam identified signatures of A.Prabhakar Rao,
Executive Engineer on Ex.P-20 (four sheets) (L.D.61) fund transfer order (FTO) pertaining to NREGS payments relating to K.Syrigam, Pusarlapadu,
Amballavalasa and Nizamabad gram panchayats.
23.PW4 Mukku Seshu, the then Software Engineer, A.P.Online Limited deposed their department supplied POTD machines to the postal department for disbursement of wages and that upon the beneficiary affixing his bio- metric, a slip will be generated containing the relevant details such as job card number, account number, withdrawal amount and that simultaneously this transaction is also reflected in their data base servers which cannot be changed once data is uploaded.
24.PW4 deposed that on the request of CBI in the year 2016 he retrieved data from their server pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad for the period from 01.09.2013 to 09.09.2015 and for the village Kothuru Syragam for the period from 01.09.2013 to 31.03.2014 and furnished to CBI and identified Ex.P21 proceedings along with retrieved data and Sec.65-B Evidence Act Certificate.
25.PW5 L.Sri Kalyan, the then Inspector of Posts, East Sub-Division,
Srikakulam for the period from 2013 to 2017 deposed that on 10.09.2015 on the instructions of their Superintendent of Posts, Srikakulam Division he recorded Ex.P22 statement of accused Talla Narayana Rao, Branch Post
Master, Sativada Branch Office in his handwriting in connection with embezzlement of NREGS payments by him. Accused confessed misappropriation of NREGS amounts due to his financial difficulties and further accused prayed time to return the misappropriated amount and accordingly on 10.09.2015 accused paid Rs.4,63,350/- into Srikakulam Head
Office postal account in respect of the NREGS amounts misappropriated by 11
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
him.
26.PW6 Hamsa Sathi Babu, the then Post Master, Head Post Office,
Srikakulam for the period from September, 2014 to May, 2018 deposed that accused used to visit their Head post office at Srikakulam for remitting the misappropriated money by him relating to NREGS payments and other accounts. PW6 identified Exs.P23 to P.42 requisition letters written by accused permitting to deposit money and further identified Ex.P43 certificate of credit dated 05.01.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- issued by him.
27.PW7 Mule Srinivas Reddy, the then Asst. Superintendent of Post
Offices, Srikakulam West Sub-Division from 12.06.2014 to July, 2016 deposed that in the year 2015 accused Talla Narayana Rao worked as
Branch Post Master, Sativada. On 09.09.2015 he came to know from PW8
Sakunthala, Sub-Post Master, Gara that there is difference of Rs.1,20,000/- in NREGS payments shown in B.O. Daily Account and Online portal and that there are some corrections in POTD consolidation slip of Sativada Branch
Office and some more discrepancies in NREGS payments of Sativada Post
Office. P.W7 informed the same to PW1 Superintendent of Post Offices.
28.PW7 deposed that he received Ex.P22 statement recorded by PW5
L.Sri Kalyan; visited Gara Sub-Post Office and seized relevant records and also POTD machines of Sativada. Narrating all these facts he submitted
Ex.P-6 preliminary report to P.W.1 Superintendent of Post Offices.
29.PW7 further deposed that he visited Sativada Branch Post Office with his team; seized Ex.P-46 to 60 Branch accounts, NREGS journal and B.O.
daily accounts. After noticing discrepancies in the NREGS payments made at
Sativada Branch Post Office for the period from October, 2013 to September, 2015 P.W7 sought explanation from accused. P.W7 further deposed that 12
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
accused appeared before him and confessed that he committed fraud in
NREGS payments. Accused further wrote Ex.P-61 (L.D.31 sheet No.9 to 25) statements in his own hand writing confessing commission of fraud giving date wise details. Accused utilized NREGS payments for his personal use.
PW7 deposed that accused voluntarily repaid about Rs.90,00,000/- to the
Department at Srikakulam Head Post Office on several dates.
30.PW7 also deposed about the modus operandi of accused in commission of fraud and stated that accused at the end of the day after collecting the consolidated NREGS payment slip from POTD machine used to alter the figures manually for a higher amount in the consolidated NREGS payment slip as if there are more number of beneficiaries than the original beneficiaries. The accused used to mention this figure in Branch Office Daily
Account submitted to the Sub-Post Office, Gara and also in the Branch Office
Account at Sativada but the Online portal gives the exact information about the total number of beneficiaries and payments of that particular day.
31.PW7 deposed that after completion of enquiry he submitted the detailed report Ex.P-62 to Superintendent of Post Office, Srikakulam incorporating date wise details of NREGS payments as per Online portal and the figures mentioned in the B.O. Daily Account and the excess charged amount which is the fraud amount.
32.PW8 Rangabatla Venkata Narasimha Satya Sai Sakuntala, the then
Sub-Post Master, Gara, Srikakulam District during 2012-2015 deposed that the accused was the branch post master at Sativada branch post office during relevant period and that whenever cash is required, accused used to approach them with B.O daily account by mentioning the cash requirement.
They used to supply cash to maximum limit of Rs.2 lakhs by obtaining 13
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
acquaintance of accused on a B.O. slip and in turn accused used to mention the receipt of cash in B.O. daily account.
33.PW8 further deposed that NREGS consolidated payment slips generated by POTD machine will be enclosed to B.O. daily account and sent to Sub-Post Office where they prepare a consolidated list of transactions of
NREGS payments made at B.O (branch offices) and Gara sub-post office.
These records along with S.O daily account is sent to head post office..
34.PW8 deposed about supplying POTD machines to accused who was the branch post master for Sativada branch that covers three villages namely
Sativada, Nizamabad, Kotturu Syregram.
35.PW8 deposed that on 09.09.2015 she noticed that the numeral “1” in
POTD slip was altered as “7” and that this POTD slip was submitted by accused along with B.O daily account to their Sub-Post Office and that on suspicion when she verified the same in A.P. On-line Portal she found that there is difference in On-line payment figure and POTD slip and hence she immediately informed the same to P.W-7 ASP M.Srinivasa Reddy on the same day.
36.PW8 deposed that on the instructions of PW7 ASP M.Srinivasa Reddy, she verified the previous records for the month of September, 2015 also and noticed differences in the figures mentioned in A.P. On-line Portal and B.O daily account with regard to NREGS payments of Sativada Branch Post
Office. She informed the events to P.W-7 ASP M.Srinivasa Reddy and PW1
Superintendent of Posts J.Prasad Babu and submitted records to PW9
Arbind Panda.
37.PW8 deposed that PW9 Arbind Panda, ASP-cum-Nodal Officer for 14
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
NREGS and Sairam Kumar, Office Assistant, NREGS verified the records and found that there was a fraud of nearly Rs.1.53 crores.
38.PW8 further deposed that accused used to acknowledge the cash received by him in the Branch Office slip and also in the B.O daily account and it is also reflected in B.O account. A copy of branch office slip containing acknowledgment of accused will be retained by their office.
39.PW8 identified her signature and hand writings of accused in Ex.P-65 (L.D-34 to L.D-43) B.O slips from 07.10.2013 to 30.09.2014.
40.PW8 deposed that the POTD slip and B.O daily account submitted by accused alone was the basis for preparing consolidated NREGS payment list and accordingly PW8 sent S.O daily account to Head Office without knowing the fraud committed in branch office daily account.
41.PW8 identified Exs.P66 to P.70 S.O daily accounts submitted by her to
Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS consolidated payment list.
She identified Ex.P-21 data retrieved from A.P. On-line portal with regard to
NREGS payments made at Sativada Branch Post Office for the relevant period and further stated that on verification it is found that there is a variation in the NREGS payments figures in Ex.P-21 On-line data and that of
Ex.P-46, Ex.P-47 Sativada B.O accounts; Sativada B.O daily account and
Ex.P-48 NREGS journal.
42.PW9 Arbind Panda, then Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Srikakulam during April, 2013 to November, 2016 and Nodal Officer for
NREGS and SSP for Srikakulam District deposed that on 09.09.2015 on the instructions of P.W-1 J.Prasada Babu he downloaded NREGS payments pertaining to September, 2013 to October, 2015 from A.P.On-line portal 15
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
pertaining to Sativada branch Post Office and noticed that in B.O daily account of Sativada branch office, the NREGS payments were charged in excess when compared to A.P.On-line portal figures and variation is to a tune of Rs.1.5 crores approximately.
43.PW9 further identified Ex.P-49 to Ex.P-60 B.O daily accounts of
Sativada branch post office for the period from October, 2013 to September, 2014 and informed the variations to PW1 J.Prasad Babu over phone.
44.PW10 Kanukollu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, the then Adhoc
Disciplinary Authority & Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Visakhapatnam issued Ex.P-71 (L.D-62) prosecution sanction order against you accused.
45.PW11 K.Padmavathi, the then Ledger Clerk deposed that she was entrusted with entering SB account transaction in computer system and comparison of NREGS LOTs with S.O. daily account of concerned Sub Post
Offices. Her superiors viz., S.B.C.O. (Savings Bank Control Organization) will again scrutinize LOTs, vouchers relating to S.B. and R.D. accounts.
46.PW12 N.Joga Rao, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam from 06.10.2020 deposed that his colleague Inspector V.S.R.Sharma (died) registered a case in RC.No.18(A)/2015/CBI/VSP on 28.12.2015 against accused Talla Narayana Rao (branch post master), P.W-8
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala (sub-post master), P.Trinadh (mail overseer), P.W-7
M.Srinivas Reddy(Asst. Superintendent of Posts) and issued Ex.P-73 FIR.
After completion of investigation late V.S.R.Sharma filed charge sheet against you accused Talla Narayana Rao.
47.Upon hearing the submissions of learned PP and learned counsel 16
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
for the accused, the following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the prosecution established the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated the property entrusted to him by abusing his official position as public servant within the meaning of Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) and (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
48.Before starting discussion I am inclined to refer to the observations of
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Sulekha Chatterjee and Another Vs.
Union of India and Others (2023 SCC Online Calcutta 2242):
“8. Post office, in many cases, do not only act as the nation's preferred carrier of words and emotions, but also serve as the guardian of its savings. It is the trust that has been built over decades that citizens place on their local post offices and it is the sacred duty of the postal department to forever and continuously uphold that trust. The breach of that trust, is not just limited to only the person who is affected by that breach, but can also affect the conscious and trust of the citizenry towards the postal system, which is the lifeblood of Indian republic, at large…”
49. POINT NO.1: For the sake of convenience and brevity, the discussion for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC is taken up together as they are interlinked with each other.
50.Section 409 and 477-A of IPC:
17
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Coming to the charges under Sections 409 of IPC and 477-A of IPC admittedly accused is a public servant working in Postal Department. In order to bring home an offence under Section 477-A of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that:
1. the accused at the relevant time was an employee
2. acting in that capacity the accused destroyed, altered, falsified any book, valuable security of account which belonged to his employer or had been received by him for and on behalf of his employer
3. the accused committed the offence with an intention to defraud.
51.Now in the light of above ingredients, the facts of the present case are to be appreciated. In this case, admittedly accused worked as Branch Post
Master, Sativada during the relevant period. As per the case of the prosecution the misappropriation with regard to payment of wages to NREGS beneficiaries occurred on various dates. In fact PW8 R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala gave a clear picture in a tabular form in her evidence stating the date, figures appearing in A.P.Online portal, B.O.daily account, B.O. account and NREGS journal. Admittedly the accused is maintaining B.O. daily account, NREGS journal and B.O. account. For the sake of convenience, this portion of evidence of PW8 is extracted hereunder:
Date A.P.On-line B.O daily NREGS B.O account Portal in Rs.account in Rs.Journal in Rs.in Rs.
