1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Present : Sri V. Subba Reddy, M.A., M.L., IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Friday, the 29th day of June, 2018
C.C.No.720/2010
This case came before me on 15-06-2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the Complainant and Sri. PAK Kishore, advocate for the A.1 and Sri. VSN Sastry, advocate for the A-2 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
a. the S.No. of the case:C.C.No.720/2010 b. the date of commission of offence : Prior to 04.08.2007 in Cr.No.04/2007 c. the name of the complainant:
The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.
d. the name of the accused, parentage, residence, etc.:
A-1: Prof.MushiniVivekanandaMurthy,S/o Nagabhushanam, 56 yrs, Settibalija, R/o Flat No. 187, D.No.1-119-1/1, Sector-XII, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam City. Ex-Honorary Director, Population Research Centre, Visakhapatnam.
A-2: Sinku Brahmaiah, S/o Subbarayudu, 47 yrs, Vysya, R/o D.No.7-1-85, Opp. To AU Gate, Visakhapatnam City. N/o Main Bazar, Kazhipeta, Cuddapah, AP. Jr. Asst. in Population Research Center, Visakhapatnam.
e. the offence complained of : Under sections 120(B), 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 420 r/w 34 of IPC f. the plea of the accused on his examination: Pleaded not guilty.
g. the final order:
1.The A.1 and A.2 were charge sheeted in Crime No.04/2007 under
Sections 120(B), 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 420 r/w 34 of IPC of the Inspector of
Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
2.The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is,
The population Research Centre which is being funded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India is located at AU Campus, 2
Visakhapatnam and it is an academic body of the University. The main task of the centre is to undertake research on various topics pertaining to population related matters. The PRC gets some research projects directly from different funding agencies with the permission of the University.
One of the faculties of the University should be appointed as Honorary
Director to the Center to look after the affairs of the center. The technical staff of the center are being appointed by the University through a committee and the ministerial staff are appointed on the recommendations of the Honoraray Director purely on temporary basis with a condition that they will continue so long as the center is financed by the Government of India or until further orders which ever is earlier.
The main function of the Honorary Director is to look after the affairs of the administrative and academic matters and also the financial matters of the center with the assistance of Junior Assistant of the center and is answerable to the
University. For smooth and timely completion of the research projects the PRC gets directly the budget and other financial matters are directly handled by the
Honorary directors of the center with the knowledge of the University.
A.1 Prof. Mushini Vivekananda Murthy was appointed as Honorary Director on 13.05.1997. taking advantage of the autonomous powers in financial matters
A.1 entered into criminal conspiracy with A.2 to siphon the funds of the center by diverting the same for their own use. In pursuance of their conspiracy during the tenure of A.1 i.e., from 13.5.1997 to 14.9.2005 the funds of the Population
Research Center, Andhra University were drawn irregularly by A.1 and A.2 and dirverted the same to their personal accounts without maintaining and furnishing of proper records, files and thereby caused a huge loss to the Population Research
Center, Andhra University. The number of transactions pertaining to the functioning, spending of funds and maintenance of accounts by A.1 and A.2 reveals the same and they may be read as part of charge sheet.
Accordingly the frauds and misdeeds committed by A.1 and A.2 during the project works taken up by the PRC during October, 2003 to September 2005 viz.,
1)(a) DLHS-RCH (Dist Level House Hold Survey-Reproductive Child Health) (b) 3
Main Survey, (I) Andhra Pradesh, (ii) Andaman & Nicobar Islands, (c) Health
Component, (I) Andhra Pradesh,
2)End line Survey under RCH Sub-Projects (a) House listing, (b) Main Survey
3)UFWC Evaluation Study,
4)VMC Baseline Survey in Andhra Pradesh, are enclosed herewith in a tabular from in Annexure-A & Annexure-B.
