Telangana High Court

Raziya Sulthana vs The State Of Telangana on 19 January, 2023

Bench: G.Radha Rani

     THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.248 OF 2020


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-Accused

No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.691 of

2019 in C.C. No.2826 of 2018 passed by the I-Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in dismissing the discharge

petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.1.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet filed by

the Inspector of Police, CID, RO, Warangal, was that on 18.01.1995,

the Joint Director (Vigilance), Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad

lodged a complaint at CID police Station, Hyderabad stating that as

per the instructions of the Director of Social Welfare, he along with

his staff, surprised the hostels in Warangal District and seized the

hostel records and conducted enquiry into the various financial

irregularities and misappropriation of funds for the year 1993-94.

During the year 1993-94, the Director, Social Welfare Department

released an amount of Rs.238.83 lakhs towards maintenance of 94 Dr.GRR,J

Social Welfare Hostels in Warangal District. The Director of

Treasuries and Accounts Department had also issued authorization to

the District Treasury Officer, Warangal to release the above amount.

As per the expenditure statement obtained from the District Treasury

Officer, Warangal, the Wardens of 100 hostels of Warangal District

had drawn an amount of Rs.276.77 lakhs instead of an amount of

Rs.238.83 lakhs released, thus they had drawn an excess amount of

Rs.37.97 lakhs without any authorization from the Government

through false claims by producing fake receipts and vouchers by

maintaining false attendance registers with the connivance of accused

Nos.3, 4 and 8. The complainant cited 50 names in his petition; 32

Wardens/Matrons, 5 Assistant Social Welfare Officers, Deputy

Director, District Social Welfare Officer, Assistant Accounts Officer

of Welfare Department, District Treasury Officer, 3 Sub-Treasury

Officers and 6 Senior Accountants of 32 hostels including the

petitioner-accused No.1 Smt. Razia Sultana.

3. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 1995

for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) and

120-B IPC was registered by the CID Police, Hyderabad. During the Dr.GRR,J

course of investigation, the Investigating Officers collected the

original documents from the concerned departments, examined

witnesses, conducted special audit of mis-appropriated amount,

forwarded the fake bills to the Director FSL, Hyderabad for expert

opinion, obtained prosecution orders against all the accused and filed

separate charge sheets against the accused for individual hostels and

obtained C.C. numbers as 176 to 186 of 2012, 190 to 202/2012.

During the year 2018, he filed charge sheet vide C.C. No.2826 of

2018 against the petitioner-accused No.1 who worked in Narasampet

Hostel against others vide C.C. No.2827 of 2018 who worked in

Nallabelli and C.C. No.2828 of 2018 at Vardhannapet Hostel. The

Investigating Officer alleged that A1 to A9 conspired with each other

and hatched out a plan to mis-appropriate the government funds.

According to their plan, the accused prepared and claimed false bills,

produced fake receipts and vouchers in the name of creditors and

suppliers, maintained false attendance registers of boarders, prepared

bills in excess than the eligibility and got the bills sanctioned directly

by routing through the second and immediate superior officers,

purchased the commodities and claimed the bills under various heads

of accounts.

Dr.GRR,J

4. It was further mentioned in the charge sheet that Accused

No.1 voluntarily admitted the mis-appropriation of government funds

and repaid an amount of Rs.70,052/- to the government by way of

challan towards the amounts misappropriated by her in the State Bank

of Hyderabad, Hanmakonda branch. After completion of

investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against A1

to A9 for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477(A)

and 120(B) IPC and reported that A3 and A9 died during the course of

investigation on 22.10.2005 and 08.10.2008 respectively.