25.10.201323,565/-32,592/-32,592/-32,592/- 04.11.2013639/-22,371/-23,371/-23,371/- 05.11.2013–34,661/-34,661/-34,661/- 18
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
11.11.2013–6,739/-6,739/-6,739/- 15.11.2013–1,700/-1,700/-1,700/- 24.11.20132,535/-12,510/-12,510/-12,510/- 26.11.20132,220/-12,869/-12,869/-12,869/- 01.12.2013-19,818/-19,818/-19,818/- 05.12.2013-22,750/-22,750/-22,750/- 09.12.20132,360/-18,919/-18,919/-18,919/- 10.12.2013890/-19,940/-19,940/-19,940/- 11.12.20131,760/-17,208/-17,208/-17,208/- 12.12.20131,820/-4,260/-4,260/-4,260/- 13.12.20132,440/-12,289/-12,289/-12,289/- 15.12.2013300/-13,758/-13,758/-13,758/- 18.12.2013310/-18,644/-18,644/-18,644/- 25.12.2013310/-1,500/-1,500/-1,500/- 29.12.20135,961/-12,281/-12,281/-12,281/- 30.12.20131,300/-1,920/-1,920/-1,920/- 31.01.20142,980/-7,936/-7,936/-7,936/- 19
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
13.02.2014-6,910/-6,910/-6,910/- 17.02.2014-39,998/-39,998/-39,998/- 18.02.2014-38,000/-38,000/-38,000/- 20.02.20146,174/-39,962/-39,962/-39,962/- 23.02.201433,778/-79,076/-79,076/-79,076/- 25.02.201414,790/-81,634/-81,634/-81,634/- 26.02.20142,970/-14,290/-14,290/-14,290/- 27.02.2014-48,546/-48,546/-48,546/- 01.03.2014900/-84,187/-84,187/-84,187/- 09.03.2014-83,287/-83,287/-83,287/- 10.03201424,673/-66,025/-66,025/-66,025/- 11.03.201434,760/-1,24,204/-1,24,204/-1,24,204/- 17.03.201481,907/-1,33,249/-1,33,249/-1,33,249/- 18.03.2014-76,538/-76,538/-76,538/- 23.03.201442,524/-1,03,026/-1,03,026/-1,03,026/- 24.04.201493,945/-1,32,132/-1,32,132/-1,32,132/- 20
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
26.03.201411,780/-23,932/-23,932/-23,932/- 28.03.20143,939/-24,186/-24,186/-24,186/- 02.04.2014-1,20,582/-1,20,582/-1,20,582/- 07.04.2014430/-1,09,358/-1,09,358/-1,09,358/- 08.04.201445,045/-47,652/-47,652/-47,652/- 10.04.201423,162/-89,893/-89,893/-89,893/- 13.04.2014-41,706/-41,706/-41,706/- 17.04.2014419/-62,714/-62,714/-62,714/- 20.04.2014-42,713/-42,713/-42,713/- 22.04.2014770/-70,228/-70,228/-70,228/- 27.04.2014363/-44,692/-44,692/-44,692/- 28.04.2014-41,170/-41,170/-41,170/- 01.05.2014771/-41,771/-41,771/-41,771/- 02.05.20141,884/-61,884/-61,884/-61,884/- 05.05.20145,002/-95,217/-95,217/-95,217/- 06.05.20143,646/-93,646/-93,646/-93,646/- 21
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
10.05.20141,54,744/-2,54,744/-2,54,744/-2,54,744/- 14.05.20144,588/-99,588/-99,588/-99,588/- 18.05.201448,585/-1,19,030/-1,19,030/-1,19,030/- 19.05.201453,536/-1,43,536/-1,43,536/-1,43,536/- 20.05.201413,678/-73,678/-73,678/-73,678/- 23.05.20141,907/-91,907/-91,907/-91,907/- 25.05.20141,052/-72,403/-72,403/-72,403/- 26.05.201419,431/-99,431/-99,431/-99,431/- 27.05.20142,252/-72,252/-72,252/-72,252/- 28.05.20143,535/-12,721/-12,721/-12,721/- 29.05.20146,960/-75,062/-75,062/-75,062/- 03.06.20141,40,709/-2,40,709/-2,40,709/-2,40,709/- 04.06.201451,187/-1,51,187/-1,51,187/-1,51,187/- 06.06.20144,994/-74,994/-74,994/-74,994/- 08.06.201413,148/-1,36,577/-1,36,577/-1,36,577/- 09.06.201410,368/-1,00,389/-1,00,389/-1,00,389/- 22
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
11.06.201421,962/-1,91,962/-1,91,962/-1,91,962/- 13.06.201416,541/-1,16,541/-1,16,541/-1,16,541/- 15.06.2014655/-18,261/-18,261/-18,261/- 16.06.2014-97,606/-97,606/-97,606/- 17.06.201481,743/-1,81,743/-1,81,743/-1,81,743/- 18.06.20143,891/-1,13,891/-1,13,891/-1,13,891/- 19.06.20147,354/-77,354/-77,354/-77,354/- 20.06.201412,737/-72,737/-72,737/-72,737/- 22.06.20146,263/-77,530/-77,530/-77,530/- 23.06.20149,319/-99,319/-99,319/-99,319/- 30.06.201454,782/-1,24,782/-1,24,782/-1,24,782/- 03.07.2014-70,648/-70,648/-70,648/- 04.07.20141,11,569/-2,11,569/-2,11,569/-2,11,569/- 06.07.20141,934/-72,153/-72,153/-72,153/- 07.07.20144,119/-80,1,19/-80,119/-80,119/- 09.07.2014846/-8,261/-8,261/-8,261/- 23
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
10.07.20144,841/-74,841/-74,841/-74,841/- 11.07.20141,02,104/-2,02,104/-2,02,104/-2,02,104/- 13.07.20144,192/-14,192/-14,192/-14,192/- 16.07.20142,827/-12,827/-12,827/-12,827/- 20.07.20141,902/-1,44,545/-1,44,585/-1,44,545/- 21.07.20141,436/-7,436/-7,436/-7,436/- 22.07.2014-17,436/-17,436/-17,436/- 25.07.20148,543/-18,543/-18,543/-18,543/- 27.07.2014-1,11,901/-1,11,901/-1,11,901/- 29.07.201434,779/-1,28,360/-1,28,360/-1,28,360/- 31.07.20141,34,143/-1,84,143/-1,84,143/-1,84,143/- 01.08.20141,01,783/-2,01,783/-2,01,783/-2,01,783/- 02.08.20141,41,444/-2,17,813/-2,17,813/-2,17,813/- 05.08.20141,495/-71,495/-71,495/-71,495/- 06.08.20147,299/-77,299/-77,299/-77,299/- 08.08.2014-7,299/-7,299/-7,299/- 24
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
10.08.201410,0801,10,080/-1,10,080/-1,10,080/- 11.08.201434,348/-94,348/-94,338/-94,348/- 13.08.20141,686/-37,683/-37,683/-37,683/- 15.08.2014761/-2,447/-2,447/-2,447/- 09.09.20146,373/-11,523/-11,523/-11,523/- 13.09.201412,256/-15,803/-15,803/-15,803/- 20.09.20144,480/-5,603/-5,603/-5,603/- 25.09.2014812/-4,467/-4,467/-4,467/- 27.09.2014391/-915/-915/-915/-
52.In fact PW9 Arbind Panda also deposed the same figures with regard to A.P.Online portal and B.O. daily account submitted by the accused.
Ex.P21 is the retrieved data from online portal along with Section 65-B
Evidence Act certificate. PW8 gave her evidence basing on Ex.P21 retrieved data only with regard to the figures appearing in A.P.Online portal. In his evidence, PW4 M.Seshu made it clear that once the figures are uploaded in server, they cannot be changed. Admittedly whenever NREGS wages are paid to beneficiaries through POTD machines, the data is automatically synchronized and uploaded to A.P.Online disbursement portal. The accused did not dispute the procedure with regard to automatic synchronization of the figures in A.P.Online portal. Nothing useful is elicited in the cross 25
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
examination of PW4 who retrieved the data. It is his evidence that their department supplied POTD machines to Postal Department for disbursement of wages. After the beneficiary affixes his biometric, a slip will be generated containing the relevant details such as job card number, account number and withdrawal amount. Simultaneously this transaction is also reflected in their data base servers. It is seen from the cross examination of PW1 that the source and authenticity of Ex.P21 retrieved data remain unaffected. Except disputing that the figures stated in Ex.P21 are not correct, the accused did not say how and why they are incorrect. As already stated the accused is not disputing the procedure of automatic synchronization of withdrawal figures in
A.P.Online portal.
53.In fact PW2 R.Swaroopa Rani, Program Officer, NREGS also stated that she used to supervise the NREGS work including generating of payment orders uploading of fund transfer orders through digital key into the central server of Commissioner, Rural Development. That data will be shared to
A.P.Online and Postal Department. Once uploaded data cannot be altered.
In her cross examination, PW2 reiterated that she has knowledge that data uploaded is automatically shared with A.P.Online and Postal Department immediately. Nothing useful is elicited in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit her testimony.
54.Exs.P49 to P60 are the B.O. daily accounts submitted by the accused to Sub Post Office, Gara. Exs.P46 and P47 are B.O. office accounts maintained by the accused at his office. Ex.P48 is NREGS journal for the period from 23.10.2013 to 09.09.2015. As understood from the arguments, the accused maintained Ex.P46, P47 B.O. accounts with him. He also maintains Ex.P48 NREGS journal which contains the number of beneficiaries 26
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
and payments made to them. The accused has to submit Exs.P49 to P60
B.O. daily accounts containing the details of cash received and paid by him.
He has to submit this daily to Sub Office, Gara headed by PW8
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala. Exs.P46 to P60 are marked through PW7 M.Srinivas
Reddy, the then Asst.Superintendent of Post Office. It is his evidence that on 09.09.2015 he received information from PW8 Sakuntala, Sub Post Master,
Gara when she noticed difference in NREGS payments shown in B.O. daily account and online portal of Sativada Branch Post Office. At that time PW7 was about to board a train to Hyderabad. On his instructions PW8 further verified records and found some more discrepancies in NREGS payments of
Sativada. PW7 informed the events to PW1 J.Prasad Babu, Superintendent of Posts and PW9 Arbind Panda, Nodal Officer over phone. PW7 joined duty on 12.09.2015. In the meanwhile PW5 L.Sri Kalyan recorded Ex.P22 extra judicial confession statements of accused. On his return, PW7 visited Gara
Sub Post Office and seized relevant records. He submitted Ex.P62 report.
After some days P.W1 constituted three teams to probe into irregularities.
PW7 was also a team member. It is the evidence of PW7 that he noticed discrepancies in NREGS payments made at Sativada Branch Post Office.
The accused gave several statements vide Ex.P61 (L.D.31 sheet 9 to 25).
PW7 stated that the accused confessed that he utilized NREGS payments for his personal use. Accused further voluntarily repaid Rs.90 lakhs to the department on several dates. After completion of enquiry PW7 submitted
Ex.P62 detailed report to Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam. PW7 was cross examined on behalf of the accused and it is noted that the accused did not deny sending of Exs.P49 to P60 B.O. daily accounts to Gara
Sub Post Office. The accused also did not deny maintenance of Exs.P46,
P47 Branch Office accounts and Ex.P48 NREGS journal. In the course of 27
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
cross examination it was suggested to PW7 that PW8 Sakuntala, PW7
M.Srinivas Reddy, PW1 J.Prasad Babu and Trinadh threatened the accused and forcibly made him to pay Rs.90 lakhs. It was also suggested that the confessional statements of accused are not voluntary. The sum and substance of these suggestions are that the accused was threatened and forcibly made to pay Rs.90 lakhs to the department. These suggestions do not have any force since the accused himself in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
examination stated that his department officials promised to reinstate him if he pays Rs.90 lakhs. Therefore the accused paid Rs.90 lakhs. In other words the accused never stated that he paid Rs.90 lakhs due to threat.
According to accused he paid Rs.90 lakhs only because of the promise made by his department officials. He did not state about any threat. Contrary to this it was suggested to the material witnesses as if they threatened the accused and made him to pay Rs.90 lakhs.
55.As understood from the submissions of learned counsel, the accused is challenging the deletion of PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy, PW8
R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala and Trinadh from this case. It may be noted that the accused did not challenge these deletions at appropriate state nor challenged the order of taking cognizance at the earliest point of time.
Having participated in trial, the accused cannot at this stage raise these objections and claim parity with other offenders. A perusal of record and more particularly the evidence of PW8 indicates that she was given ID and password to access A.P.Online portal in the year 2015. Though she is bound to verify A.P.Online portal with the figures submitted by the accused, yet she did not do so. The other reason given was that due to net work issues and heavy work she could not check A.P.Online portal. For this a departmental enquiry was initiated against PW8 in which she found guilty and ordered to 28
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
pay Rs.13 lakhs. She paid Rs.One lakh initially and since then paying
Rs.12,500/-. It appears the Postal Department had already taken action against PW8.
56.The fact that PW7, PW8 and Trinadh were not charge sheeted cannot be a ground to exonerate the accused. A careful perusal of record indicates that the prosecution established the source and authenticity of Ex.P21 retrieved data containing the correct figures. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not cross examine PW8 on Ex.P21 figures retrieved from online portal. The correctness of Ex.P21 figures is not disputed as seen from the cross examination of PW8. In fact PW9 Arbind Panda, Nodal Officer also corroborated the version of PW8. He deposed that he downloaded NREGS payments from A.P.Online portal during the relevant period and compared them with the B.O. daily accounts of Sativada Branch Post Office. He also noticed that NREGS payments were charged excess when compared to
A.P.Online portal figures. Except suggesting that the variations are not correct, the accused could not discredit the evidence of PW9. It is significant to note that no animosity or enmity is attributed to either PW8 and PW9 to speak against the accused. There is nothing particular to disbelieve the evidence of PWs8 & 9 and their evidence inspires confidence.
57.At this stage it is appropriate to look into the extra judicial confessions of accused. It is reiterated that the accused voluntarily paid Rs.90 lakhs to the department after the fraud was detected. As per the answers given by him in Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination, he paid Rs.90 lakhs due to promise.
Ex.P22 is the first confessional statement recorded by PW5 in the first instance. The fraud came to light on 09.09.2015. Ex.P22 statement of accused was recorded on the next day i.e. on 10.09.2015 where the accused 29
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
apart from confessing the commission of fraud, also gave his modus operandi. Thereafter in the course of enquiry the accused gave several statements vide Ex.P61 (14 nos.) giving in detail of the fraud committed by him. This was given before PW7 M.Srinivas Reddy. A combined reading of the answers given by the accused in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination coupled with Exs.P22 and P61 extra judicial confessions rule out the possibility of any threat or coercion by the Postal Department.
58.As already stated PW1 and PW8 were recalled for further cross examination. The entire case of accused is revealed in the suggestions given to PW1. A fatal suggestion was given to PW1 stating that the accused committed fraud of Rs.90 lakhs and that the accused paid that Rs.90 lakhs along with another Rs.2,50,000/-. PW1 answered in-affirmative. PW1 further added that the entire fraud amount is Rs.1,53,77,868/-. As seen from the arguments of learned counsel and also as per the suggestions given in the cross examination of witnesses in particular to PW1, the accused is confining his liability to fraud amount of Rs.90 lakhs but not Rs.1,53,77,868/-. It may be noted that the exact quantum of misappropriated amount is not in question. As per settled law misappropriation of even a single rupee is also a punishable offence. Now the accused himself is suggesting to PW1 and admitting his liability that he committed fraud of Rs.90 lakhs and that he repaid this Rs.90 lakhs together with another Rs.2,50,000/-. In my considered opinion mere repayment of misappropriated amount will not dilute the offence. Therefore the fact that the accused had repaid Rs.90 lakhs to department being the fraud amount cannot be a ground to acquit him. By his own answers and extra judicial confessions and suggestions, the accused admitted that he committed fraud to an extent of Rs.90 lakhs and repaid it. It might be a fact that there are variations in the calculations arrived by the 30
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Postal Department but this is not a civil suit for recovery of money and as such, this Court is of the opinion that the variations in the exact misappropriated amount is not material. In the last page of charge sheet, the
CBI gave a comparative table showing the actual withdrawals noted in
A.P.Online portal and withdrawals as claimed by accused. As already stated the accused did not dispute online calculations as seen from the cross examination of PW8. This Court already gave a finding about the authenticity of A.P.Online figures. This amount is deducted from the amount claimed by the accused and the balance amount is shown as misappropriated amount.
Having admitted commission of fraud and repayment of Rs.90 lakhs, the accused cannot confine his liability to Rs.90 lakhs only which is without any basis. In the absence of any material to the contra the accused cannot fix his liability for himself. There is also no evidence to show that the Postal
Department asked accused to pay only Rs.90 lakhs towards his liability.
When once the accused is admitting his liability by way of extra judicial confessions and suggestions and answers in Section 313 Cr.P.C.
examination, no further proof is necessary to conclude that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC.
59.ENTRUSTMENT: Learned PP submitted that Ex.P21 retrieved online figures is a crucial document that gives a clear picture about the case. This document contains correct total withdrawals of Branch Post Office, Sativada as Rs.47,88,115/-. As against this the accused had shown a total amount of
Rs.1,00,43,597/- towards withdrawals as per records submitted by him. It was argued that the total misappropriated amount is Rs.1,00,43,597 –
Rs.47,88,115 = Rs.52,55,482/-. Thus, it was argued that the accused by showing this total amount of Rs.1,00,43,597/- to Sub Office, Gara, had received cash and accordingly committed misappropriation. It may be noted 31
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
that the accused is not disputing receipt of cash from Sub Post Office, Gara vide Ex.P65 B.O. slips. Basing on the information furnished by him regarding requirement, the Sub Office gives him cash. Thus, the prosecution proved entrustment of Rs.1,00,43,597/- to accused.
