Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr.K.Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 2024
1
GN, J.
W.P.No.30961 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[
3462
]
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
APHC010634402018
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 30961 OF 2018
Between:
Mr.K.Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. V R MACHAVARAM
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
Cases, appearing for the 2nd respondent.
2) The petitioner is before this Court impugning the order of
sanction, dated 16.02.2018, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.77,
whereby the competent authority was pleased to grant sanction
to the 2nd respondent to prosecute the petitioner before the
designated Court for the offences punishable under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,
"the P.C.Act"). The impugned order is assailed on the short
ground of it being vitiated by non-application of mind.
GN, J.
3) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that,
while the petitioner was working as an In-charge Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer at Kadapa, the 2nd respondent initiated
investigations and pursuant to that it determined that the
petitioner possessed income, highly disproportionate to his
known sources of income. On the said basis, search warrants
were got issued by the Special Judge for Special Police
Establishment and Anti Corruption Bureau Cases, Vijayawada,
on 06.10.2010 and in pursuance of the warrants, the
residential and office premises of the petitioner and his relatives
were searched. The Bank Locker No.16 at Andhra Bank,
Emani Village of Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District, was also
subjected to search. Pursuant to the searches, inventories were
prepared and various articles found in the various premises
and the information gleaned from the petitioner and his family
members were drawn-up and after giving reasonable
allowances, the 2nd respondent computed the income of the
petitioner from known sources and concluded that the income
from known sources for the relevant check-period amounted to
Rs.78,53,578/- and after giving deductions towards expenses
at the rate of 33%, concluded that the assets available in the
GN, J.
hands of the petitioner would amount to Rs.44,83,840/-. But,
the computation of the assets revealed that the total value of
the assets seized amounted to Rs.3,72,90,161/-, in other
words, nearly eight times more than the known sources of
income. The said materials along with the copy of the F.I.R.,
statements of witnesses, inventory proceedings and final report
were placed before the competent authority and the competent
authority, after applying its mind, has proceeded to consider it
a case which requires to be taken to its logical end, thereby
permitting the prosecution of the petitioner before the
designated Court. Paras.4, 5, 7 and 8 of the impugned order
read thus:
"4. AND WHEREAS, initially at the time of
registration of the Cases, the then Inquiring Officer has taken
the Check Period from 07-11-1981 to 08-10-2010 i.e, from the
date of joining into service to the date of searches. But,
subsequently the check period for calculation of the Assets,
Income and Expenditure of Sri Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao is
taken from 31.12.1995 (ie., subsequent to the previous check
period in Cr.No.6/RCA-TPT/1995) till date of house searches
on 08.10.2010.
5. AND WHEREAS, it is alleged that Sri Kondaveeti
Srinivasa Rao, formerly I/c Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Kadapa acquired assets on his name and
in the names of his family members to the extent of
Rs.4,17,74,001-00 (RUPEES FOUR CRORES SEVENTEEN
GN, J.
LAKHS SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND AND ONE ONLY) during
the said check period. The total income of Sri Kondaveeti
Srinivasa Rao, formerly I/c Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Kadapa from all the above sources during
the above check period is estimated as Rs.78,53,678-00
(RUPEES SEVENTY EIGHT LAKHS FIFTY THREE THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT ONLY). The total
expenditure of Sri Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao, formerly
I/c.Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kadapa
during the check period is worked out to Rs.33,69,738-00
(RUPEES THIRTY THREE LAKHS SIXTY NINE THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY EIGHT ONLY). The likely
savings of Sri Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao, formerly I/c.Deputy
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kadapa during the check
period was Rs.44,83,840-00 (RUPEES FORTY FOUR LAKHS
EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY
ONLY). As such, Sri Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao, formerly
I/c.Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kadapa was
in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.3,72,90,161-00
(RUPEES THREE CRORES SEVENTY TWO LAKHS NINETY
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE ONLY). (Total
Assets of Rs.4,17,74,001-00 - Rs.44,83,840-00 likely
savings) which he acquired by corrupt and dubious methods
and failed to account satisfactorily.
6. .....
7. AND WHEREAS, after completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer served notice to the
accused officer on 09.04.2011 and also issued two reminder
notices on 23.04.2011 and 08.05.2011 to offer his
explanation and issued another notice on 22.09.2017, on
receipt of the order of the Hon‟ble High Court in Criminal
Petition No.5171 of 2011 dated 11.09.2017, but he did not
GN, J.
offer his explanation till date, even though opportunity was
given to him.