On learning about the misappropriation of A.1 and A.2, LW.3 constituted an internal Enquiry body consisting of LW.24 to LW.27 to cause detailed enquiry about the fraud. On that LW.24 to LW.27 conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted their report to LW.3. LW.3 submitted the said report to LW.1, upon the resolution of the Executive Council of Andhra University dt. 16.12.2005 an Enquiry Commission headed by LW.29 Hon’ble Justice B.V. Ranga Raju, Retd. Judge, AP High court was appointed by the Andhra University to conduct an enquiry against A.1 and LW.29 held all the above charges proved. In respect of A.2 as per the orders in Writ
Appeal in W.P.No.375 of 2007 dt. 01.05.2007 filed by the A.U. in the Honourable
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, he stands suspended from the date of dismissal (vide proceedings of the Vice Chancellor No.
A.V(1)/6116/2007 dt.01.05.2007) and an enquiry is also contemplated by the
Andhra University.
LW.29 conducted a detaild enquiry in respect of A.1 and found that A.1 is guilty of misappropriation of funds and abuse of his official power to the tune of
Rs.27,00,462.00/- during October 2003 to September, 2005 by fabricating the bills and vouchers. It is further revealed that some of the bills had been tampered, altered and forged by A.2 in collusion with A.1.
In this connection basing on the report of LW.1 a case in Cr.No.04/2007 under section 409, 468, 477-A r/w 34 IPC was registered at CCS, Visakhapatnam on 04.08.2007 by LW.30 and he investigated into the offence.
During the course of investigation LW.31 arrested A.2 on 03.09.2010 and enlarged him on bail since he obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High
Court. Later on 13.112010 LW.32 arrested A.1 and enlarged him on bail since he obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court.
4
Regarding the misappropriation of amount of Rs.71,94,182/- from May 1997 to September 2003 there is no material available on record to prove the offence except utilization certificates (UCs) from 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and bank statements for the PRC account Nos. 5235, 5236 and 32269. there are no chances to get the evidence for the above period since A.1 eliminated the evidence secretly. As and when any evidence comes forth regarding the misappropriation an additional charge sheet will be filed regarding the offence.
Basing on the merits of investigation LW.32 added sections 120(b), 471, 420
IPC accordingly memo was filed before the Hon’ble court to that extent.
Thus the investigation disclosed that the accused collaborated with other in forging the documents i.e., TA/DA, salary bills, bills for purchase of various stationery items, fuel charge bill, hire-charge bills, Bills for the purchase of personal computer and related items etc., and utilized the said false documents to falsify the accounts and thereby cheated the exchequer of the Government and
PRC, Andhra University and misappropriated the monies entrusted to them.
3.The above case was taken into cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 120(B), 409, 468, 471, 477(A), 420 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to them as required Under section 207 Cr.P.C., When examined Under section 239 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Charges under sections 120(B), 409 r/w 34, 468 r/w 34, 471 r/w 34, 477(A) r/w 34, 420 r/w 34 IPC were framed against the A-1 and A-2.
4.During the course of trial PW-1 to PW-19 were examined on behalf of the prosecution, and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.84 were got marked. On behalf of the defence
DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16 were marked.
5.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence.
5
6.Heard both sides and perused relevant records.
7.Now the point for determination is “whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubts?”
8.The evidence of PW-1 Prof. P. Vijay Praklash deposed that, he worked as a
Registrar, AU from 2005 to 2008. in the year 2005, LW.3 Prasad rao was appointed as Honorary Director, Population research center, AU and he reported that at the time of handing over the charge by the A.1 by name Prof. Vivekananda Murthy failed to account for the financial transaction in the PRC and also withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the accounts of PRC after handing over the charge to the LW.3. he brought to the notice of irregularities commited by the A.1 to Vice- chancellor, then the same was referred to Executive council, AU and the council passed resolution for launching enquiry proceedings against A.1. the council appointed LW.29 BV Rangaraju, retired judge AP High court as a enquiry officer to enquiry into the misappropriations in PRC, AU., LW.29 conducted enquiry and he submitted his report before Executive council, who terminated the services of A.1 and A.2. The enquiry revealed that the charges against A.1 were proved.