60. SANCTION: Learned counsel submitted that Ex.P71 sanction is defective. The fraud amount is different and hence, the sanctioning authority did not properly consider the material placed before him. I perused the evidence of PW10 K.V.L.Narasimha Murthy who issues Ex.P71 sanction orders. In his cross examination he stated that Ex.P71 sanction order given by him does not refer to B.O. daily accounts. To his memory he verified
POTD slips sent to him. As per Ex.P71 the total entrusted amount was
Rs.2,81,66,337/- during the period from 22.10.2013 to 09.09.2015. The sanction order further states that the accused misappropriated an amount of
Rs.1,53,77,868/-. It may be noted that two separate charge sheets were filed against accused basing on one FIR i.e. Ex.P73. Learned PP submitted that the present case pertains to the period 22.10.2013 to 27.09.2014 and the misappropriated amount is Rs.52,55,482/-. The second charge sheet which is subject matter of C.C.No.17/2017 pertains to 05.11.2014 to 08.09.2015 and the misappropriated amount was Rs.1,01,22,386/-. The original sanction order Ex.P71 is marked in this case. It appears PW10 issued only one common sanction order for the total amount of misappropriated amount of
Rs.52,55,482 + Rs.1,01,22,386 = Rs.1,53,77,868/-. Thus it appears there is no ambiguity in Ex.P71 sanction order. Even assuming for argument sake that there is variation in the exact misappropriated amount, yet it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. In State of Maharashtra vs. Mahesh G.Jain [(2013) 8 SCC 119] Hon’ble Supreme Court held that grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to 32
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
prima facie reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute an order granting sanction. It was held that :
“...The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused….”
In the light of above judicial precedent, this Court is of the opinion that
Ex.P71 sanction order is not defective.
61.EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION: The law relating to extra judicial confession is clear. A conviction can be based on extra judicial confession after taking proper care and caution.
62.The accused is alleged to have made an extra judicial confession
before P.W.5 L.Sri Kalyan vide Exs.P22 and P61 before PW7 M.Srinivas
Reddy. At this juncture it is relevant to note some of the judicial precedents to understand the importance of extra judicial confessions. In Narayana
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1985 SCC (Crl) 460] it was held that it is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It would depend on the nature of circumstances, time when confession was made and credibility of witnesses who speak to a such confession.
33
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
63.In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M.K.Anthony [1985(1) SCC 505] it was held that there is neither any rule of law nor of a prudence that evidence furnished by an extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence.
64.In Tejinder Singh @ Kaka vs. State of Punjab 2013 (12) SCC 503.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that extra judicial confession is a weak form of
evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court further gave certain guidelines to appreciate extra judicial confession. It was held that an extra judicial confession contains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and it is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence and in order to basis of conviction, the extra judicial confession should not be suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
In the present case the extra judicial confessions of accused is amply corroborated by the prosecution evidence and the chain of circumstances is also complete and hence, these extra judicial confessions viz., Ex.P22 and
Ex.P61 can be acted upon and can form a basis for conviction.
65.To sum up, the prosecution established that i.The accused was entrusted with cash of Rs.1,00,43,597/-.
ii. The accused submitted B.O. daily office accounts Exs.P49 to P60 to
Sub Office, Gara by charging excess NREGS payments.
iii. Exs.P49 to P60 did not correspond with the entries in Ex.P21
A.P.Online portal figures.
iv. The accused is the sole custodian of Exs.P46, 47 B.O. accounts and
Ex.P48 NREGS journal.
34
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
v. The accused admitted commission of offence by way of extra judicial confessions vide Exs.P22 and P61.
66.The prosecution proved that the accused at the relevant time was the
Branch Post Master, Sativada and in that capacity, he falsified Exs.P49 to
P60 B.O. daily accounts and that the accused committed the offences with an intention to defraud his department. The prosecution thus discharged the initial burden lying on it with regard to proof of alleged offences. Now the onus shifts on the accused to explain how and why he mentioned more number of beneficiaries and withdrawals against the actual figures contained in Ex.P21 retrieved online data. Admittedly accused alone is in possession of Exs.P46 & P47 B.O. accounts; Ex.P48 NREGS journal. The accused himself sent Exs.P49 to P60 B.O. daily accounts by showing manipulated figures of beneficiaries and NREGS payments. Therefore it is for the accused to explain the circumstances which are within his special knowledge as provided under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The accused did not explain the circumstances even though an opportunity is afforded to him during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The failure of accused to explain the circumstances strengthens the case of prosecution. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution established all the ingredients of the offences under
Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and accordingly, Point No.1 is held against the accused.
67. POINT NO.2: The accused undoubtedly is a public servant during the relevant period. In view of the findings in Point No.1 as a necessary consequence it follows that the accused being the public servant committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to fraudulent misappropriation of money entrusted to him and further abused his position 35
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage of public money illegally. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.
68. POINT NO.3: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer and partly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the day 28th day of March, 2025.
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
69.Accused present. Heard. He stated that he is suffering from kidney problem. His wife is suffering from neuro problem. His daughter is married and son is working as a coolie. The accused prayed to take a lenient view.
Learned counsel for the accused also prayed to take a lenient view. Learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that this is an economic offence and hence, lenient view cannot be taken. Learned PP further submitted that no attachment proceedings were initiated against the properties of accused at an earlier stage. The case involves financial fraud that affects the Nation at large.
At this stage I came across the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, (2022) 7 SCC 475 : (2022) 2 SCC (L&S)
335 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 464 at page 481, wherein it was held that mere depositing of the defrauded amount cannot be a mitigating factor. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
36
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
17. Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. What about the loss caused to the department by way of goodwill, name and fame of the department and its reliability amongst the public? By such a misconduct/act on the part of the delinquent officer, the reputation of the department had been tarnished. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and to substitute the same to that of compulsory retirement.
Further in Sulekha Chatterjee and Another Vs. Union of India and
Others (2023 SCC Online Calcutta 2242) the sanctity of post offices in the country are discussed. The acts of some of the unscrupulous employees committing fraud and the duty of the postal department towards the innocent customers was also highlighted in this judgment. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“8. Post office, in many cases, do not only act as the nation's preferred carrier of words and emotions, but also serve as the guardian of its savings. It is the trust that has been built over decades that citizens place on their local post offices and it is the sacred duty of the postal department to forever and continuously uphold that trust. The breach of that trust, is not just limited to only the person who is affected by that breach, but can also affect the conscious and 37
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
trust of the citizenry towards the postal system, which is the lifeblood of Indian republic, at large…”
It is understood that the postal department sustained severe loss both monetary as well as reputation wise due to the acts of the accused. Hence, these judicial precedents and the facts of the present case are kept in mind while sentencing the accused.
At this stage, I came across the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shanti Lal Meena vs State of NCT of Delhi, C.B.I [2015 AIR SCW 3637]. The relevant observations are extracted as follows:
“21.To quote Friedmann, "Generally, the philosophy of deterrence still prevails in modern criminology. We continue to be concerned with preventing, by appropriate punitive sanctions, both the individual offender and other members of society from the repetition of crime, or the imitation on the part of others by similar actions" 11. Unless the courts award appropriately deterrent punishment taking note of the nature of the offence under the PC Act and the status of the public servant at the relevant time, people will lose faith in the justice delivery system and the very object of the legislation on prevention of corruption will be defeated. The court is the conscience of the statute and hence its judgments should project and promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should shake the faith of common man in courts. The judgment on sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect the public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty to protect and promote public interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or unwarranted leniency will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the institutional integrity, affecting the credibility of its verdict. Thus, while awarding 38
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
sentence in cases under the PC Act, the court should bear in mind the expectation of the people of its paramount duty to prevent corruption in society by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence…”
Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of accused, his counsel and learned Public Prosecutor, this
Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing imprisonment. With regard to imposing fine no such lenient view can be taken in view of Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act and also the fact that public money is involved. Accordingly, accused is sentenced as follows:
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 409 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 477-A IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
With regard to sentence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) this Court is inclined to refer to Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that while fixing fine amount the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence. Admittedly CBI did not initiate any steps under
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attach the properties of the accused for the offences alleged under Section 409 of IPC as well as the offence under Section Prevention of Corruption Act are schedule offences.
Learned PP submitted that accused is also involved in C.C.No.17/2017 39
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
where the fraud amount involved is Rs.1,01,22,386/-. It may be noted that total misappropriated amount is arrived at Rs.1,53,77,868/-. Out of this amount, accused paid Rs.90,00,000/-. Still an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- is remaining which is public money. Had the CBI initiated appropriate proceedings at the earliest point of time, then there would have been chances of recovering this amount by way of attachment and sale under
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Since this is not done,
Rs.60,00,000/- needs to be imposed as a fine as it is public money. The offence pertains to the year 2013. Nearly a decade elapsed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that public money is involved, this Court is inclined to impose Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) towards fine amount. Accordingly accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Further accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one monthfor the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Total fine amount imposed is Rs.1,000 + 1,000 + 30,00,000 + 1,000
= Rs.30,03,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs and three thousand only).
It is stated that accused was not arrested in this case. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence imposed in C.C.No.17/2017 shall run concurrently in terms of Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
40
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this
Judgment and availability of free legal aid. Free copy of this judgment supplied to him today i.e. 28.03.2025.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open
Court on this the day 28th day of March, 2025.
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
T OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW.1:Janapala Prasad Babu
PW.2:Ravi Swaroopa Rani
PW.3:G.Mohan Rao
PW.4:Mukku Seshu
PW.5:L.Sri Kalyan
PW.6:Hamsa Sathi Babu
PW.7:Mule Srinivasa Reddy
PW.8:R.V.N.S.S.Sakuntala
PW.9:Arbind Panda
PW.10:K.V.L.Narasimha Murty
PW.11:K.Padmavathi 41
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
PW.12:N.Joga Rao
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE F
None
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P1:NREGS operational guidelines.
Ex.P2:Instructions dated 16.06.2014 issued by P.W.1 to the post masters.
Ex.P3:Instructions dated 02.05.2014 issued by P.W.01 to post masters/SPMs/SDHs with regard to cash conveyance charges.
Ex.P4:Copy of Tripartite agreement dt.01.06.2013
Ex.P5:Original complaint dt.28.12.2015
Ex.P6:Preliminary report dt.12.09.2015
Ex.P7:Pay order for September, 2013 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P8:Pay order for October, 2013 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages
Ex.P9:Pay order for November, 2013 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P10:Pay order for December, 2013 pertaining to Sativada, 42
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P11:Pay order for January, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P12:Pay order for February, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P13:Pay order for March, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P14:Pay order for April and May, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P15:Pay order for June, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages
Ex.P16:Pay order for July, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P17:Pay order for August, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P18:Pay order for September, 2014 pertaining to Sativada, Nizamabad and K.Syrigam villages.
Ex.P19:Photostat Copy ofSec.65(B) Certificate dt.06.02.2016 issued by PW-02.
Ex.P20:Fund transfer order (FTO) pertaining to NREGS payments signed by A.Prabhakar Rao.
Ex.P21:Proceedings dated 28.04.2016 along with retrieved data and Sec.65-B Evidence Act Certificate.
Ex.P22:Statement of the Accused recorded by P.W.5.
Ex.P23:Requisition letter dt.10.09.2015 for Rs.4,63,350/- by accused.
Ex.P24:Requisition letter dt.10.09.2015 for Rs.13,00,000/- by accused.
43
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P25:Requisition letter dt.11.09.2015 for Rs.10,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P26:Requisition letter dt.15.09.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P27:Requisition letter dt.15.09.2015 for Rs.3,24,000/- by accused.
Ex.P28:Requisition letter dt.16.09.2015 for Rs.90,000/- by accused.
Ex.P29:Requisition letter dt.18.09.2015 for Rs.2,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P30:Requisition letter dt.21.09.2015 for Rs.1,20,000/- by accused.
Ex.P31:Requisition letter dt.23.09.2015 for Rs.3,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P32:Requisition letter dt.24.09.2015 for Rs.1,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P33:Requisition letter dt.29.09.2015 for Rs.50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P34:Requisition letter dt.05.10.2015 for Rs.20,000/- by accused.
Ex.P35:Requisition letter dt.06.10.2015 for Rs.3,55,000/- by accused.
Ex.P36:Requisition letter dt.07.10.2015 for Rs.60,000/- by accused.
Ex.P37:Requisition letter dt.19.10.2015 for Rs.8,38,000/- by accused.
Ex.P38:Requisition letter dt.21.10.2015 for Rs.10,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P39:Requisition letter dt.02.11.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P40:Requisition letter dt.10.11.2015 for Rs.12,50,000/- by accused.
Ex.P41:Requisition letter dt.02.12.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P42:Requisition letter dt.19.12.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- by accused.
Ex.P43:certificate of credit issued by P.W.6 for Rs.2,50,000/- addressed to Superintendent of Post Offices dt.05.01.2016.
44
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P44:Letters addressed to SBI, Gara by A.Krishnamurthy, Sub Post Master, Srikakulam in the year 2013 (total 16 letters)
Ex.P45:Letters addressed to SBI, Gara by A.Krishnamurthy, Sub Post Master, Srikakulam in the year 2014 (total 61 letters)
Ex.P46:Branch Office Account of Sativada B.O. for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013.
Ex.P47:Branch Office Account of Sativada B.O. for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014.
Ex.P48:NREGS journal of Sativada B.O. for the period from 23.10.2013 to 09.09.2015.
Ex.P49:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for October, 2013.
Ex.P50:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for November, 2013.
Ex.P51:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for December, 2013.
Ex.P52:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for January, 2014.
Ex.P53:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for February, 2014.
Ex.P54:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for March, 2014.
Ex.P55:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for April, 2014.
Ex.P56:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for May, 2014.
Ex.P57:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for June, 2014.
Ex.P58:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for July, 2014.
Ex.P59:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for August, 2014.
Ex.P60:B.O. Daily Account of Sativada B.O. for September, 2014.
Ex.P61:Statements submitted by the accused regarding date wise details of fraud committed.
Ex.P62:Enquiry detailed report submitted by PW7 to the Superintendent 45
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
of Post-Offices, Srikakulam.
Ex.P63:Inspection report dt.02-12-2014 of Sativada B.O.
Ex.P64:Visit report dt.20.11.2013 prepared by Trinadh
Ex.P65:B.O. Slips from 07.10.2013 to 30.09.2014
Ex.P66:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.8 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for 4.11.2013, 6.11.2013, 12.11.2013, 27.11.2013, 2.12.2013, 11.12.2013, 13.12.2013, 14.12.2013.
Ex.P67:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.8 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 17.02.2014, 19.02.2014, 21.02.2014, 24.02.2014, 25.02.2014, 26.02.2014, 27.02.2014, 1.03.2014, 10.03.2014, 11.03.2014, 12.03.2014, 18.03.2014, 19.03.2014, 25.03.2014, 27.03.2014, 29.03.2014.
Ex.P68:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.8 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 4.04.2014, 9.04.2014, 12.04.2014, 15.04.2014, 19.04.2014, 22.04.2014, 24.04.2014, 28.04.2014, 29.04.2014, 2.05.2014, 3.05.2014, 6.05.2014, 8.05.2014.