8. AND WHEREAS, the Government of Andhra
Pradesh being the competent authority to remove Sri
Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao, worked as I/c. Deputy
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kadapa, from service
after fully and carefully examining the material i.e. copy of
FIR, Inventory Proceedings, Statements of Witnesses and
relevant record and Final Report placed before them in
respect of the above said allegation and having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, consider that Sri
Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao, formerly I/c. Deputy Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes, Kadapa should be prosecuted in a court
of law."
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously
contend that the sanctioning authority has failed to see that the
amount listed as having been available in the Bank Accounts
has been doubled without any justification and that though the
amounts totaled only about Rs.20,00,000/-, the same has
been recorded as Rs.1,20,00,000/-; similarly, a property
document, where the value of the property has been recorded
as Rs.4,00,000/-, has been valued at Rs.19,00,000/-; and
pointing out these instances, he would submit that it has to be
concluded that the competent authority has failed to address
itself to the material on record and thereby failed in applying its
GN, J.
mind and hence, the same vitiates the impugned order of
sanction.
5) In the considered opinion of this Court, the case
canvassed is one that ought to be canvassed and adjudicated
by the Courts of Law. It is no more res integra that the
sanction proceeding is an administrative act. That being so
and further in the light of the settled position, that the
delinquent has no right of audience before the sanctioning
authority, it can be safely and is accordingly concluded, that
the act of granting of permission is not an adversarial
proceeding, as the order does not also automatically result in a
conviction. It merely permits the prosecuting agency to set in
motion the proceedings before the Courts of Law.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further place
reliance on the ruling of the Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in the
case of State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan1 and in particular
placed reliance on the observations in para.7, which read thus:
"7. We agree that an order of sanction should not be
construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled
that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to
be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the
(2007) 11 SCC 273
GN, J.
sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to
whether the public servant concerned should receive the
protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his
prosecution or not."
7) This Court has no quarrel with the proposition of law laid
down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. It is but a well settled
proposition, that the competent authority issuing the sanction
order is not required to be judgmental nor is the order of
sanction, be adjudicatory in nature. The proceeding of the
competent authority is merely required to reflect a subjective
satisfaction of the competent authority, arrived at on an
objective appraisal of the material placed before it. As noted
supra, a reading of Paras.4 to 6 and 8, clearly establishes the
fact that the competent authority has applied its mind to the
material placed before it and has concluded that the assets
available in the hands of the delinquent are disproportionate to
the known sources of income and in that view of the matter,
this Court does not find any good ground, which would enable
the Court to draw a conclusion that the order impugned is
vitiated by non-application of mind.
GN, J.
8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian
Swamy v. Manmohan Singh2, observed as under:
"20. The learned Attorney General argued that the
question of grant of sanction for prosecution of a public
servant charged with any of the offences enumerated in
Section 19(1) arises only at the stage when the court decides
to take cognizance and any request made prior to that is
premature. He submitted that the embargo contained in
Section 19(1) of the Act is applicable to the court which is
competent to take cognizance of an offence punishable under
Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed
by a public servant and there is no provision for grant of
sanction at a stage before the competent court applies its
mind to the issue of taking cognizance.
34. The argument of the learned Attorney General that
the question of granting sanction for prosecution of a public
servant charged with an offence under the 1988 Act arises
only at the stage of taking cognizance and not before that is
neither supported by the plain language of the section nor the
judicial precedents relied upon by him. Though, the term
"cognizance" has not been defined either in the 1988 Act or
CrPC, the same has acquired a definite meaning and
connotation from various judicial precedents. In legal
parlance cognizance is "taking judicial notice by the court of
law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented
before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for
initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or
matter judicially".
(2012) 3 SCC 64
GN, J.
44. We may also observe that grant or refusal of
sanction is not a quasi-judicial function and the person for
whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be
heard by the competent authority before it takes a decision in
the matter. What is required to be seen by the competent
authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a
given case, may include the material collected by the
complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose
commission of an offence by a public servant. If the
competent authority is satisfied that the material placed
before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant,
then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the
competent authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction.
In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a
citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels
aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail of appropriate
legal remedy.
46. In Vineet Narain [(1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 264] , the Court referred to the allegations made in the
writ petition that the government agencies like CBI and the
Revenue Authorities have failed to perform their duties and
legal obligations inasmuch as they did not investigate into the
matters arising out of seizure of the so-called "Jain Diaries" in
certain raids conducted by CBI. The Court took note of the
allegation that the arrest of some terrorists led to the
discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and
illegal means and a nexus between several important
politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of
money from unlawful sources, and proceeded to observe:
(Vineet Narain case [(1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 264] ,
SCC pp. 200-01, para 3)
GN, J.