Subsequently he lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before the police for taking necessary action against A.1 and A.2 as per law. As per the enquiry report the A.1 and A.2 misappropriated a sum of Rs.98,00,000/-. A.1 is in-charge of the entire financial transactions of the PRC, Visakhapatnam. A.1 worked as Honorary Director, PRC AU from 1997 to 2005. Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.32 documents were got marked.
9.PW.2 Prof. P.V.G.D. Prasad Reddy, AU deposed that, he worked as Registrar
AU from July, 2008 to July, 2011. In the year 2010, while he was acting as
Registrar AU, the investigation officer relating to misappropriation of funds in PRC
AU, approached him and requested information relating to PRC and AU, relationship. The office of Registrar of AU informed the particulars of the requisition to the VC of AU and with his permission, he obtained necessary documents from PRC and furnished to the police. He perused Ex.P.2 document No.
158, which contains a brief note on population research center, and he identified 6 the same as that of reply given by him to the police. Investigation officer examined him about the Ex.P.2. Ex.P.3 is letter.
10.PW.3 Prof. M. Prasada Rao deposed that he worked as Honarary Director,
Population Research center, AU from 15.9.2005 to December, 2012. on 15.9.2005 he assumed charge as Honarary Director PRC, AU as per insturctions of Registrar,
VC of AU and previous Director i.e., A.1 was not in a possession to hand over the charge to him and requested time to hand over the charge. He informed the A.1 to hand over records and charge through phone. He attended the office on 15-9- 2005 but the accused conspicuously remained absent. On 16-9-2005 the A.1 handed over one cheque book and 3 pass books of SBI, AU branch and fixed withdrawn on 3 occassions i.e., on 15.9.2005 and 16.9.2005. immediately he questioned the A.1 about withdrawal of the amount and he replied that he withdrawn the above said amount for settlement of accounts. He further requested A.1 to repay the above said amount since the amount was withdrawn after assuming charge by him. He also requested to submit all the relevant records, bills, accounts etc., to him. He replied that within 2 days he will submit all the records. The accused handed over two sealed packets to the Senior Research officer, PRC, AU, who is senior most officer in PRC. He detected Rs. 3 lakhs misappropriation, he informed the same fact to Registrar.
11.PW.3 further deposed that, as per the instructions of the Registrar the two sealed covers were opened by him in the presence of A.1, Research officer and other staff members, in which he found the records of on going project of population research. The contents of the record verified by his staff i.e., A.2. on preliminary verification he came to know some misappropriation taken place with regard to projects, Accounts, Bills, Tampering of records etc., thereupon an enquiry committee consisting of 4 members, initiated to verify the truth or otherwise of the bills, accounts etc., The committee verified the projects,
Accounts, Bills and tampering of records and submitted report before him in 2005.
the 4 member committee found that Rs.32 lakhs approximately misappropriated in the said project. He requested A.1 and A.2 to submit all the relevant records to 7 him. But they did not submit the same. A.2 replied to him that the A.1 having all the records with A.1. the report of the committee and the facts already taken place relating to the project submitted before the Registrar. On the basis of the report of 4 member committee, the Executive Council appointed an retired High
Court Judge for detailed enquiry with regard to misappropriation of funds, who submitted report before the Executive committee through Registrar. The report reveals that A.1 and A.2 misappropriated a tune of Rs.98 lakhs, in which A.1 is the
principal offender. Subsequently the University initiated a seperate committee
against A.2 i.e., Law college Principal. Ultimately the misappropriation episode.
The finding given by the committee discussed in Executive counsel and dismissed
A.1 and A.2 from service. The alleged misappropriation relating to salaries of the investigators, hiring of the vehicles, fuel for the vehicles and stationery items miscellaneous expenditure. He got marked Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.28 documents.