Ex.P69:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.8 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 5.06.2014, 7.06.2014, 9.06.2014, 10.06.2014, 12.06.2014, 14.06.2014, 16.06.2014, 17.06.2014, 18.06.2014, 19.06.2014, 20.06.2014, 21.06.2014, 23.06.2014, 24.06.2014. 1.07.2014, 4.07.2014, 5.07.2014, 7.07.2014, 8.07.2014, 11.07.2014, 12.07.2014, 14.07.2014, 17.07.2014, 21.07.2014, 22.07.2014, 23.07.2014, 26.07.2014, 28.07.2014, 30.07.2014.
Ex.P70:S.O. Daily Accounts submitted by P.W.8 to Head Post Office, Srikakulam along with NREGS Consolidated payment list for the period 1.08.2014, 2.08.2014, 4.08.2014, 6.08.2014, 7.08.2014, 9.08.2014, 11.08.2014, 12.08.2014, 13.08.2014, 14.08.2014, 16.08.2014.
Ex.P71:Sanction order dt.30.06.2016.
Ex.P72:Covering letter dt.30.06.2016.
46
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P73:Original F.I.R.
Ex.P74:Four Search Warrants obtained by V.S.R.Sharma
Ex.P75:Search list prepared by V.S.R.Sharma after execution.
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of FIR filed against P.V.Ramana Murthy,
Asst.Superintendent of Post Office, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam District along with copy of complaint against P.V.Ramana Murthy and PW1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
NIL
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM .
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
Copies to:
(1) The Accused (2) The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam through Public 47
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Prosecutor.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC: I Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, this the 28 th day of March, 2025
C.C.No.16/2017
RC.No.18(A)/2015/CBI-VSP
Date of offence : from 25.10.2013 to 27.09.2014
Date of report or complaint : 28.12.2015
Date of apprehension of accused: Not arrested
Date of release on bail : Not applicable
Date of commencement of trial: 03.10.2023
Date of close of trial : 18.03.2025
Date of sentence or order: 28.03.2025
Explanation of delay and remarks:
This case was taken on file on 20.02.2017against the sole accused and made over to III Addl.Special Judge’s Court for CBI Cases,
Visakhapatnam. Subsequently the said Court was shifted to Vijayawada vide orders in ROC No.48/E1/2019 dated 28.09.2022 of Hon’ble High Court of
A.P. and on the ground of jurisdiction as per G.O.Ms.No.09 dated 09.01.2020 the case in C.C.No.16/2017 was transferred to I Addl.Special Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. The examination of witnesses was commenced on 03.10.2023.
48
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.75 and Ex.D1 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., on 14.02.2025. At the stage of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused filed petition in
Crl.M.P.No.244/2025 for recall of PW1 and PW8 and the said petition was
allowed vide orders dated 17.03.2025. Accordingly, PW1 and PW8 were recalled for further cross examination on 18.03.2025. The case was posted for arguments. The case was adjourned from time to time for arguments.
Heard arguments of both sides. Judgment is pronounced on 28.03.2025.
Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No.16/2017 on the file of I
Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I., Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Complainant : State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam.
Name of the accused :
Talla Narayana Rao, s/o Late Bhagavan Das, aged 52 years, R/o Door No.1-92, Post Office Street, Sativada, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District – 532 405.
Offence: Under Section 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)
(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding:
In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Accused present. Heard. He stated that he is suffering from kidney 49
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
problem. His wife is suffering from neuro problem. His daughter is married and son is working as a coolie. The accused prayed to take a lenient view.
Learned counsel for the accused also prayed to take a lenient view. Learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that this is an economic offence and hence, lenient view cannot be taken. Learned PP further submitted that no attachment proceedings were initiated against the properties of accused at an earlier stage. The case involves financial fraud that affects the Nation at large.
Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of accused, his counsel and learned Public Prosecutor, this
Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing imprisonment. With regard to imposing fine no such lenient view can be taken in view of Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act and also the fact that public money is involved. Accordingly, accused is sentenced as follows:
Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 409 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) for the offence under Sec. 477-A IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
With regard to sentence under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) this Court is inclined to refer to Sec.16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that while fixing fine amount the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused person has obtained 50
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
by committing the offence. Admittedly CBI did not initiate any steps under
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attach the properties of the accused for the offences alleged under Section 409 of IPC as well as the offence under Section Prevention of Corruption Act are schedule offences.
Learned PP submitted that accused is also involved in C.C.No.17/2017 where the fraud amount involved is Rs.1,01,22,386/-. It may be noted that total misappropriated amount is arrived at Rs.1,53,77,868/-. Out of this amount, accused paid Rs.90,00,000/-. Still an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- is remaining which is public money. Had the CBI initiated appropriate proceedings at the earliest point of time, then there would have been chances of recovering this amount by way of attachment and sale under
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Since this is not done,
Rs.60,00,000/- needs to be imposed as a fine as it is public money. The offence pertains to the year 2013. Nearly a decade elapsed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that public money is involved, this Court is inclined to impose Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) towards fine amount. Accordingly accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Further accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one monthfor the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
51
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Total fine amount imposed is Rs.1,000 + 1,000 + 30,00,000 + 1,000
= Rs.30,03,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs and three thousand only).
It is stated that accused was not arrested in this case. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence imposed in C.C.No.17/2017 shall run concurrently in terms of Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
Accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this
Judgment and availability of free legal aid. Free copy of this judgment supplied to him today i.e. 28.03.2025.
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi Copy to: (1) The Accused (2) The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
52
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
CALENDAR CASE NO.16/2017
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF SENTENCE
Name of the Accused: Talla Narayana Rao
Father’s Name: late Bhagavan Das
Date of Judgment: 28.03.2025
Q:You are found guilty under Sections 409, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . What do say about question of sentence to be found against ?
I am suffering from kidney problem. My wife is suffering from neuro problem. My daughter is married and my son is doing coolie works.
SD/-XXXXXX
[ACCUSED]
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
FAC: I ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
53
CC 16/2017, dt.28-03-2025
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
O/o Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, Dt.28.03.2025.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ACCUSED
I, Talla Narayana Rao, s/o Late Bhagavan Das, aged 52 years, in this case acknowledge the receipt of free copy of Calender and Judgment in
CC.16/2017 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Visakhapatnam on this day i.e.28.03.2025.
SD/-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[TALLA NARAYANA RAO] //Attested//
SD/- C.N.MURTHY
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I.Cases,
Visakhapatnam.
1
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC- I Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Thursday, this the 21 st day of December, 2023
C.C.No.02/2009
Between:
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam.
…Complainant And :
1.Ch.Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Prakasa Rao, Formerly Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Gotlam Branch, Vizianagaram District.
2.S.Pentaiah @ Penta Rao @ Prasada Rao, S/o Yakoyu, 45 years H.No.40-1-16, Kasturi Nagar, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.2 is abated on 13-01-2015)
3.P.Appala Raju, S/o Nooka Raju, Khalasi in Utilities Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
4.Ch.Nooka Raju, S/o late Appa Rao, Gangman, C.E. Department, A.E. Railways, Western Sector, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.4 is abated on 06-02-2012)
5.V.Chandra Sekhar, S/o Suryanarayana Murthy, CPF, Trafc Department, Emp. No.148568, North Yard, ATM Railways, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
6 .K.N.V.Krishna Mohan, S/o Venkata Ratnam, Class IV, CE Department, AE M/W Or.II, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
7 .N.Appa Rao, S/o Adiyya, Gangman, CE Department, A.E. Railways, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
8.N.Nagabhushanam, S/o late Subramanyam, Class IV, E.No.017711, CE Estate, AOB, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.8 is abated on 02-11-2016)
9. Ch. Sathi Raju, S/o late Polaiah, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.9 is abated on 27-09-2023)
2
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
10.B.V.D.Aanda Rao, S/o late Simhachalam, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
11.G.Sanjeeva Rao, S/o Pydithalli, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
12.K.Satti Babu, S/o late Satti Rajulu, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
13.Md. Yusuf, S/o Md. Shabuddin, Clerk, CMM Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
14.V.S.Sundar Rao, S/o Polipilli, Sarang Gr.I, DC Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
15.T.Ramu, S/o Apparao, Gangman, CE Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
16.D.S.Sundar Rao, S/o late Venkata Rao, Gangman, CE Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
17.B.Rama Rao, S/o late Appanna, Las Gr.I, Marine Department MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.17 is abated on 16-11-2010) 18V.J.Nageswara Rao, S/o late V.L.Narasinga Rao, Marine Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.18 is abated on 16-11-2010)
19.Ch. Appa Rao, S/o late Nooka Raju, Topaz DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
20.G.Appa Rao, S/o Demudu, DC Marine, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.20 is abated on 20-07-2023)
21.S.S.Panthulu, S/o late Yerranna, Laskar Gr.I, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.21 is abated on 16-11-2010)
22.K.Varahala Rao, S/o late Appanna, S.S.Khalasi, Medical Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.22 is abated on 25-09-2014)
23.G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Rajulu, Laskar Gr-I, T&FC Section, Marine Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
24.V.Danayya, S/o late Satti Rajulu, Messenger, DC Department, Marine, T&F Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
25.B.A.Swamy Reddy, S/o Pydiraju Reddy, Khalasi, CE Department. Estate Division, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
26.N.Venkata Ramana, S/o Rama Rao, Laskar Gr.II, DC Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
3
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
27.P.Dalamma, S/o Venkata Ramana, Laskar Gr.I, DC Department, VisakhapatnamPortTrust, Visakhapatnam.
28.P.V.Ramana Murthy, S/o Subramanyam, Daftri, FA & CAO Department. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.28 is abated on 26-06-2019)
29.R.Eswara Rao, S/o Mutyalu, Survey Khalasi, CE Department. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.29 is abated on 16-11-2010)
30.B.Appala Raju, S/o late Jagannadha Rao, Driver, CME Department, FC Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
31.Md. Mustaque, S/o Md.Bashu, Gangman, CE Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.31 is abated on 19-04-2017)
32. M.Janardhana Rao, S/o M.Nandanna, Electrical Maintenance, CME Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
33. B.Apparao, S/o late Demudu (Died)
(case against A.33 is abated on 21-09-2017)
34. S.Appala Raju, S/o S.S.N.Raju, Sr. Section Supervisor, O/o General Manager, Telecom District Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.34 is abated on 16-11-2010)
35. G.V.Ramana, S/o late Chancdra Sekhar, Attender, B.S.N.L., O/o General Manager, Telecom District, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.35 is abated on 03-12-2021)
36.D.V.Ramana Rao, S/o Narasimhulu, Phone Mechanic, Telecom department, Opp. Venkateswara Theatre, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.36 is abated on 16-11-2010)
37.D.Rama Krishna, S/o late Appalaswamy, Phone Mechanic, BSNL, O/o General Manager, Telecom District, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.37 is abated on 16-09-2019)
38.M.Sreekanth, S/o late Gurunadha Rao, D.No.342, Sector-II, Ukkunagar, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
39.B.Srinivas, S/o Bhaskara Rao, D.No.345, Sector-II, Ukkunagar, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
40.M.Sangham, S/o late M.Narayana, Phone Mechanic BSNL, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.
41.B.Prabhakar, S/o late Suryanarayana, Phone Mechanic BSNL, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.41 is abated on 12-12-2021)
4
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
42.V.Apparao, S/o Durgayya, Phone Mechanic BSNL, Daspalla Hills Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.42 is abated on 06-02-2012)
43.P.Sarada Rao, S/o late P.Sita Ramaiah, Ex.Employee of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.43 is abated on 19-04-2017)
44.B,Yellaiah, S/o B.Krishna, Ex.Employee of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
45.M.Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o late Brahmam, Sipper cum Grinder, Plumbing Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)(case against A.45 is abated on 16-11-2010)
46.S.Papa Rao, S/o late Apparao, Fitter, Gr.I, MTM Engineering Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.46 is abated on 25-07-2013)
47.R.Nooka Raju, S/o late Appanna Erector, Erection Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.47 is abated on 20-03-2019)
48.K.Gangadhara Rao, S/o late Bangaraiah, Security department. SRS Guard, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.48 is abated on 31-08-2023)
49.Y.Nagaraju, S/o late Chinnayya, Welder, welding department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
50.P. Nooka Raju, S/o Pydiraju, Operator, Galvanizing Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
51.M.Rajeswara Rao, S/o Gurumurthy, Security Guard, Security Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
52.S.Chandrasekhara Rao, S/o Dapanna, Welder, Welding Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
53.K.Ramana Sitaram, S/o Mahalakshminaidu, Fitter, Maintenance department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.53 is abated on 19-04-2017)
54.T.Bharathi, W/o late Ganga Raju, Telelphone Operator, O/o GCC Ltd., China waltair, Visakhapatnam.
55.S.K.Hameedh, S/o late Abdulla, Lab Assistant, Kendriya Vidyalam, INS Kalinga, Bheemunipatnam. (Died)
(case against A.55 is abated on 16-11-2010)
56.M.Appa Rao, S/o late Chellayya, UDC, Naval Base, O/o Commanding Ofcer, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.56 is abated on 15-12-2020)
57.P.J.Santha Kumari, S/o D.D.J.Varghese, Steno, Naval base, O/o Commanding Ofcer, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam-14.
58.B.Satyanarayana, S/o Pydayya, Electrician, MES, Naval Base, Post, GNS Pine Line, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.58 is abated on 16-11-2010)
5
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
59.J.S.Ram Murthy, S/o Venkanna, Masion, MES, Naval Base Phone Line, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.59 is abated on 25-09-2014)
60.G.Satyanarayana, S/o late Sannibabu, Lift Operator, MES, Nousanabag, INS kalyani, Visakhapatnam.
61.D.Samudram, S/o late Somulu, SSK, IC Fitter, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
62.N.S.Rama Prasad, S/o N.S.R.Murthy, ASK/Stores, Electrical Department, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
63.K.B.Sambasivarao, S/o late Narayana, HSK-II, Motor Testing House, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
64.M.Ramunaidu, S/o Thammunaidu, Ofce Superintendent, Material Organization, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam.
65.L.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Jr.Assistant(Mat.), APSRTC Zonal Stores, Vizianagaram.
66.K.Appalanarasayya, S/o late Narasayya, Welder Gr.II, C&W, OEC, SE Rly, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.
67.P.Mohan Dasan, S/o Govinda Nambiar, Technician Gr.I, Sr.Section Engineer, Pespection Yard, Eco Railway, Visakhapatnam.
68.Y.Purushotham Rao, S/o late Dalayya, LDC, DGNP, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-14. (Died)
(case against A.68 is abated on 16-07-2021)
69.G.Rama Rao, S/o Rama Raju, Choowkidar, Naval Project, DGNP, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.69 is abated on 27-11-2015)
70.Y.Nooka Raju, S/o Bhuloka, Chowkidar, MES, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
71.Ch.Subrahmanyam, S/o Erikinaidu, Chowkidar, MES, Director General of Naval Project, Visakhapatnam.
