Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Siripurapu Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 August, 2022

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2797 of 2021

ORDER:-

       This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed, by the A5 in

C.C.No.554 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Vizianagaram, to quash the

proceedings against him in the said case, which was taken

on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC by

the learned Magistrate.

2.    The Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle,

laid charge sheet against A1 to A8 for the offences

punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC

in Crime No.21 of 2019 of Vizianagaram Rural Police

Station with the following averments.

     One Sri Gattimi Janaki Ram (L.W.1), a Ship Designer

at Vizag gave report on 29.01.2019 that the accused

persons have cheated him by offering an antique coin said

to be worth of crores of rupees and collected Rs.2,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs) during the month of December, 2018

and that on 25th January, 2019 he was called to

Vizianagaram and then he went there along with his friend

by name Vadupu Tulasiram Anand Kumar (L.W.2) who also

brought cash of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only)

accompanied by Sri Chinabaligari Ramesh (L.W.3) and that
                                  2




they were taken to a Mango tope near Gotlam Railway

Station and they were shown with a coin and stated that it

costs about Rs.30 crores in the open market and collected

Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) from them and

in the meanwhile, one person in police uniform came there

and on seeing him the A1 to A4, A6 to A8 have escaped

with cash and also with the coin. Thereafter the person

who came in police uniform also left the place. By

registering the said report, investigation was taken up by

the police. In the course of investigation, A1, A2 and A3, A4

were arrested on 31.01.2019 at about 10.40 a.m., and 5.00

p.m.,   respectively      and   that     the     petitioner/A5        has

surrendered     himself    before      the     Inspector    of     Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle (L.W.12) and so similarly on

15.7.2019 the A6 and A8 were arrested when they have

surrendered     themselves      and     that     A7   who        obtained

conditional bail also appeared before the same Inspector of

Police (L.W.12) on 11.8.2019. On recording the confessional

statements of all the accused and seizure of some cash

from each one of them, which was collected from the

de facto complainant and his friend (L.Ws 1 and 2

respectively)   and    other    material        objects    and       after

conducting test identification parade for A4 and A5, the

charge sheet was laid alleging that A5 who was working at

then as Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS, Vizianagaram had
                                   3




shared common intention with the other accused and as

per preplan he entered the scene of offence when the other

accused have already collected money from the victims and

after the accused all left the scene of offence, he went away

from there. Thus, all the accused including the A5 the

petitioner herein have committed the offences in pursuance

of conspiracy as stated above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the

same allegations leveled in the charge sheet, enquiry has

been conducted by the departmental authorities and the

petitioner was exonerated in that departmental enquiry and

when once the petitioner has been exonerated from the

charges, the question of initiating Criminal Proceedings

against him would not arise. Apart from the said ground,

he also contended that except the confessional statements

of co-accused, there is no other material connecting the

petitioner/A5 with the crime.

4.    Learned     counsel   for       the    2nd   respondent     fairly

conceded that there is no grievance against the

petitioner/A5 and that the entire accusation made is only

against the other accused.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed to allow

the petition, accepted that the A5/petitioner herein was

exonerated from the charges in the departmental enquiry.

6. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the entire

record.

7. It is alleged that all the accused dishonesty cheated

the complainant/2nd respondent and his friend by name

V.T. Anand by exhibiting false copper coin and made them

to believe that it is an antique coin, which has supernatural

power and the value of the said coin is nearly Rs.30 Crores

in the international market and demanded Rs.30 Lakhs

and also made false promise that they would dispose of the

same coin with huge profits, thereby deceived them by

receiving an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from them. Later

basing on the complaint of 2nd respondent, a case in Crime

No.21 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC against all

the accused.

7. The department through the Deputy Inspector

General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, has conducted

enquiry vide C.No.77/PR/Genl/2019-2020,

dated 15.12.2020 against the A5/petitioner with regard to

this case. During the enquiry, the officer has examined as

many as fourteen (14) witnesses and recorded their

statements and after considering the same, the officer came

to conclusion that there is no truth in the allegations

leveled against the petitioner.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath

Tewari Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow,

CBI and others1 held

"31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case." After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as follows:-

"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

LAWS (SC) 2020 948

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases." It finally concluded:

"39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court." From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report

on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.

8. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22.12.2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code."

9. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that when once the accused is exonerated before

the adjudicating authority on merits but not on

technicality, the prosecution on the same set of facts

cannot be allowed. It is trite that the standard of proof

required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required

before the adjudicating authority. In this case, the

petitioner/A5 is exonerated from the charges in the enquiry,

not on technicality. On this ground, this Court feels that

continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be

nothing but abuse of process of Court.

10. The other ground relied upon by the learned counsel for