12.PW.16 B.V. Ranga Raju, retired High Court Judge deposed that The executive counsel of Andhra University has appointed him to enquire the matter regarding the misappropriation of the account during the tenure of Prof. M.Vekenanda Murthy former of Honarary Director, Population Research Centre, AU. Thereupon he informed to A.1 about his appointment. He has followed rule 6 chapter 12 of the administrative manual of the Andhra University. Though the above rules not similar to the A.P. civil Services ( Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules which deal the departmental enquiries and punishments, in so far as state government employees are concerned, the rule referred to above said rules has to be followed by the authority that is enjoined to hold the enquiry. Likewise, though rule 6 (a) &
(b) does not contemplate filing of any additional written statement as provided in the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, control & Appeals) Rules, he has directed him to do so, as arguments cannot be heard on his behalf. In doing so, he was very much satisfied that adequate opportunity was given to Prof. Murthy to defend himself in this enquiry. On 31-01-2006 he has requested the present Honorary
Director to furnish copies of the relevant records of his perusal for framing charges and allegation.
8
13.PW.16 further deposed that, on 07-02-2006 the present Honarary Director has furnished copies of documents for his perusal. On 07-02-2006 he requested the present Honorary Director to clarify certain points. On 18-02-2006 and 22-02- 2006 the present Honorary Director has furnished clarifications on the point raised by him. In the penultimate paragraph of the charges and allegations (Page 22)
Prof. Murthy who was required to file his written statement by 26-04-2006 was also informed that if, in the meanwhile, the originals of the documents furnished by him, the documents referred to in the charges and allegations or any relevant records in the P.R.C have to be perused by him, he can do so, by obtaining prior permission from the present Honorary Director. He was also informed that if he desires to have any other copies or documents available in the P.R.C they he supplied to him before his written statement is filed. In support of the charge frame against A.1 Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.155 are marked and the witness mentioned in support of the allegations were examined by him. All the documents EX.P.42 to
Ex.P.83 are marked subject to objection. He has examined PW1 to PW15 and all listed witness enclosed to the memo of evidence.
14.PW.17 M. Chitti Babu deposed that, I am retired from service as Professor in
Statistics Department. He know A.1 and A.2. he worked as Head of the
Department of Statistics in Andhra University. The A.1 was also worked as
Professor in Statistics Department. A.1 was the Honorary Director for PRC. He does not remember the facts of the case. He has received a letter from Registrar, AU to submit the leave records of A.1. Accordingly he submitted Ex.P.65 leave record.
15.PW.18 Ch. Raja Sekhar, the then Inspector of Police deposed that, on 04-08- 2007 he received a complaint from PW1-P.Vijaya Prakash Registrar, AU and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.04/2007 U/sec. 409, 468, 477(A) r/w 34 IPC and submitted original Ex.P.84 FIR to the Honble court. He examined PW1 and recorded his statement. He got transferred CC’S. His successor investigated into the case.
9
16.PW.19 S. Appala Raju, the then Inspector of Police deposed that, he further investigated into the offence and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.
17.At this stage the court heard the arguments of the learned Asst. Public
Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. It is the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for state, that the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-19 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.84 documents and parys the court to convict the accused.
18.On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the A.1 and
A.2 that, out of the 19 witnesses examined by the prosecution only PW.1 to PW.3 supported the prosecution case and all the other eye witnesses that is PW.4 to
PW.15 did not support the prosecution case and learned APP also treated the hostile and cross-examined but did not elicit anything to support the prosecution case and therefore their evidence is not useful to the prosecution case. PW.16 B.V.
Ranga Raju deposed that the Executive Council of the Andhra University has appointed as enquiry officer and he enquired into the misappropriation of amounts and the charges against A.1 were proved.
19.It is further contention of the learned accused counsel that there were ill feelings in between PW.3 M. Prasada Rao who is former Honorary Director of
Population Research Center and due to differences in between PW.3 and A.1, A.1 was falsely involved in to the case and he prays the court to acquit the A.1 & A.2.