72.J.Venkata Rao, S/o Ramulu, Mechanic, FGM Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
73.N.J.Sirishkumar, S/o Prakasa Rao, MNO, Medical & Health Department, Government Hospital, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. …. Accused
This case came on 21.12.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Smt. K.Srilatha, Learned Public Prosecutor for the
Complainant and of Sri M.Rave Raj, Advocate for A1; Sri V.Satish,
Advocate for A3; Sri N.V.V.Prasad, Advocate for A5, A6, A7, A10,
A11, A13, A14, A15, A16, A23, A25, A27, A30, A38, A40, A44, A57, 6
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
A61, A62, A63, A65, A72, A73; Sri B.V.Appa Rao, Advocate for A12,
A24, A32, A50, A51, A54, A60, A71; Sri K.Maheswara Rao, Advocate for A52, A64, A67; Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate for A66; Sri
M.V.Sudhakar, Advocate for A19; Sri Y.V.Prasad, Advocate for A26,
A70; Sri Y.Chandra Sekhar, Legal Aid Counsel for A39, A49 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam fled a charge sheet in RC.No.23(A)/2004 for the ofences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section.13 (i) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1-Chandana
Venkateswara Rao and Sections.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against A2 to A73.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that A1-
Chandana Venkateswara Rao worked as Branch Manager, Corporation
Bank, Gotlam Branch. He has power to sanction loans up to
Rs.5,00,000/-. While doing so, A1 is supposed to follow guidelines issued in Housing loan manual No.24/2002. It is alleged that he entered into criminal conspiracy with Sunnapu Pentaiah @ Penta Rao @ Prasada Rao and A3- Peddada Appala Raju and sanctioned housing loans to employees of Government and Public Sector organizations without following the prescribed procedure.
3.It is further alleged that in pursuance of the conspiracy on 22.04.2003 A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao authorised A2- Sunnapu
Pentaiah @ Penta Rao @ Prasada Rao to open SB Account bearing
No.3749 in the branch. That account was introduced by one Putta
Srinivasa Rao, who is having SB Account bearing No. 3484. It is 7
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
alleged that A1 did not obtain documents such as proof of identity or address of A2-Sunnapu Pentaiah.
4.It is alleged that A2 purchased some lands at Narava village and used to visit Government Ofces and Public Sector units like
Girijan Co-operative Limited, Hindustan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam Port
Trust and BSNL with dishonest intention. A2 used to assure the employees that he will get loans sanctioned from the Corporation
Bank, Gotlam Branch and also assure that he would construct houses in their names. A2 engaged PW.5- M.Satyanarayana and PW.6-
K.Neeladri as his agents in this connection. He used to pay Rs.5,000/- whenever the agents introduced an employee to him. It is averred that A2-Pentaiah and his agents targeted class-IV employees.
5.PW.5 – M.Satyanarayana is a small time businessman at
Gajuwaka. Using his contacts he introduced employees of Hindustan
Shipyard and Naval Dockyard. These employees brought their salary slips to A2 who infated the fgures as if their net pay is approximately
Rs.6,000/- to 8,000/-. These infated false slips were fabricated at M/s.
Dot Graphics, Gajuwaka. P.W-5 handed over the fabricated pay slips to A2 and received Rs.25,000/- as commission in several installments.
6.Likewise PW.6 – K.Neeladri is an employee of Visakhapatnam
Port Trust, who introduced employees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust.
These employees were not eligible for housing loans as their gross pay and net pay is very less. However, A2 assured to obtain loans in their names and accordingly after obtaining their salary slips infated the fgures. The infated pay slips were prepared at Sri Sai Graphics, RTC
Complex, Visakhapatnam. They were handed over to A2 by PW.6. A2 paid Rs.80,000/- towards commission to PW.6.
8
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
7.By adopting the above modus operandi A2 got sanctioned 57 housing loans through A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao, who knowingly violated all the rules and regulations.
8.It is alleged A2-Sunnapu Pentaiah arranged fake bills to borrowers showing purchase of cement, steel and metal from non existing frms.
9.It is averred that in the course of searches conducted, A2 was found in possession of large number of bank pass books and cheque books of the borrowers apart from several blank pay slips, blank white sheets, and blank promissory notes containing the signatures of borrowers. Investigation revealed that an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was deposited by way of cash in his SB Account 3679, Corporation
Bank, Gotlam Branch for the period from 11.04.2003 to 25.02.2005.
Investigation further revealed that an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- was deposited into his wife’s account in the same bank (A/c No.3749, Smt.
Sunnapu Ratna Kumari). It is averred that A2 and his wife had fxed deposits and also in their children name as follows:
NameAccount No. Amount Date of Closure and Date(in Rs. ) Sri S.Prasada Rao FD 56/03, 4.00 lac.17.02.2004 16.12.2003 Smt S. RatnaFD 54/03, 4.00 lac.23.02.2004 Kumari 16.12.2003 Ms. S.PrameelaKCC 133/03, 0.80 lac.Due on Rani12.08.200312.08.2006 Ms. S.Sandya Rani KCC 134/03, 0.80 lac.Due on 12.08.200312.08.2006 Ms. S.SirishaKCC 135/03, 0.80 lac.Due on 12.08.200312.08.2006
10.During this period A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao sanctioned several housing loans to employees. It is alleged that A2-
Sunnapu Pentaiah diverted the loan proceeds of the borrowers of 9
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
housing loans for construction of their houses at Narava village.
11.It is further averred that A3 – Peddada Appala Raju was working as a Khalasi at Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. He availed a housing loan from A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao at the same branch vide loan account No.19/2003. He entered into a criminal conspiracy with A1 in pursuance of which A3 purchased some land at
Karakavalasa village. It is alleged that A3 and his agents targeted class-IV employees. A3 obtained the salary slips of all these employees and infated the fgures by fabricating them at local DTP
Centers. A3 also procured fabricated bills of purchase of steel, cement and metal and submitted the salary slips along with this fabricated bills to the bank. He obtained the signatures of the borrowers on debit vouchers and collected the proceeds immediately from them. A scrutiny of his SB Account No.3518 revealed huge deposits and withdrawals. Thus A3 diverted the loan proceeds of the borrowers. In this connection A3 got sanctioned 13 housing loans through A1-
Chandana Venkateswara Rao. A1 knowingly violated all the rules and regulations of the Corporation Bank Home Loans. It is alleged that all the borrowers were paid amounts ranging from Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.75,000/-.
12.It is seen from the charge sheet that A4 to A73 are the borrowers, who availed housing loans from Corporation Bank from
Gotlam Branch. They are employees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust,
BSNL, Hindustan Shipyard, Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited,
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Naval Base, Naval Dockyard, APSRTC, East Coast
Railway and alike. The sum and substance of the allegations against
A4 to A73 is that they availed housing loans from Corporation Bank, 10
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Gotlam Branch, eventhough they are aware that they are not eligible for such housing loan. There are omnibus allegations that A4 to A73 fabricated loan documents at the instance of A2 in availing the loans.
13.The case is registered basing on source information by CBI.
It is averred that A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao was dismissed from service and as such sanction orders were not obtained. As A2 to A73 are private individuals sanction orders were not obtained. After completion of investigation charge sheet was fled.
14.This Court took cognizance of the ofences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC Sections 13 (2) r/w Sections.13 (i) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A1-Chandana
Venkateswara Rao and Sections.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against A2 to A73. Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were served on them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations made by the prosecution.
15.After hearing both sides and on consideration of material on record, charges U/Secs. 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Accused No.1; charges U/Secs. 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC were framed by this
Court against A.2 to A.73 and the same were read over and explained to them, for which they denied charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
16.To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses on it’s behalf and got marked Exs P.1 to P.536 and MO.1.
Accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by stating the incriminating circumstances available against them, for which they 11
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
denied the prosecution case. Except A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao the other accused reported no defense evidence. Subsequently, A1 also reported no defense evidence. Ex.D-1 copy of Deccan Chronicle
Paper publication dt.22-7-2015 issued by Bank was marked through
P.W-1 in his cross-examination on behalf of A-47 R.Nooka Raju.
17.Heard.
18.Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 worked as
Branch manager, Gotlam Branch during the relevant period. A2 previously worked in Railways and removed from service.
Thereafter, he started doing real estate business. He engaged
Neeladri and M.Satyanarayana as agents and lured Class-IV employees of various organizations assured to provide housing loans. A2 also fabricated salary slips of the borrowers. After the loan amount is disbursed he got some amount deposited into his account. Learned public prosecutor further submitted that A4 to
A73 are borrowers in this case. A1 aided A2 in defrauding the bank.
The fraud came to light when PW2 inspected the bank for the period from March, 2004 to April, 2004. It was discovered that A1 did not take care and follow specifc norms for sanctioning loans. A1 considered the salary slips alone while granting loans which is against the bank policy. Learned public prosecutor relied on Ex.P-74 to Ex.P-143 loan documents in support of her submissions. It was further argued that A1 has to follow Ex.P-1 Housing loans manual book of Corporation Bank which provides the detailed procedure for grant of loan.
19.Learned public prosecutor further argued that post inspection has to be conducted after granting loan to see if 12
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
construction activity of borrowers is in progress. A1 did not do so.
Learned P.P submitted that only for misappropriation the loans were obtained by borrowers through A2. A1 facilitated the process.
20.Learned public prosecutor relied on Ex.P-361 internal investigation report named as joint proceedings prepared by PW.2.
It was argued that several irregularities were noted in this report.
A1 was suspended by the bank. According to learned public prosecutor it was not mere negligence on the part of A1 in sanctioning loans and instead A1 intentionally aided A2 in commission of ofence. Learned public prosecutor relied on evidence of P.W.4 who deposed that A2 and A3 used to come to bank along with other accused. It was argued that conspiracy is committed in secrecy and hence the prosecution has to depend on circumstantial evidence to prove it. In this case all the borrowers conspired together to misappropriate the loan amounts. A2 used to withdraw money from the accounts of the borrowers. All these circumstances establish a complete chain of circumstances and hence all the accused are liable. Thus the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
21.Learned counsel for A1 submitted that as per averments in charge sheet the borrowers got valued all the houses by C.P.W.D.
report. This according to learned counsel indicates existence of houses. Therefore the allegation that the borrowers did not make any constructions cannot be accepted. Further the borrowers had ample time given by bank to complete their construction within 18 months but before that the case is foisted. Thus there is no dishonest intention on the part of the borrowers. Learned counsel 13
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
therefore submitted that the accused are innocent.
22.Learned counsel for A3 and learned counsel for A5 to A7, 10, 11, 13 to 16, 23, 25, 27, 30, 38, 40, 44, 61, 63, 65, 72 and 73 fled written arguments. Perused the same.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
23.PW.1 – R.S.V.Krishna, the then Manager, Corporation Bank,
Gotlam Branch succeeded A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao. PW.1 deposed about the procedure for sanctioning loan such as obtaining general information, no objection certifcate, details of housing project, income proof. According to PW.1, A1 sanctioned 70 housing loans and caused loss to a tune of Rs.258.95 lakhs.
24.PW.2 – V.S.V.Nagesh, the then Manager, Vigilance,
Corporation Bank, Head Ofce, Bangalore, is a crucial witness in this case. It is his evidence that he along with one Jitendranathoo conducted internal investigation at Gotlam Corporation Bank during the period March, 2004 to April, 2004. The investigation disclosed that
A1 while working as Branch Manager in that branch, sanctioned and disbursed housing loans to 187 members, during the period from
February, 2003 to January, 2004. These loans were sanctioned for construction of houses at Narava, Ramavaram and Karakavalasa villages to class IV employees of various State Government; State and
Central Public Sector undertakings located at Visakhapatnam.
Through him Ex.P.361- Investigation report is marked.
25.PW.3 – R.K.Prasada Rao is a search witness for the search conducted in the house of A2- Sunnapu Pentaiah @ Penta Rao @
Prasada Rao in his presence. Ex.P.362- Search list was prepared and
Exs.P.363 to P.392 documents were seized.
14
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
26.PW.4 – Vadda Sanjeeva Rao, the then Cashier- cum -Clerk was examined to speak about the acquaintance among A1 to A3. He deposed that A2 and A3 are their bank customers, who used to meet
A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao.
27.PW.5 – M.Satyanarayana and PW.6 – K.Neeladri are the agents, employed by A2 – Sunnapu Pentaiah @ Penta Rao. A2 paid him Rs.25,000/- after he introduced fve persons. He also deposed that on the instructions of A2 he went to Dot Graphics; obtained necessary pay slips and returned it to A2. Likewise PW.6 – Neeladri deposed that A2 collected original pay slips and identity cards of A.25 to A.32 and then went to Sai Graphics situated at RTC Complex,
Visakhapatnam where A2 got prepared fresh pay slips.
28.PW.7 – A.Lakshmi is examined to speak about running of Sri
Sai Graphics.
29.PW.8 – B.Tirumala Rao is the worker at Dot Graphics Shop,
Gajuwaka. He deposed that from the year 2001 to 2004 he worked in
Dot Graphics Shop, Gajuwaka. On 09.10.2004, CBI people came and seized MO.1- Electronic Godrej Type Writer.
30.PW.9 – Pandiri Siva deposed that his brother is owner of Dot
Graphics. He also deposed about seizure of MO.1- Godrej Electronic
Typewriter.
31.PW.12 – B.Seshagiri Rao is also worker at Sri Sai Graphics,
RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam. In his presence CBI ofcials seized
Ex.P.466 – Diary from their shop on 09.10.2004.
32.Thereafter, prosecution examined PW.10, PW.11, PW.13 to
PW.28 to speak about the issue of salary slips to several accused.
These witnesses also spoke about employment of accused in their 15
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
respective organizations. They also identifed certain salary slips as fake. The relevancy of evidence of these witnesses will be discussed as and when necessary in view of voluminous record. The sum and substance of their evidence remains the same with regard to identifying of salary slips and fake salary certifcates.
33.PW.29 – D.Prasada Rao, Inspector of Police, CBI deposed about the investigation aspects in this case. He deposed that basing on source information, on 28.09.2004 he registered the instant case in
RC. 23(A)/2004 under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC registered
against A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao and Sunnapu Prasada Rao and issued Ex.P.524 – FIR. He seized MO.1-Godrej Electric Typewriter, one Dize Wheel and Ex.P.468 – Sheet from ofce premises of Dot
Graphics, Gajuwaka on 09.10.2004 under the cover of Ex.P.467
Seizure Memo. He collected Exs.P.532 three maps showing the location of the sites of constructions of housing loan buildings by A1-
Chandana Venkateswara Rao.
34.Upon hearing learned public prosecutor and learned counsel
for the accused and on perusal of material available on record the
following points emerge for determination:
1.Whether the prosecution proved conspiracy among the accused to commit the alleged ofences under
Sec.120-B IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution proved that the accused by using forged documents committed the ofences of cheating and hence liable for punishable under
Sec.420, 468 and 471 IPC?
