State Of Andhra Pradesh Through Cbi v. M. Durga Prasad And Others

Order

1. Altogether eight persons were put on trial for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 465 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation by his judgment dated 19-1-1998 passed in CC No. 8 of 1995 acquitted Accused 5, M. Laila Kumari and Accused 7, A. Nageswara Rao while holding the other accused persons guilty of the charges levelled against them.

2. Aggrieved by their conviction A-1, G. Venkateswarlu; A-2, M. Durga Prasad; A-3, T. Hanumantha Rao; A-4, M. Chakrapani; A-6, K. Pulla Reddy and A-8, P. Siva Rama Prasad preferred separate appeals. All the appeals were heard together and by a common judgment dated 14-8-2003 2004 Cri LJ 242 (AP) the Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted them of all the charges. Aggrieved by their acquittal the appellant has preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court.

3. According to the prosecution, Accused 3 T. Hanumantha Rao, Respondent 6 herein was a contractor doing civil contracts. He entered into a conspiracy with E. Subhash and Sheik Bhasha, who later on were declared as approver and examined as PW 1 and PW 2, to cheat the Income Tax Department and in furtherance of their plan in collusion with Accused 1 G. Venkateswarlu, Respondent 5 herein who was working as Income Tax Officer, filed bogus income tax returns in the names of fictitious persons and claimed income tax refunds.

4. The case of the prosecution further is that Accused 6 K. Pulla Reddy and Accused 8 P. Siva Rama Prasad that is Respondent 3 and Respondent 2 herein respectively introduced Accused 3 T. Hanumantha Rao to open savings bank accounts with Syndicate Bank, Union Bank of India, State Bank of India and Vysya Bank and thus facilitated Accused 3 to impersonate these fictitious persons to encash the refund orders. The further case of the prosecution is that Accused 2, M. Durga Prasad and Accused 4 M. Chakrapani, Respondent 1 and Respondent 4 herein respectively dishonestly helped Accused 3 in getting credited the amounts in the names of different fictitious persons and thus facilitated him to withdraw the funds on various dates from Syndicate Bank. The prosecution has further alleged that Accused 1 G. Venkateswarlu who was working as Income Tax Officer knowing fully well that the income tax returns were filed in the names of fictitious persons, dishonestly and fraudulently processed and sanctioned the refund to a tune of Rs 3,92,552.

5. It is relevant here to state that Accused 1 G. Venkateswarlu, Respondent 5, the Income Tax Officer who had sanctioned refund of the amount had died during the pendency of the appeal and as such this appeal so far as it concerns him had abated. The trial court on appreciation of evidence convicted the respondents as above but on appeal the High Court had acquitted all the accused persons.

6. While acquitting Accused 2 M. Durga Prasad the High Court observed that the only evidence against him is that the specimen signature card of one Grunja Venkateswarlu was filed by him and excepting that there is no other evidence to establish the complicity of this accused and only on the ground that he signed the introductory application he cannot be held guilty. So far as Accused 3 T. Hanumantha Rao is concerned, the trial court had convicted him relying on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 who were his accomplice and later on turned approvers. On appreciation of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses the High Court found that they are not worthy of reliance and accordingly acquitted him of the charge.

7. So far as Accused 4 M. Chakrapani is concerned the High Court observed that he being a clerk in Syndicate Bank the act done by him in assisting the account-holders to fill up the forms does not lead to the conclusion that he conspired to commit the crime and accordingly he was acquitted. So far as Accused 6 K. Pulla Reddy and Accused 8 P. Siva Rama Reddy are concerned, the High Court observed that according to the prosecution itself they assisted in the opening of the accounts in the year 1986 whereas the offence has been committed in the year 1989. Such a remote act in the absence of any further material brought by the prosecution led the High Court to observe that these two accused persons cannot be held to have conspired in commission of the crime and accordingly acquitted them.

8. Mr A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, whereas the respondents have been represented by Mr A.T.M Rangaramanujam, learned Senior Counsel, Mr Roy Abraham, Mr Chandan Kumar and Mr R. Santhana Krishnan, learned counsel.

9. It is well settled that this Court interferes with an order of acquittal only when it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the High Court while acquitting the accused is not a possible view. The reasons for acquittal of the respondents given by the High Court have been incorporated in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and on perusal thereof it cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court is not a possible view. Mr Mariarputham, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any reason from which it can be inferred that the view taken by the High Court is in any way perverse. Once it is held so the order of acquittal does not need any interference at our hands.

10. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.