20.It is further contention of the learned accused counsel that, in the charge sheet the investigating officer himself stated that regarding misappropriation of
Rs.71,94,182/- from May, 1997 to September, 2003 there is no material available on record to prove the offence except utilization certificates (UCs) from 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and bank statements for the PRC account Nos 5235, 5236 and 32269. There are no chances to get the evidence for the above period since A.1 eliminated the evidence secretly. As and when any evidence comes forth regarding the misappropriation an additional charge sheet will be filed regarding the offence.
10
21.It is also the contention of the learned accused counsel that, on 16.09.2005
PW.3 took charge from A.1 as Director of PRC under Ex.P.19 and after A.1 taking the charge, PW.3 noticed that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn from the account of PRC covered by Ex.P.20 and in that context PW.3 addressed Ex.P.21 letter dt. 23.09.2005 to A.1 regarding the amounts withdrawn on 15.09.2005 and 16.09.2005 to which A.1 responded in writing in Ex.P.22 dt. 26.9.2005 stating that the amount withdrawn on 16.09.2005 was re-deposited and the rest of the amount was reflected in the accounts. However, PW.3 was not satisfied in that regard and intimated the same to PW.1 who in turn took the same to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor and pursuant thereto the same was referred to Executive
Council of Andhra University who passed a resolution for launching enquiry against A.1. Pursuant thereto, PW.16 retired Justice BV Ranga Raju retired Judge for the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as enquiry officer, who after conducting the enquiry submitted his report in Ex.P42 to PW.1 and PW.1 in turn lodged Ex.P.1 report against A.1 and A.2. basing on the report a case in
Cr.No. 4/2007was registered and filed charge sheet. Pursuant thereto this court took cognizance of the same in CC.No. 720/2010 for the offence under sections 12(B), 409, 468, 471, 477(A) and 420 r/w 34 IPC.
22.It is the contention of the learned accused counsel that the Executive
Council of Andhra University appointed PW.16 Ranga Raju as the Enquiry Officer that same was intimated to him by the Registrar, Andhra University. And the
PW.16 Ranga Raju was not competent to appoint as enquiry officer and therefore his enquiry report can be set aside without any complexity, hence it is not admissible of evidence.
23.The learned accused counsel further contended that, PW.16 Ranga Raju admitted in his cross-examination whether the Andhra University produced any documentary evidence to show that expenditure was shown to have to made in respect of expenditure mentioned under column No.2 of statement No.1 are non existence persons. He also admitted in his cross-examination that whether the finding in Ex.P.42 are binding on this court or not. He do not know as to whether 11
Ex.P.42 is more or less a report under section 154 Cr.P.C.,. he further submitted that he was not informed by the university as to whether Ex.P.42 was accepted or not.
24.It is also further contention of the learned accused counsel that Ex.P.2,
Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.84 are xerox copies hence they are not admissible of evidence.
Hence the contention of the learned accused counsel is acceptable. It is further contention of the prosecution that according to PW.3 a committee was constituted by persons namely 1) R. Madhava Reddy, 2) Dr. Tangirada Satyanarayana, 3) KVR
Subhramanyam and 4) Dr. Mantripragada Sudhakar Babu to enquire in to the matter but they we re not examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the prosecution case.
25.It is further contention of the learned accused counsel that, the evidence of
PW.1 Prof. P. Vijay Prakash that the accused withdrawn Rs. 3 lakhs from the accounts of the PRC after handing over the charge to PW.3 but the accused A.1 submitted evidence by DW.2 M. Vivekananda Murthy that he repaid the amount of
Rs. 3 lakhs withdrawn by him. He paid Rs. 1 lakh in cash to PW.6 for his services of printing questionnaires pertaining to PRC and PW.6 issued bills for Rs. 1 lakh, covered by Ex.P.59 and the same was accepted by PW.6 in his evidence. He also paid Rs. 35,000/- to LW.9 (Tata Setti Suryanarayana) of Suri Travels on 15.09.2005.