16
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
3.Whether the prosecution proved that A1-Chandana
Venkateswara Rao obtained pecuniary advantage while holding his ofce as Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank, Gotlam Branch, Vizianagaram and thereby committed the ofence of criminal mis-conduct within the meaning of Sec.13(2) r/w
Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
35.POINTS 1 TO 3:For the sake of convenience and brevity the discussion of these points is taken up together as they are inter linked.
I have carefully perused the material available on record including the answers given by accused in their Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
examination. Accused Nos.4 to 73 are alleged to have availed housing loans from Corporation Bank, Gotlam Branch, Vizianagaram during the tenure of A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao. A2 and A3 are said to have facilitated the other accused in availing loan from the said bank.
In this context it is relevant to look into the defnition of conspiracy.
Learned counsel for A3 in this connection relied on a judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI [AIR
2010 SC 528]. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:
“60. Criminal conspiracy, it must be noted in this regard, is an independent ofence. It is punishable separately. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action; for so long as a crime is generated n the mind of the accused, the same does not become punishable. Thoughts even criminal in character, often involuntary, are not crimes but when they take a concrete shapr of an agreement to do or caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means then even if nothing further is done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy.
61. The ingredients of the ofence of criminal conspiracy are :
17
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. Condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be established by the prosecution viz., meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
62. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a fnding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difcult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the ofences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also be proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and / or by necessary implication...”
36.Thus the prosecution has to establish that a prior agreement among the accused and that agreement must relate to doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The prosecution must establish at the outset meeting of the minds of the accused for doing this illegal act. It is the version of prosecution that the accused conspired and availed housing loans from Corporation Bank, Gotlam Branch,
Vizianagaram. A2 and A3 facilitated the accused in availing these loans. Most of the loan amounts were transferred to the bank accounts of A2 and A3. Thus A2 and A3 are alleged to have diverted the loan proceeds of the borrowers (A4 to A73) into their own bank accounts. A minute scrutiny of evidence of the material witnesses do 18
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
not disclose any such meeting of minds among the accused and in particular among A1 to A3. Admittedly A1 worked as Branch Manager of Corporation Bank during the relevant period. Learned public prosecutor in the course of arguments submitted that the loans were disbursed in phased manner.
37.A perusal of evidence of the material witness PW.1 –
R.S.V.Krishna (Successor of A1) and PW.2 – V.S.V.Nagesh, Manager,
Vigilance, Corporation Bank does not reveal about any pre-agreement of minds among A1 to A3. There is omnibus statement by PW.1 in his evidence that A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao sanctioned 70 housing loans and caused loss to a tune of According to PW.1, A1 sanctioned 70 housing loans and caused loss to a tune of Rs.258.95 lakhs. PW.1 also gave a detailed procedure for sanction of loan. The concerned manager is supposed to obtain no objection certifcate, identity card, details of housing project, income proof, and income tax returns. It appears the loan procedure as stated by PW.1 is based on Ex.P1 housing loan manual book of Corporation Bank. In the course of his cross examination PW.1 admitted that vide Head Ofce Circular 340/2002 dated 22.10.2002, the employees certifcate containing the information such as name, age, designation, copy of identity card, no objection certifcate, undertaking letter for recovery of installment for salary stood deleted in Ex.P1-Manual. According to PW.1, A1-
Chandana Venkateswara Rao did not adopt any such procedure while sanctioning loans to the borrowers; but by his own admission PW.1 made it clear that certain types of information including no objection certifcate is not necessary and the relevant rules stood deleted in
Ex.P1- Manual. In the light of above admissions, I am of the 19
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
considered opinion that A1 deviated slightly while sanctioning loans. It is noted from the cross examination of PW.1 that Panel Advocate of the Branch appointed by Zonal Ofce used to give legal opinions that were accepted by the Zonal Ofce. PW.1 is not aware of one
G. Mohana Rao is such a Panel Advocate. PW.1 deposed that the bank fled Civil suits for recovery of loan amounts. According to him since the borrowers did not repay the loan it amounts to loss to the bank.
Thus according to PW.1 non-payment of loans led to sustaining loss by the bank. Mere committing default in repayment of bank loans cannot be construed as dis-honest intention on the part of borrowers in the absence of any evidence. It is stated by PW.1 that valid equitable mortgage was created for all the loans and that suits were fled which indicates that the monitory interests of the bank is secured and protected. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 in his evidence did not state that the borrowers had fabricated or forged the documents while availing housing loans. Only grievance expressed by PW.1 is that A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao sanctioned 70 housing loans and thereby caused loss to a tune of Rs.258.95 lakhs.
38.The next important material witness is PW.2 – V.S.V.Nagesh,
Manager, Vigilance, Corporation Bank, Head Ofce Bangalore. He conducted an internal investigation at Gotlam Corporation Bank during
March, 2004 to April, 2004 and submitted investigation reports. It is his evidence that A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao sanctioned as many
as 187 loans out of which 4 loans were closed. PW.2 deposed that A1
did not conduct pre-sanction visits to the ofces of borrowers to ascertain the genuineness of their genuineness. A1 also did not obtain letter of undertaking from the employers nor obtain letters certifying 20
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
salary deductions. Further according to PW.2 legal opinions were obtained from G.Ram Mohan Rao instead of P.V.Subba Rao. However, in his cross-examination, P.W-2 admitted that he did not fle list of panel advocates and he also did not examine G.Ram Mohan Rao.
There is also no material to show that P.V.Subba Rao is the panel advocate, as admitted by P.W-2. Added to that P.W-2 stated that even the Zonal Manager also did not endorse any comment on the legal opinion given by G.Ram Mohan Rao. Therefore the allegation of PW.2 that loan was granted based on the legal opinion obtained from an advocate who is not on the panel of the bank cannot be accepted.
According to PW.2, A-1 did not conduct periodical inspections while disbursing loans. A1 diverted loan proceeds to deposits, subsequently sanctioned loans. Thus it can be seen that most of the allegations against A1 is only in the nature of deviations from the established procedure while sanctioning loans to borrowers, but as already stated by P.W-1, most of the conditions stood deleted. There is also no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that A1-Chandana
Venkateswara Rao had diverted the loan proceeds to deposits. There is also no evidence to show that the other accused namely A1 and A3 conspired with A1 in diverting these loan proceeds.
39.It is evidence of PW.2 that at the time of his visit to the construction sites in March, 2004, it is disclosed that several houses were under semi fnished stage and that no houses were in existence in respect of loans availed by A.38, A.54 and A.67. On this aspect no evidence is adduced by the prosecution to show that the houses were not in existence as alleged. On the contrary Ex.P.360 – Copy of Letter
dated 17.06.2004 written by PW.1 to the General Manager (Vigilance)
21
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
department, Head Ofce, Manguluru, Corporation Bank discloses that construction of all the houses was stopped in the month of May, 2004 and that not even a single house was fully constructed. This indicates that either fnished or unfnished the houses were in existence at the time of visit of PW.1 to Ramavaram, Karakavalasa, and Narava villages. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 that the houses are not in existence cannot be accepted.
40.Ex.P.361 is a crucial document in this case. It is a copy of
Investigation Report prepared by PW.2 – V.S.V.Nagesh. According to prosecution this is a crucial document that unearthed several deviations committed by A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao while sanctioning loans to borrowers. I have carefully perused Ex.P.361.
However, the sanctity of this document itself is in question. This is because in his cross examination PW.2 admitted that Ex.P.361 investigation report does not contain any entrustment of duty of investigation to him. He further clarifed that unless the Chief
Vigilance Ofcer authorised him in writing he is not competent to make any investigation. Thus it is clear that Ex.P.361 investigation report is prepared by PW.1 is without any authorization. Therefore, this report cannot run on parallel lines with the charge sheet. In other words
Ex.P.361 investigation report lacks sanctity.
41.It is also relevant to look into the evidence of PW.29
D.Prasada Rao, investigation ofcer. In the course of his cross examination, PW.29 clearly stated that the borrowers handed over their original pay slips to A2- Sunnapu Pentaiah @ Prasada Rao for raising bank loans. The said Pentaiah assured the borrowers to construct and deliver houses including arranging of loans. From this 22
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
admission it is clear that all the borrowers (A.4 to A.73) submitted their original pay slips to A2- Sunnapu Pentaiah @ Prasada Rao. It is noted that nothing is stated about the alleged conspiracy between A1 and other accused with A2. It is further disclosed from the evidence of
PW.2 that A2 undertook construction work for all the borrowers in this case (A.4 to A.73). A conjoint reading of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the investigating ofcer PW.29 indicates that A2 collected the original pay slips of the borrowers (A.4 to A.73) and got them fabricated at Sri
Sai DTP Centre, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam and Dot Graphics,
Gajuwaka. Those fabricated pay slips as stated by PW.29 were submitted to bank in connection with the loans of the borrowers.
PW.29 further made it clear that all the loan amounts were credited into the bank accounts of borrowers. These amounts were withdrawn and in turn deposited by A2 – Sunnapu Pentaiah in his name and also in the names of his family members. Thus the main culprit is A2 according to investigation. It is not the case of the prosecution that the borrowers in this case themselves furnished fake salary slips. As admitted by P.W-29 Investigating Ofcer, most of the borrowers were working in the lowest rank in their organizations and that they are not aware of bank procedures and English language. It was further admitted by P.W-29 that A-2 Sunnapu Prasada Rao @ Pentayya
assured the borrowers to construct and deliver houses
including arranging of loans to them. This indicates the innocence on the part of the borrowers who had nothing to do with the bank procedures. Perhaps, the only lapse on their part is handing over of their original pay slips to A-2 who is alleged to have fabricated them.
A-1 in turn had processed the loans and sanctioned them.
23
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
42.In the light of above discussion it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to prove any alleged conspiracy by A1 and other accused with A2. At best the prosecution established certain deviations on the part of A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao. At juncture I came across a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.K. Jafer Sharief v. State (2013) 1 SCC 205 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 482 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 932 at page 210.
The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“16. A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence with regard to the liability of an accused which may have application to the present case is to be found in the work Criminal Law by K.D. Gaur. The relevant passage from the above work may be extracted below: “Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifes that there can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively.”
17. It has already been noticed that the appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways was the head of the two public sector undertakings in question at the relevant time. It also appears from the materials on record that the four persons while in London had assisted the appellant in performing certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a Minister. It is difcult to visualise as to how in the light of the above facts, demonstrated by the materials revealed in the course of investigation, the appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid four persons. If the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC show that the aforesaid four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister in the discharge of his public duties, however insignifcant such tasks may have been, no question of obtaining any pecuniary 24
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant can arise. As a Minister it was for the appellant to decide on the number and identity of the ofcials and supporting staf who should accompany him to London if it was anticipated that he would be required to perform his ofcial duties while in London. If in the process,
the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken
shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and
action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to
departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a
dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not
be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the ofence under
Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal
means and abuse of position as a public servant. A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [AIR 1963 SC 1116 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 186 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 724] while considering the provisions of Section 5 of the 1947 Act.
Thus an improper conduct without an element of dishonest intention by public servant is not an ofence within the meaning of Sec.13(i) (d).
The main allegation against A-1 in this case is that he violated certain norms while sanctioning loans to the borrowers. It is seen from the evidence of PW.1 that A1 was dismissed from services. In one way or other it can be said that A1 was suitably punished by his department.
The prosecution failed to show that A1-Chandana Venkateswara Rao obtained pecuniary advantage owing to his mis-conduct. There is no evidence on this aspect of obtaining pecuniary advantage by A1 by abusing his ofcial favour as Branch Manager.
43.In the light of binding precedent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
C.K. Jafer Sharief case, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove dishonest intention on the part of A-1 in sanctioning loans.
44.The prosecution further failed to show that all the accused shared a dishonest intention in availing housing loans from
Corporation Bank with an intention to cheat the bank. As per the 25
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
evidence of PW.29 the borrowers submitted original pay slips to A2. It was A2 who fabricated the documents and submitted them to bank.
Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the ofences under Secs. 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against other accused.
45.As rightly pointed by learned counsel for A3, the bank did not sufer any monetary loss due to acts of A3. It is pointed out from the evidence of PW.2 that no loss occurred to the bank due to four borrowers in loan accounts bearing Nos.19/03, 16/03, 30/03, 108/03.
One of these four loans were used by A3 and further discharged those loans as stated by the learned counsel. Thus there is no cogent evidence available to show that A3 committed forgery and fabrication of documents and deposited that amounts in his account. As per the evidence of PW.29 it was A-2 alone who is said to have deposited the loan amounts in his name and also in the names of his family members.
46.A thorough scrutiny of material indicates that the actual master mind even according to PW.29 – Investigating Ofcer is A2
Sunnapu Pentaiah @ Penta Rao @ Prasada Rao. It is noted that A2 died and case against him is abated.
47.It is seen that the evidence of several other witnesses is confned to issuing of salary certifcates of the borrowers. They identifed the salary slips furnished to bank as fake documents. There is no dispute that these witnesses who worked in the concerned organization issued salary certifcates of the borrowers to the CBI in the course of investigation. Their evidence is of limited use to the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.W.29 indicates that it was A2 who 26
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
submitted the fake salary certifcates of borrowers to the bank. It was not the borrowers themselves who furnished these salary certifcates.
48.In the light of above discussion it is held that prosecution failed to establish the ofences under Secs. 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.1 Ch.Venkateswara Rao and Secs.120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC against A.2 to A.73 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, points 1 to 3 are answered.
49.It is seen from the record that the case against A2, A4, A8,
A9, A17, A18, A20, A21, A22, A28, A29, A31, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37,
A41, A42, A43, A45, A46, A47, A48, A53, A55, A56, A58, A59, A68, and
A69 were is abated.
50.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the ofences under,
Secs. 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A3, A5, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12,
A13, A14, A15, A16, A19, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27, A30, A32, A38,
A39, A40, A44, A49, A50, A51, A52, A54, A57, A60, A61, A62, A63,
A64, A65, A66, A67, A70, A71, A72 and A73 are found not guilty for the ofences under Secs.120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC. Accordingly, above accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to release A39, A49, and A70 forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases. Ofce is directed to communicate the same to Jail Authorities.
The case against A2, A4, A8, A9, A17, A18, A20, A21, A22,
A28, A29, A31, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A41, A42, A43, A45, A46,
A47, A48, A53, A55, A56, A58, A59, A68, and A69 stands abated.
27
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
All the accused are directed to execute a personal bond for
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one surety within two weeks from the date of this judgment i.e. 21.12.2023 which shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of Criminal
Procedure Code.
MO.1 shall be returned to its owner after appeal time is completed.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court, this the21st day of December, 2023.