"3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do
indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this
matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure
that all government agencies, entrusted with the duty to
discharge their functions and obligations in accordance
with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of
equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet
of the rule of law: „Be you ever so high, the law is above
you.‟ Investigation into every accusation made against
each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective
of the position and status of that person, must be
conducted and completed expeditiously. This is
imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
working of the government agencies."
47. After examining various facets of the matter in detail, the
three-Judge Bench in its final order in Vineet Narain [(1998) 1
SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] observed: (SCC p. 268, paras
55-56)
"55. These principles of public life are of general
application in every democracy and one is expected to
bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every
holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of
public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be
exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office
is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from
the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach
of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being
pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an
offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender
against whom a prima facie case is made out should be
prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is
upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the
GN, J.
judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to
guard against erosion of the rule of law.
56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life
leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also
has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from
the International Monetary Fund and World Bank who
have warned that future aid to underdeveloped countries
may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to
eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid
from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing
corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of
value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in
public life through the medium of public interest litigation
invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is
not unknown in other countries: R. v. Secy. of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World
Development Movement Ltd. [(1995) 1 WLR 386 : (1995) 1
All ER 611] "
48. In para 58 of the judgment in Vineet Narain [(1998) 1 SCC
226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] , the Court gave several directions
in relation to CBI, CVC and the Enforcement Directorate. In
para 58(I)(15), the Court gave the following direction: (SCC p.
270)
"58. (I)(15) Time-limit of three months for grant of
sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to.
However, additional time of one month may be allowed
where consultation is required with the Attorney General
(AG) or any other law officer in the AG's office."
49. CVC, after taking note of the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab [1996
Cri LJ 2962 (P&H)] , State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp
GN, J.
(1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192] , Supt. of Police (CBI) v.
Deepak Chowdhary [(1995) 6 SCC 225 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1095]
, framed guidelines which were circulated vide Office Order
No. 31/5/05 dated 12-5-2005. The relevant clauses of the
guidelines are extracted below:
"2(i) Grant of sanction is an administrative act. The
purpose is to protect the public servant from harassment
by frivolous or vexatious prosecution and not to shield the
corrupt. The question of giving opportunity to the public
servant at that stage does not arise. The sanctioning
authority has only to see whether the facts would prima
facie constitute the offence.
(ii) The competent authority cannot embark upon an
inquiry to judge the truth of the allegations on the basis
of representation which may be filed by the accused
person before the sanctioning authority, by asking the IO
to offer his comments or to further investigate the matter
in the light of representation made by the accused person
or by otherwise holding a parallel investigation/enquiry
by calling for the record/report of his department.
***
(vii) However, if in any case, the sanctioning authority
after consideration of the entire material placed before it,
entertains any doubt on any point the competent
authority may specify the doubt with sufficient particulars
and may request the authority who has sought sanction
to clear the doubt. But that would be only to clear the
doubt in order that the authority may apply its mind
properly, and not for the purpose of considering the
representations of the accused which may be filed while
the matter is pending sanction.
GN, J.
(viii) If the sanctioning authority seeks the comments of
the IO while the matter is pending before it for sanction, it
will almost be impossible for the sanctioning authority to
adhere to the time-limit allowed by the Supreme Court in
Vineet Narain case [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
307] ."
50. The aforementioned guidelines are in conformity with the
law laid down by this Court that while considering the issue
regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which
the competent authority is required to see is whether the
material placed by the complainant or the investigating
agency prima facie discloses commission of an offence. The
competent authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to
decide whether or not the allegations made against the public
servant are true.
54. It is not possible to appreciate that even though the
appellant repeatedly wrote letters to Respondent 1
highlighting the seriousness of the allegations made in his
first representation and the fact that he had already supplied
the facts and documents which could be made the basis for
grant of sanction to prosecute Respondent 2 and also pointed
out that as per the judgments of this Court, detailed inquiry
was not required to be made into the allegations, the officers
concerned in the PMO kept the matter pending and then took
the shelter of the fact that CBI had registered the case and
the investigation was pending. In our view, the officers in the
PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, were duty-bound to
apprise Respondent 1 about seriousness of allegations made
by the appellant and the judgments of this Court including
the directions contained in para 58(I) of the judgment in
Vineet Narain case [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] as
GN, J.
also the guidelines framed by CVC so as to enable him to take
appropriate decision in the matter.
55. By the very nature of the office held by him, Respondent 1
is not expected to personally look into the minute details of
each and every case placed before him and has to depend on
his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were
expected to give proper advice to Respondent 1 and place full
facts and legal position before him failed to do so. We have no
doubt that if Respondent 1 had been apprised of the true
factual and legal position regarding the representation made
by the appellant, he would have surely taken appropriate
decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a
period of more than one year.
56. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. It is declared that the appellant had the right to file
a complaint for prosecuting Respondent 2. However, keeping
in view the fact that the Court of the Special Judge, CBI has
already taken cognizance of the offences allegedly committed
by Respondent 2 under the 1988 Act, we do not consider it
necessary to give any other direction in the matter. At the
same time, we deem it proper to observe that in future every
competent authority shall take appropriate action on the
representation made by a citizen for sanction of the
prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the
direction contained in Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1
SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] and the guidelines framed by
CVC.
61. In Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [(1998) 6 SCC
411 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1455] , this Court compared Section 19
of the PC Act with Section 197 of the Code. After considering
several decisions on the point and also considering Section 6
GN, J.
of the old PC Act, 1947 which is almost identical with Section
19 of the PC Act, 1988 and also noting the Law Commission's
Report, this Court in para 13 of Kalicharan [(1998) 6 SCC 411
: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1455] came to the following conclusions:
(SCC pp. 415-16)
"13. ... The sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the
Code concerns a public servant who „is accused of any
offence alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty‟, whereas the offences contemplated in the PC Act
are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly
or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official
duties. Parliament must have desired to maintain the
distinction and hence the wording in the corresponding
provision in the former PC Act was materially imported in
the new PC Act, 1988 without any change in spite of the
change made in Section 197 of the Code."
62. The above passage in Kalicharan [(1998) 6 SCC 411 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1455] has been quoted with approval
subsequently by this Court in Lalu Prasad v. State of Bihar
[(2007) 1 SCC 49 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] SCC at p. 54, para
9. In para 10, this Court held in Lalu Prasad [(2007) 1 SCC 49
: (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] that: (SCC p. 54)
"10. ... Section 197 of the Code and Section 19 of the Act
operate in conceptually different fields."
9) That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
make a further attempt, to draw the Court into an exercise of
computation and would endeavor to point out that a certain
assets have been excessively valued or over-valued. For
GN, J.
instance, the balance available in the bank accounts and the
value of a particular immovable property, are pointed out as
illustrations. Even assuming for argument sake, credit can be
given to such an argument and even if the said amounts are
discounted, still the amount in the hands of the petitioner/
delinquent is highly disproportionate to his known sources of
income. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find
any merit in it.
10) At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
respondent would submit that the petitioner had preferred a
petition invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
canvassing the merits of the case and a Co-ordinate Bench,
after considering the matter on merits, has been pleased to
reject the same.
11) It is seen that the F.I.R. was registered on 06.10.2010.
Despite the passage of nearly fourteen years, the prosecution is
yet to reach its logical end. If such state of affairs is permitted,
it would only sound the death knell of the A.C.B.‟s efforts to
curb corrupt practices in the State machinery. In that view
also, this Court deems it necessary to direct the concerned
Court i.e., the Special Judge for Special Police Establishment
GN, J.
and Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases, Vijayawada, to expedite the
hearing and disposal of the case. The 2nd respondent shall take
all steps to co-operate for early disposal of the case. At any
rate, the Special Court shall endeavor to hear and dispose of
the case within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
12) It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove
are for the purpose of disposal of the instant Writ Petition and
the trial Court shall consider the material placed before it
independently and pass appropriate orders and not construe
the observations as a pronouncement on the merits of the case.
13) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
Date:25.01.2024.
Note:
1) Mark a copy of this order to the jurisdictional trial Court.
2) L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O
cs
GN, J.
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
+ Writ Petition No.30961 of 2018
% Dated 25-01-2024
# K.Srinivasa Rao
..... Petitioner
Vs.
$ 1.The State of A.P., rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue (Vigilance-II) Dept., Velagapudi, A.P. & Anr.
..Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.R. Machavaram
^ Counsel for the 1st Respondent : Ld.G.P. for Revenue
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent : Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy,
Ld.Standing Counsel-cum-
Spl. P.P. for ACB
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred :
1. (2007) 11 SCC 273
2. (2012) 3 SCC 64
GN, J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
+ Writ Petition No.30961 of 2018
K.Srinivasa Rao
..... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of A.P., rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue (Vigilance-II) Dept., Velagapudi, A.P. & Anr.
..Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25-01-2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDER
1) Whether Reporters of Local newspapers -Yes-
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2) Whether the copies of judgment may be marked -Yes-
to
Law Reporters/Journals
3) Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the -Yes-
fair copy of the Judgment?
JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