the bills issued by him are covered under Ex.P.50. He also paid Rs.50,000/- to
DW.1 that is RC systems towards pending bills that is computer bills, which are evidenced by Ex.P177-A. An amount of Rs. 70,000/- was given to employees of
PRC towards honorarium. And the remaining Rs.80,000/- was handed over by the office as per A.1’s instructions but the PW.3 refused to take the amount and asked to redeposit the said amount into the bank, accordingly the amount was re- deposited on 17.09.2005 and the same is evident from Ex.P.20.
26.Hence, there is no misappropriation of funds by A.1 and there is also no evidence to convict the A.2, as misappropriation of A.2 was not proved and he was only a clerk under A.1. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed 12 to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charges levered against him.
27.In the result, the A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 120(B), 409 r/w 34, 468 r/w 34, 471 r/w 34, 477(A) r/w 34, 420 r/w 34 IPC accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,. the bail bonds of the accused shall be stand discharged after six months. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of June, 2018.
xx Sd/- V. Subba Reddy IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE
PW-1/06.02.2015 : P.Vijaya prakash DW-1/23.3.18 :Ch.Raghu PW-2/06.02.2015 : P.V.G.D.Prasad DW-2/14.6.18 : Ch.Vivekananda Murthy PW-3/17.04.2015 : M.prasadaRao PW-4/24.10.2017 : P.A.Kumari PW-5/24.10.2017 : G.G.Raju PW-6/26.10.2017 : A.V.S.K.Naidu PW-7/26.10.2017 : L.RamaChandra Rao PW-8/26.10.2017 : V.V.Satyanarayana Reddy PW-9/26.10.2017 : M.Ramu PW-10/26.10.2017 : P.Venkateswara Rao PW-11/14.11.2017 : V.RaviRaju PW-12/14.11.2017 :D.Apparao PW-13/14.11.2017 :S.prasad PW-14/14.11.2017 : G.Peddi NagaRaju PW-15/14.11.2017 : E.RaviKumar PW-16/30.11.2017 : B.V.RangaRaju PW-17/04.01.2018 : M.ChittiBabu PW-18/30.01.2018 : Ch.RajaSekhar PW-19/07.02.2018 :S.Appala Raju
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1/06.02.2015 : report by PW-1 Ex.P2/06.02.2015 : Brief Population research center by PW-2 Ex.P3/06.02.2015 : is letter by PW-3 Ex.P4/17.04.2015 : is the Officer order dated 10.10.2005 by PW-3 Ex.P5/17.04.2015 : is the Clarification letter dated 7.2.2006 by PW-3 Ex.P6/17.04.2015 : is the reply of the A2 dated 15.2.2006. Ex.P7/17.04.2015 : is the letter to SriS.Brahmaiah for further clarification Ex.P8/17.04.2015 : is the reply of S.Brammaiah Ex.P9/17.04.2015 : is the statement of accounts of SBI, AU Campus. Ex.P10/17.04.2015 : is the copies of the statement of the saving bank account. Ex.P11/17.04.2015 : is the copy of dispatch register of the P.R.C Ex.P12/17.04.2015 : is the bunch of receipts for payment of salaries to Field Staff in Andaman and Nikobar I-Lands Ex.P13/17.04.2015 : is the containing the TA and DA billsand sample salarybills for DLHs-RCH house hold listing. Ex.P14 /17.04.2015 : is the contains the TA and DA billsand sample salarybills forDLHS-RCH main survey Ex.P15/17.04.2015 : is the contains the TA & DA billsand sample salarybills forDLHS-RCH Healthy Survey byPW.3 Ex.P16/17.04.2015 : is the file relating DLHS PRCH regarding renewal ofor the Bank guarantee and release of funds. Ex.P17/17.04.2015 : is the file relating to UFWC Evaluation study. Ex.P18/17.04.2015 : is the file relating toVMC baseline survey 13