Sd/- C.N.Murthy
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
PPENDIX OF EVIDN F APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
LIST WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.W.1 :R.S.V.Krishna P.W.2 :V.S.v.Nagesh P.W.3 :R.K.Prasada Rao P.W.4 :Vadda Sanjeevarao P.W.5 :M.Satyanarayana P.W.6 : K.Neeladri P.W.7 :A.Lakshmi P.W.8 :B.Tirumala Rao P.W.9 :Pandiri Siva P.W.10:S.Venkateswarlu P.W.11:S.Jagadeesh P.W.12:B.Seshagiri Rao P.W.13:I.Sambasiva Rao P.W.14:A.Padmavarthi P.W.15:M.Ganga Bhavani P.W.16:M.Rama Narayana Reddy P.W.17:S.Chandra Kumar P.W.18:B.Samba Murthy P.W.19:R.Ramulu P.W.20:Ch.Damodaram P.W.21:Dr.G.Ramanjaneyulu P.W.22:B.V.S.Satish P.W.23:Y.Sobha P.W.24:S.M.Ahmed P.W.25:P.Jeet Singh P.W.26:Y.Bhaskara Babu P.W.27:H.Satya Prasad P.W.28:U.Rama Mohan Raju P.W.29:D.Prasada Rao 28
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE F
- Nil-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1:Housing Loans Manual Book of Corporation Bank Ex.P.2:Joint Proceedings, Dt. 10.05.20056 Ex.P.3:Housing Loan documents along with income proof particulars Ex.P.4:Loan File of A.4 Ex.P.5:Loan File of A.5 Ex.P.6:Loan File of A.6 Ex.P.7:Loan File of A.7 Ex.P.8:Loan File of A.8 Ex.P.9:Loan File of A.9 Ex.P.10:Loan File of A.10 Ex.P.11 to P.73 : Loan Files of A.11 to A.73 Ex.P.74 to P.143 : Loan Master Sheets and Ledger Sheets of A.4 to A.73 Ex.P.144 to P.213: SB Account Ledger Sheets of A.4 to A.73 Ex.P.214 to P.283: Saving Bank Account signature cards of A.4 to A.73 Ex.P.284 to P.345: Salary Slips of A.4 to A.65 submitted to the bank Ex.P.346: Form No.16 Certifcate under Income Tax Act submitted by A.66 to the Bank
Ex.P.347 to P.353: Salary Slips of A.67 to A.73 submitted to the bank Ex.P.354:Specimen signature card of A.2 Ex.P.355:Specimen signature card of wife of A.2 Ex.P.356:Statement of Account of A.1 maintained at Gotlam Branch Ex.P.357:Statement of Account of A.2 Ex.P.358:Statement of Account of wife of A.2 Ex.P.359:Statement of Account of A.3 Ex.P.360:Copy of letter Dated 17.06.2004 addressed by PW.1 to General Manager, Vigilance Department, Head Ofce, Mangalore Ex.P.361:Copy of PW.2’s (Manager Vigilance of Corporation Bank) investigation Report Ex.P.362:Search List Ex.P.363:File containing photostat copies and some original salary slips of employees of HSL, VPT, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Railways, MES and Photostat copies of Form – 16 copies of said organizations. Ex.P.364:File containing blank signed promissory notes, blank signed papers and employment certifcates. Ex.P.365:File containing photostat copies of identity cards of employees of various organizations. Ex.P.366:File containing blank signed papers of some persons and estimation report in the name of A.Venkata Ramana.
29
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.367:File containing original title deeds and housing plan in the name of A.54, original title deed in the name of A.2 and blank signed promissory ntoes and blank signed cheques signed by A.4 etc., Ex.P.368:File containing original title deed in the name of A.4 and original title deed in the name of A.2, blank signed promissory notes and blank signed cheques. Ex.P.369:Corporate diary of the year 2003 Ex.P.370:Note book with two identity cards Ex.P.371:Blank signed cheques of some persons and borrowers Ex.P.372:One passbook of corporation Bank, Gotlam bearing A/c. No.3714 of A.5 Ex.P.373:S.B.Pass book of A.8 Ex.P.374:S.B.Pass book of A.14 Ex.P.375:S.B.Pass book of A.15 Ex.P.376:S.B.Pass book of A.17 Ex.P.377:Cheque book in ICICI Bank, Visakhapatnam of A.18 Ex.P.378:S.B.Pass book of A.34 Ex.P.379:S.B.Pass book of A.38 Ex.P.380:S.B.Pass book of A.39 Ex.P.381:S.B.Pass book of A.40 Ex.P.382:S.B.Pass book of A.41 Ex.P.383:S.B.Pass book of A.51 Ex.P.384:Blank Pay Slip of V.P.T. Ex.P.385:Pay Slip of A.4 Ex.P.386:Pay Slip of A.6 Ex.P.387:Pay Slip of A.18 Ex.P.388:Pay Slip of M.Anand Ex.P.389:Pay Slip of B.Eswara Rao Ex.P.390:Original form-16 of A.18 Ex.P.391:S.B.Pass Book of A.2 Ex.P.392:S.B.Pass Book of wife of A.2 Ex.P.393:Withdrawal slips of A.4 Ex.P.394:Withdrawal slips of A.5 Ex.P.395:Withdrawal slips of A.6 Ex.P.396 to P.462: Withdrawal Slips of A.7 to A.73 Ex.P.463:Disciplinary Proceedings against A.1 Ex.P.464:Dismissal Order of A.1 Ex.P.465:Relevant portion of statement of PW.5 Ex.P.466:Telephone Diary seized by CBI from Sri Sai Graphics, GWK Ex.P.467:Seizure Memo, which contains the signature of PW.8 Ex.P.468:Paper containing letters style Ex.P.469:Salary Certifcate of A.54 issued by Girajan Co- operative Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.470:Letter dated 07.12.2004 addressed by PW.11 to CBI Ex.P.471:Salary particulars of 11 employees dated 03.12.2004 Ex.P.472:Letter dated 14.02.2005 to CBU, Visakahpatnam. Ex.P.473:Salary Certifcate of A.34 Ex.P.474:Salary Certifcate of A.35 Ex.P.475:Salary Certifcate of A.36 Ex.P.476:Salary Certifcate of A.37 Ex.P.477:Salary Certifcate of A.40 30
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.478:Salary Certifcate of A.41 Ex.P.479:Letter addressed by PW.14 to CBI, Visakhapatnam
dated 13.12.2004 with regard to pay particulars of A.55
Ex.P.480:Pay particulars for the month of April, 2003 of A.67 Ex.P.481:Letter dated 29.11.2004 addressed by PW.16 to Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam Ex.P.482:Attested copy of Pay Slip of L.Srinivasa Rao (A.65) Ex.P.483:Letter dated 17.05.2006 from Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam to director General Naval Project, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.484:Salary particulars of A.68 Ex.P.485:Salary particulars of A.69 issued by PW.17 Ex.P.486:Salary particulars of A.5 Ex.P.487:Letter from CMM and In-charge Vigilance, VPT to CBI, Visakhapanam Ex.P.488:Salary Certifcate of A.9 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.489:Salary Certifcate of A.10 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.490:Salary Certifcate of A.11 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.491:Salary Certifcate of A.12 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.492:Salary Certifcate of A.14 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.493:Salary Certifcate of A.17 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.494:Salary Certifcate of A.18 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.495:Salary Certifcate of A.19 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.496:Salary Certifcate of A.20 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.497:Salary Certifcate of A.21 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.498:Salary Certifcate of A.23 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.499:Salary Certifcate of A.24 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.500:Salary Certifcate of A.26 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.501:Salary Certifcate of A.27 issued by PW.19 Ex.P.502:Salary Cover of A.13 Ex.P.503:Salary Cover of A.22 Ex.P.504:Salary Cover of A.30 Ex.P.505:Details of Pay and Allowances for the month of February and March, 2003 of A.70 and A.71 Ex.P.506:Pay Slip for the of February, 2003 of A.72 along with covering letter Ex.P.507:Letter from CBI, Visakhapatnam to the Commanding Ofcer, INS Veerabahu, Visakhapatnam to furnish certain documents Ex.P.508:Reply from Commander, C.E., Ofcer, INS Veerabahu, Visakhapatnam, dated 24.05.2006 to CBI, Visakhapatnam Ex.P.509:Pay Particulars of A.56 issued by PW.25 for the month of March, 2003 Ex.P.510:Pay Particulars of A.57 issued by PW.25 for the month of March, 2003 Ex.P.511:Pay Slip for the month of May, 2003, signed by PW.26 Ex.P.512:Covering Letter under which Ex.P511 was sent to Superintendent of Police, SPE/ CBI/ Visakhapatnam Ex.P.513:Requisition of CBI along with copy of Pay Slip Ex.P.514:Pay Slip of A.31 - Md.Mustaque, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.515:Pay Slip of A.33 – B.Appa Rao, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.516:Pay Slip of A.29 – R.Eswara Rao, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.517:Pay Slip of A.25 – B.A.Reddy, certifed by PW.28 31
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Ex.P.518:Pay Slip of A.15 – T.Ramu, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.519:Pay Slip of A.8 - N.Nagabhushanam, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.520:Pay Slip of A.4 - Ch.Nooka Raju, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.521:Pay Slip of A.6 - K.N.V.Krishna Mohan, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.522:Pay Slip of A.16 – D.S.S.Rao, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.523:Pay Slip of A.7 - N.Appa Rao, certifed by PW.28 Ex.P.524:FIR Ex.P.525:Pay Slip of A.32- M.Janardhana Rao from Chief Mechanical Engineer, V.P.T. Ex.P.526:Letter to Staf Ofcer, Eastern naval Command, Visakhapantam Ex.P.527:Certifed Pay slip of A.64 – M.Rama Naidu Ex.P.528:Letter to Chief Surgeon specialist, Govt. Hospital, Yellamanchili Ex.P.529:Certifed Pay slip of A.73 – N.John Sirish Kumar Ex.P.530:Letter to Commercial Tax Ofcer, Vizianagaram Ex.P.531:Registration particulars received from Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Ofce, Vizianagaram Ex.P.532:Three maps collected from PW.1 showing the location of sites of construction of accused Ex.P.533:Certifed copy of Pay Slip of A.28 P.V.R.Murthy (Abated) from FA&CAO, VPT., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.534:Pay Slip of A.66 K.Appala Narasayya from A.P.O., East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.535:Letter addressed to AAGE, (E&M), Military Engineering Service, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.536:Certifed copy of Pay Slip of A.58 B.Satyanarayana (Abated)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE.
Ex.D.1:Copy of Deccan Chronicle Paper Publication, Dated 22.07.2015 issued by bank
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
M.O.1:Electronic Godrej make type writer
Sd/- C.N.Murthy
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
Copies to: The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
// True Copy//
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
32
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
C.B.I. CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present: Sri C.N.Murthy
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
FAC- I Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Thursday, this the 21st day of December, 2023
C.C.No.02/2009
in RC.No.23(A)/2004
Date of ofence: From 2003 to 2004 Date of report or complaint: 16.01.2009 Date of apprehension of accused: 28.06.2013 Date of release on bail : 29.10.2004 A2 released (died) Date of commencement of trial: 21.05.2018 Date of close of trial: 23.11.2023 Date of sentence or order: 21.12.2023
Explanation of delay and remarks:
This case was taken on fle on 16.01.2009 against the A1 to A73. All the accused appeared before this Court on 28.06.2013. On 15.03.2018 charges were framed against accused. The examination of witnesses was commenced on 21.05.2018.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 29 were examined and Exs.P1 to P536, and M.O.1 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., on 04.12.2023 and 05.12.2023. On behalf of accused, no one was was examined but Ex.D1 was marked.
The trial was completed on 23.11.2023. Judgment is pronounced on 21.12.2023.
Calender and Judgment in C.C. No. 2/2009 on the fle of I Additional
Special Judge for C.B.I., Cases, Visakhapatnam.
Complainant:State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam.
33
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Name of the Accused :
1.Ch.Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Prakasa Rao, Formerly Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Gotlam Branch, Vizianagaram District.
2.S.Pentaiah @ Penta Rao @ Prasada Rao, S/o Yakoyu, 45 years H.No.40-1-16, Kasturi Nagar, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.2 is abated on 13-01-2015)
3.P.Appala Raju, S/o Nooka Raju, Khalasi in Utilities Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
4.Ch.Nooka Raju, S/o late Appa Rao, Gangman, C.E. Department, A.E. Railways, Western Sector, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.4 is abated on 06-02-2012)
5.V.Chandra Sekhar, S/o Suryanarayana Murthy, CPF, Trafc Department, Emp. No.148568, North Yard, ATM Railways, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
6 .K.N.V.Krishna Mohan, S/o Venkata Ratnam, Class IV, CE Department, AE M/W Or.II, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
7 .N.Appa Rao, S/o Adiyya, Gangman, CE Department, A.E. Railways, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
8.N.Nagabhushanam, S/o late Subramanyam, Class IV, E.No.017711, CE Estate, AOB, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.8 is abated on 02-11-2016)
9. Ch. Sathi Raju, S/o late Polaiah, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.9 is abated on 27-09-2023)
10.B.V.D.Aanda Rao, S/o late Simhachalam, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
11.G.Sanjeeva Rao, S/o Pydithalli, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
12.K.Satti Babu, S/o late Satti Rajulu, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
13.Md. Yusuf, S/o Md. Shabuddin, Clerk, CMM Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
14.V.S.Sundar Rao, S/o Polipilli, Sarang Gr.I, DC Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
15.T.Ramu, S/o Apparao, Gangman, CE Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
16.D.S.Sundar Rao, S/o late Venkata Rao, Gangman, CE Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
34
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
17.B.Rama Rao, S/o late Appanna, Las Gr.I, Marine Department MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.17 is abated on 16-11-2010) 18V.J.Nageswara Rao, S/o late V.L.Narasinga Rao, Marine Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.18 is abated on 16-11-2010)
19.Ch. Appa Rao, S/o late Nooka Raju, Topaz DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
20.G.Appa Rao, S/o Demudu, DC Marine, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.20 is abated on 20-07-2023)
21.S.S.Panthulu, S/o late Yerranna, Laskar Gr.I, DC Department, MF Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.21 is abated on 16-11-2010)
22.K.Varahala Rao, S/o late Appanna, S.S.Khalasi, Medical Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.22 is abated on 25-09-2014)
23.G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Rajulu, Laskar Gr-I, T&FC Section, Marine Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
24.V.Danayya, S/o late Satti Rajulu, Messenger, DC Department, Marine, T&F Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
25.B.A.Swamy Reddy, S/o Pydiraju Reddy, Khalasi, CE Department. Estate Division, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
26.N.Venkata Ramana, S/o Rama Rao, Laskar Gr.II, DC Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
27.P.Dalamma, S/o Venkata Ramana, Laskar Gr.I, DC Department, VisakhapatnamPortTrust, Visakhapatnam.