Ex.P19/17.04.2015 : is the letter dt.15.9.2005. Ex.P20/17.04.2015 : is the one cheque Ex.P21/17.04.2015 : a lettering Ex.P22/17.04.2015 : reply lettering Ex.P23/17.04.2015 : letter of M.Prasada Rao Ex.P24/17.04.2015 : letter of Professor of M.V.V.Murthy Ex.P25/17.04.2015 : Letter M.Prasada Rao dt.1.10.2015. Ex.P26/17.04.2015 : Letter dated 1.10.2015. Ex.P27/17.04.2015 : Letter dated 1.10.2015 Ex.P28/17.04.2015 : communication from C.Venkata Krishna by PW-3 Ex.P29/24.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-4 Ex.P30/24.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-5 Ex.P31/26.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-6 Ex.P32/26.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-7 Ex.P33/26.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-8 Ex.P34/26.10.2017 : cash bills PW-9 Ex.P35/26.10.2017 : cash bills PW-9 Ex.P36/26.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-10 Ex.P37/26.10.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-11 Ex.P38/14.11.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-12 Ex.P39/14.11.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-13 Ex.P40/14.11.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-14 Ex.P41/14.11.2017 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement PW-15 Ex.P42/30.11.2017 : Enquiry Report of PW-16 Ex.P43/30.11.2017 : authorization PW-16 Ex.P44/30.11.2017 : money due PW-16 Ex.P45/30.11.2017 : RCH Project Report PW-16 Ex.P46/30.11.2017 : House hold listing PW-16 Ex.P47/30.11.2017 : Letter S.K.Das PW-16 Ex.P48/30.11.2017 : Letter from the Commissioner Ex.P49/30.11.2017 : Bills pertaining to Sri Krishna Agencies Ex.P50/30.11.2017 : Bills pertaining Sri Ravi Travels Ex.P51/30.11.2017 : Traveling allowances Ex.P52/30.11.2017 : Bills pertaining to A.U Ex.P53/30.11.2017 : Bills pertaining to A.U Ex.P54/30.11.2017 : Traveling and halting allowance bills Ex.P55/30.11.2017 : cash receipts Ex.P56/30.11.2017 : statement showing details money due Ex.P57/30.11.2017 : verification scrutiny of PRC account, files, stock registers etc., Ex.P58/30.11.2017 : letter from M.Prasada Rao Ex.P59/30.11.2017 : is bills pertaining E.C.C.training Pvt Ltd., Ex.P60/30.11.2017 : is bills pertaining to DESAI Company etc., Ex.P61/30.11.2017 : is details misappropriated local taxi bills shown to be utilized Ex.P62/30.11.2017 : is the rule pertaining unversity Ex.P63/30.11.2017 : is the Money due different organization Ex.P64/30.11.2017 : is statement shown tampered and misappropriated vehicle bills in the expenditure during October, 2003 to September, 2003 Ex.P65/30.11.2017 : details of leaves available A1 Ex.P66/30.11.2017 : is interviews and assignment sheets Ex.P67/30.11.2017 : is Travelling and halting bill of Sri D.Anantha Kumar Ex.P68/30.11.2017 : is letter of P.Anitha Kumari Ex.P69/30.11.2017 : is claim bill of P.Anitha Kumari Ex.P70/30.11.2017 : is letter of K.Anantha Lakshmi Ex.P71/30.11.2017 : is the claim bill of K.Anantha Lakshmi Ex.P72/30.11.2017 : is the Assignment sheet of K.Nirmaladevi Ex.P73/30.11.2017 : is the claim bill of Nirmala Devi Ex.P74/30.11.2017 : is bills pertaining to Venkatesh Drugs and others Ex.P75/30.11.2017 : is details of misappropriated local taxi bills Ex.P76/30.11.2017 : is the bills pertaining to Ravi Raj Etc., Ex.P77/30.11.2017 : is the details of the tampered and misappropriated Ex.P78/30.11.2017 : is the Ex.P177 is the details of the tampered and misappropriated stationary bills shown in the expenditure during October, 2003 to 2005 Ex.P79/30.11.2017 : is the details of the tampered and misappropriated other bills shown in the expenditure during October, 2003 to 2005 Ex.P80/30.11.2017 : is the details of the tampered and misappropriated computer related item bills shown in the expenditure during October, 2003 to 2005 Ex.P81/30.11.2017 : is the details of the stationary bills Ex.P82/30.11.2017 : is the pertaining to Lakshmi Bharathi Syndicate etc., Ex.P83/30.11.2017 : is the Assignments pertains to S.Bhavani Ex.P84/07.02.2018 : is the is the FIR by PW-18 14
FOR DEFENCE
Ex.D1 is the extract taken from the internet by PW-18 Ex.D2 is the extract taken from the internet by PW-18 Ex.D.3/14.6.2018 : Letter from international institute for population sciences Ex.D.4/14.6.2018 : Utilization certificate Ex.D.5/14.6.2018 : Statement of accounts of RHS-RCH phage II project for the years 1999-00 Ex.D.6/14.6.2018 : RCH project payment of fine installment for 2nd page Ex.D.7/14.6.2018 : Utilization certificate issued by Venkata Krishna Ex.D.8/14.6.2018 : Statement of Account for the years 2002 and 03 of PRC Ex.D.9/14.6.2018 : Utilization certificate issued by Venkata Krishna and Company Ex.D.10/14.6.2018 : Statement of accounts for the years 2002-03 of PRC Ex.D.11/14.6.2018 : Utilization certificate issued by Venkata Krishna and company Ex.D.12/14.6.2018 : Statements of Accounts Phage II of RHS-RCH project AU for the years 2004-05 Ex.D.13/14.6.2018 : Information from Public information officer Ex.D.14/14.6.2018 : Letter addressed by PW.2 to Professor F. Ram Ex.D.15/14.6.2018 : Letter written by Dr. Chandra Sekhar xx Sd/- V. Subba Reddy IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. //True Copy //
IV A Chief Metropolitan Magistrtate Vishakapatnam 15
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
C.C.No.720/2010
DATE OF offence: Prior to 04.08.2007 .do. report or complaint: 04.08.2007 .do. Appearance of accused: 09.06.2011 .do. commencement of trial: 07.05.2013 .do. close of trial: 15.06.2018 .do. sentence or order: 29.06.2018
EXPLANATION FOR THE : The delay is due to non-production of witnesses DELAY:by the prosecution.
Remarks: No witness was detained for more than 3 days.
JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.720/2010 in Cr.No.04/2007 of III Town Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
COMPLAINANT:: The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
The name of the accused, : A-1: Prof. Mushini Vivekananda Murthy, S/o parentage, residence, etc.: Nagabhushanam, 56 yrs, Settibalija, R/o Flat No. 187, D.No.1-119-1/1, Sector-XII, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam City. Ex-Honorary Director, Population Research Centre, Visakhapatnam.
A-2: Sinku Brahmaiah, S/o Subbarayudu, 47 yrs, Vysya, R/o D.No.7-1-85, Opp. To AU Gate, Visakhapatnam City. N/o Main Bazar, Kazhipeta, Cuddapah, AP. Jr. Asst. in Population Research Center, Visakhapatnam. Offence:: Under sections 420(B), 409 r/w 34, 468 r/w 34, 471 r/w 34, 477(A) r/w 34, 420 r/w 34 IPC
Finding: A-1 & A-2 found not guilty
Sentence: In the result, the A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 120(B), 409 r/w 34, 468 r/w 34, 471 r/w 34, 477(A) r/w 34, 420 r/w 34 IPC accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,. the bail bonds of the accused shall be stand discharged after six months. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. xx Sd/- V. Subba Reddy
IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
// True Copy //
IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 16