28.P.V.Ramana Murthy, S/o Subramanyam, Daftri, FA & CAO Department. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.28 is abated on 26-06-2019)
29.R.Eswara Rao, S/o Mutyalu, Survey Khalasi, CE Department. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.29 is abated on 16-11-2010)
30.B.Appala Raju, S/o late Jagannadha Rao, Driver, CME Department, FC Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
31.Md. Mustaque, S/o Md.Bashu, Gangman, CE Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.31 is abated on 19-04-2017)
32. M.Janardhana Rao, S/o M.Nandanna, Electrical Maintenance, CME Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam.
35
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
33. B.Apparao, S/o late Demudu (Died)
(case against A.33 is abated on 21-09-2017)
34. S.Appala Raju, S/o S.S.N.Raju, Sr. Section Supervisor, O/o General Manager, Telecom District Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.34 is abated on 16-11-2010)
35. G.V.Ramana, S/o late Chancdra Sekhar, Attender, B.S.N.L., O/o General Manager, Telecom District, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.35 is abated on 03-12-2021)
36.D.V.Ramana Rao, S/o Narasimhulu, Phone Mechanic, Telecom department, Opp. Venkateswara Theatre, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.36 is abated on 16-11-2010)
37.D.Rama Krishna, S/o late Appalaswamy, Phone Mechanic, BSNL, O/o General Manager, Telecom District, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.37 is abated on 16-09-2019)
38.M.Sreekanth, S/o late Gurunadha Rao, D.No.342, Sector-II, Ukkunagar, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
39.B.Srinivas, S/o Bhaskara Rao, D.No.345, Sector-II, Ukkunagar, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
40.M.Sangham, S/o late M.Narayana, Phone Mechanic BSNL, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.
41.B.Prabhakar, S/o late Suryanarayana, Phone Mechanic BSNL, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.41 is abated on 12-12-2021)
42.V.Apparao, S/o Durgayya, Phone Mechanic BSNL, Daspalla Hills Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.42 is abated on 06-02-2012)
43.P.Sarada Rao, S/o late P.Sita Ramaiah, Ex.Employee of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.43 is abated on 19-04-2017)
44.B,Yellaiah, S/o B.Krishna, Ex.Employee of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
45.M.Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o late Brahmam, Sipper cum Grinder, Plumbing Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)(case against A.45 is abated on 16-11-2010)
46.S.Papa Rao, S/o late Apparao, Fitter, Gr.I, MTM Engineering Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died) (case against A.46 is abated on 25-07-2013)
47.R.Nooka Raju, S/o late Appanna Erector, Erection Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.47 is abated on 20-03-2019)
36
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
48.K.Gangadhara Rao, S/o late Bangaraiah, Security department. SRS Guard, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.48 is abated on 31-08-2023)
49.Y.Nagaraju, S/o late Chinnayya, Welder, welding department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
50.P. Nooka Raju, S/o Pydiraju, Operator, Galvanizing Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
51.M.Rajeswara Rao, S/o Gurumurthy, Security Guard, Security Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
52.S.Chandrasekhara Rao, S/o Dapanna, Welder, Welding Department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam.
53.K.Ramana Sitaram, S/o Mahalakshminaidu, Fitter, Maintenance department, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.53 is abated on 19-04-2017)
54.T.Bharathi, W/o late Ganga Raju, Telelphone Operator, O/o GCC Ltd., China waltair, Visakhapatnam.
55.S.K.Hameedh, S/o late Abdulla, Lab Assistant, Kendriya Vidyalam, INS Kalinga, Bheemunipatnam. (Died)
(case against A.55 is abated on 16-11-2010)
56.M.Appa Rao, S/o late Chellayya, UDC, Naval Base, O/o Commanding Ofcer, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.56 is abated on 15-12-2020)
57.P.J.Santha Kumari, S/o D.D.J.Varghese, Steno, Naval base, O/o Commanding Ofcer, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam-14.
58.B.Satyanarayana, S/o Pydayya, Electrician, MES, Naval Base, Post, GNS Pine Line, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.58 is abated on 16-11-2010)
59.J.S.Ram Murthy, S/o Venkanna, Masion, MES, Naval Base Phone Line, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.59 is abated on 25-09-2014)
60.G.Satyanarayana, S/o late Sannibabu, Lift Operator, MES, Nousanabag, INS kalyani, Visakhapatnam.
61.D.Samudram, S/o late Somulu, SSK, IC Fitter, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
62.N.S.Rama Prasad, S/o N.S.R.Murthy, ASK/Stores, Electrical Department, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
63.K.B.Sambasivarao, S/o late Narayana, HSK-II, Motor Testing House, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
64.M.Ramunaidu, S/o Thammunaidu, Ofce Superintendent, Material Organization, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam.
65.L.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Jr.Assistant(Mat.), APSRTC Zonal Stores, Vizianagaram.
37
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
66.K.Appalanarasayya, S/o late Narasayya, Welder Gr.II, C&W, OEC, SE Rly, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.
67.P.Mohan Dasan, S/o Govinda Nambiar, Technician Gr.I, Sr.Section Engineer, Pespection Yard, Eco Railway, Visakhapatnam.
68.Y.Purushotham Rao, S/o late Dalayya, LDC, DGNP, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-14. (Died)
(case against A.68 is abated on 16-07-2021)
69.G.Rama Rao, S/o Rama Raju, Choowkidar, Naval Project, DGNP, Visakhapatnam. (Died)
(case against A.69 is abated on 27-11-2015)
70.Y.Nooka Raju, S/o Bhuloka, Chowkidar, MES, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
71.Ch.Subrahmanyam, S/o Erikinaidu, Chowkidar, MES, Director General of Naval Project, Visakhapatnam.
72.J.Venkata Rao, S/o Ramulu, Mechanic, FGM Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
73.N.J.Sirishkumar, S/o Prakasa Rao, MNO, Medical & Health Department, Government Hospital, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District.
Ofence: Under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section.13 (i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1and Sections.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against A2 to A73.
Finding:
In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the ofences under, Secs. 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A3, A5, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A19, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27, A30, A32, A38, A39, A40, A44, A49, A50, A51, A52, A54, A57, A60, A61, A62, A63, A64, A65, A66, A67, A70, A71, A72 and A73 are found not guilty for the ofences under Secs.120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC. Accordingly, above accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to release A39, A49, and A70 forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases. Ofce is directed to communicate the same to Jail Authorities.
The case against A2, A4, A8, A9, A17, A18, A20, A21, A22, A28, A29, A31, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A41, A42, A43, A45, A46, A47, A48, A53, A55, A56, A58, A59, A68, and A69 stands abated.
38
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
All the accused are directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one surety within two weeks from the date of this judgment i.e. 21.12.2023 which shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
MO.1 shall be returned to its owner after appeal time is completed.
Sd/ C.N.MURTHY
PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC- I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
Copies to:
The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
// True Copy//
PRINCIPAL SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
FAC - I ADDL. SPL. JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
39
CC.2/2009, dt. 21.12.2023
I Addl. Spl. Judge’s Court for CBI Cases, VSP.
Order Record 145 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRL.MP/58/2025 | Balaji Trust rep.by Suresh Sundaram vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 16 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/32/2026 | Shreyas Vasant Parikh vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 15 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/45/2026 | Balleda Srinivas vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 15 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/40/2026 | Rongali Sai Kumar vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 09 Apr 2026 | Order | Acquitted |
| CRL.MP/43/2026 | Rongali Sai Kumar vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 09 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/44/2026 | Rogali Sai Kumar vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 09 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/38/2026 | Shri Chintakrinda Venkata Sathis vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 30 Mar 2026 | Other | — |
| CRL.MP/39/2026 | A-1 Chintakinda Venkata Satish vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 30 Mar 2026 | Other | — |
| CC/8/2016 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Ganapathi Madhava Varma | 18 Mar 2026 | Judgement | — |
| CC/9/2019 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs V. Santhoshi Ramu | 16 Mar 2026 | Judgement | — |
| CRL.MP/30/2026 | Ragathi Chinna Rao vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 16 Mar 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/1/2026 | Bora Ramesh vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 10 Mar 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/59/2025 | Gunturi Satyanarayana Raju-A7 vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 10 Mar 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/61/2025 | Dereddy Eswara Venkata Rama Prasad Reddy vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 10 Mar 2026 | Order | — |
| CC/4/2015 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Bhagirath Biswas | 02 Mar 2026 | Judgement | — |
| CRL.MP/19/2026 | Shabbir Haji Issak Noorani vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 02 Mar 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/23/2026 | Narella Venkata Rajesh A3 vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 25 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/24/2026 | Grandhi Sarath Kumar vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 25 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/15/2026 | Grandhi Sarath Kumar vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 17 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/16/2026 | Nerella Venkata Rajesh -A3 vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 17 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/18/2026 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Grandhi Sarath Kumar | 17 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/17/2026 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Grandhi Sarath Kumar | 13 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/10/2026 | A2. Oruganti Manikanta vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 12 Feb 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/62/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/63/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/64/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/65/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/66/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/67/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/7/2026 | Mahanthi Ramana vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 23 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/8/2026 | Mahanthi Ramana vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 23 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/4/2026 | Dubasi Srinivas vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 07 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/60/2025 | Bora Ramesh A8 vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 02 Jan 2026 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/47/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 08 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/48/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 08 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/49/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 08 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/50/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 08 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/51/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 08 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/52/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 08 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/42/2025 | R.Sankara Narayanan vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 04 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/53/2025 | Mahanthi Ramana vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 04 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/43/2025 | Telikicherla Ramana Kumar vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 03 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/21/2003 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Ragam Kishore and one other | 02 Dec 2025 | Judgement | — |
| CRL.MP/46/2025 | Mahanthi Ramana vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 27 Nov 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/41/2025 | ANANTHANENI VENKATESWARA RAO vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 14 Nov 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/40/2025 | Sanjay P.Jain vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 31 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/36/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs V. Santhoshi Ramu | 29 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/35/2025 | PADAM SINGH vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 22 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/30/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bhagirath Biswas | 18 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/32/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Doppalapudi Adi Pratap Kumar | 18 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/7/2010 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Chavili Simeon and 6 others | 16 Sep 2025 | Judgement | — |
| CRL.MP/19/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/20/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/21/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/22/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/23/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/24/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/25/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/26/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/27/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/28/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/29/2025 | ANDHRA PRADESH vs Bishnu Pada Mandal | 28 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/13/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 Ramaswamy Damodaran | 31 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/14/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1Ramaswamy Damodaran | 31 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/15/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 Ramaswamy Damodaran | 31 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/16/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 Ramaswamy Damodaran | 31 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/17/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 Ramaswamy Damodaran | 31 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/18/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 Ramaswamy Damodaran | 31 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/12/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 Dunasi Srinivas | 25 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/11/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs A-1 V.Santoshi Ramu | 22 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/1/2025 | A-1 R.V.L.Narasimha Rao vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 21 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/2/2025 | A-2 R GOWRI RATNAM vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 21 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/3/2025 | A-2 R GOWRI RATNAM vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 21 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/4/2025 | A-1 R.V.LNARASIMHA RAO vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 21 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/5/2025 | A-1 R.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 21 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/6/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs B.P Mandal | 17 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/7/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs B.P Mandal | 17 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/8/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs B.P Mandal | 17 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/9/2025 | CBI Visakhapatnam vs B.P. Mandal | 17 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRL.MP/10/2025 | DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 08 Jul 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/1/2025 | Sanjay.P.Jain vs CBI Visakhapatnam | 03 Jun 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/12/2017 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs BOTSA PEDA RAMA RAO | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgement | — |
| CC/13/2017 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs BOTSA PEDA RAMARAO | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgement | — |
| CC/14/2017 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Botsa Peda Rama Rao | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgement | — |
| CC/16/2017 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Talla Narayana Rao | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgement | Convicted |
| CC/17/2017 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Talla Narayana Rao | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgement | Convicted |
| CRLMP.BAIL/2/2024 | Mitapalli Srinivas vs Central Bureau of Investiagation | 03 Jan 2025 | Order | — |
| CC/7/2013 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Rayabharapu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao | 30 Dec 2024 | Judgement | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/1/2024 | A-16 Veerendra Darla vs Inspector of Police, CBIM | 15 Nov 2024 | Order | — |
| CC/31/2014 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs A1- Kodamanchali Rajendra Prasad | 01 Aug 2024 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| CC/1/2014 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs Doppalapudi Adi Pratap Kumar | 28 Jun 2024 | Judgement | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/872/2024 | Jurra Simhachalam vs Sate rep by DSP, ACB, Visakhapatnam | 18 Apr 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/836/2024 | Penta Murali vs State rep by DSP,ACB, Vizianagaram | 16 Apr 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRL.MP/324/2024 | Bade Surya Teja vs State rep by the APP, Vizianagaram | 16 Apr 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRL.MP/357/2024 | State rep by the inspector of police, ACB, Srikakulam vs Nuka Kishor Kumar | 15 Apr 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/679/2024 | Chowdari Harikrishna vs State rep by DSP, ACB, Visakhapatnam | 03 Apr 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/767/2024 | Jurra Simhachalam vs State rep by its DSP, ACB, Visakhapatnam | 03 Apr 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRL.MP/335/2024 | Pangi Naganna vs DSP, NIA, Hyderabad | 28 Mar 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRL.MP/355/2024 | State rep by DSP, NIA, Branch Office, Hyderabad vs Ramakkagari Chandra (A-85) and others | 27 Mar 2024 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CC/13/2003 | CBI, Visakhapatnam vs U.K. MITTAL | 26 Mar 2024 | Judgement | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Apr 2026 | 7 | |
| Mar 2026 | 11 | |
| Feb 2026 | 7 | |
| Jan 2026 | 10 | |
| Dec 2025 | 10 | |
| Nov 2025 | 2 | |
| Oct 2025 | 3 | |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | |
| Aug 2025 | 11 | |
| Jul 2025 | 19 | |
| Jun 2025 | 1 | |
| Mar 2025 | 5 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has SRI. C.N.MURTHY handled?
SRI. C.N.MURTHY has handled 149 court orders since 2023 at Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam. The average disposal rate is 14 orders per month.
What types of cases does SRI. C.N.MURTHY hear?
Based on available records, SRI. C.N.MURTHY primarily handles Criminal matters (CRL, Criminal Cases) at Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam.
Where is SRI. C.N.MURTHY currently posted?
SRI. C.N.MURTHY is posted as III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-ACB at Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam, Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by SRI. C.N.MURTHY available online?
Yes. 15 judgments by SRI. C.N.MURTHY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does SRI. C.N.MURTHY dispose cases?
SRI. C.N.MURTHY disposes approximately 14 cases per month, based on 149 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam.
Since when is SRI. C.N.MURTHY serving?
SRI. C.N.MURTHY has been serving at Prl District Court Complex, Visakhapatnam since 2023.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Jan 2024 — Apr 2024III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-ACB · 47 orders
-
Jun 2023 — Apr 2025I ADDITIONAL CBI JUDGE · 5 orders
-
Jun 2023 — Apr 2026PRINCIPAL CBI JUDGE · 97 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court