5. The trial was conducted in C.C. Nos.7/2010, 751/1999,

802/2004, 185/2012, 176/2012 and 202 of 2012 and the accused

persons in the said cases were acquitted. Thereafter, the petitioner-

Accused No.1 filed a discharge petition vide Crl.M.P. No.691 of 2009

in C.C. No.2826 of 2018 pointing out the latches in the investigation

stating that the charge sheet was filed without verifying the audit

report, the auditor who audited the accounts did not follow the

procedure of audit and the same was not corroborated by Government

Audit Report. A departmental enquiry was conducted against her and

found that she was not involved in the fraud or mis-appropriation of Dr.GRR,J

funds and she was reinstated into service. The statements of the

witnesses and the Government Orders based on which the

Investigating Officer came to a conclusion that the petitioner had

committed the offence, had not been filed along with the charge sheet.

The original FIR and the complaint were not filed. The Audit was not

conducted by the auditors appointed by G.O.Rt.No.46. Having

completed her service, she retired and filed O.A. No.8642 of 2012

before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to quash the

proceedings of the District Collector, Warangal as her pension was

stopped. The same was allowed by the Tribunal. Against the orders

in O.A. No.8642 of 2012, the Department preferred an appeal,

however, on the advice of the Government Pleader of the High Court,

no appeal was preferred by the department and pension was released.

The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were closed. As

she was exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, she was liable for

discharge. As the accused persons in the other calendar cases were

acquitted, the continuation of the present proceedings against her was

incorrect.

6. The Police, CID filed counter.

Dr.GRR,J

7. On considering the contentions of both the counsel for the

petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned I-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warnagal, dismissed the

petition.

8. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner-Accused

No.1 preferred this revision contending that the Investigating Officer

filed 30 charge sheets against 47 accused before the trial court and in

left over three charge sheets against three accused were filed in the

year 2018-19. The trial court gave full effect of trial in 30 Calendar

Cases and acquitted 47 accused and delivered common judgments

dated 26.02.2018 and 29.08.2018. The prosecution miserably failed to

prove the guilt of 47 accused. The final report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. in CC No.2826 of 2018 in Crime No.4 of 1995 was filed on

10.09.2018 before the trial court after 25 years. None of the

allegations made against the petitioner would constitute any offence

punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) and

120(B) IPC. The trial court, without looking into any material to

proceed against the petitioner, concluded prima facie that the material

available was sufficient to proceed against the petitioner and Dr.GRR,J

committed an error in dismissing the discharge petition. The

impugned order was perverse on the face of it. The mis-appropriated

amount pertained to three years i.e. 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, but

the petitioner's working period was only for one year and only in one

hostel i.e. Government Social Welfare Girls Hostel, Narasampet. The

petitioner's right to fair and speedy trial was defeated due to the delay

in filing the charge sheet. The continuation of criminal proceedings

would not serve a fruitful result. For the same set of facts, allegations,

same charges and same evidence, the other accused persons were

acquitted in 30 Calendar Cases. Accused Nos.2 to 8 were common

accused in all the 33 Calendar Cases. A1 was neither a drawing

officer nor disbursing officer in C.C. No.2826 of 2018. No

preliminary enquiry was conducted by the CID Officials before

registering the crime and issuing the FIR. The petitioner was declared

as disbursing officer to the limited extent of pay and allowances vide

G.O.Ms.No.235, Social Welfare (E) Department, dated 07.10.1978.

The Deputy Director, Social Welfare had been declared as sanctioning

authority of diet charges and other bills to the hostels and the Assistant

Accounts Officer, Office of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare had

been declared as Drawing and Disbursing Officer to the hostels vide Dr.GRR,J

G.O.Ms.No.112 SW (B1) Department, dated 24.07.1982. Therefore,

the petitioner-accused No.1 was not authorized to draw funds and it

was the DDO/Assistant Accounts Officer of Government Social

Welfare Girls Hostel, Narasampet, who had drawn an amount of

Rs.70,052/- from the Treasury in the year 1993-94 and the bills were

sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Warangal. The

prosecution failed to produce any material to show as to how the

petitioner was connected to the case. The Investigating Officer mis-

informed the trial court that the petitioner voluntarily admitted the

guilt of mis-appropriation of government funds and repaid the

amounts to Government by way of challan. The petitioner had not

remitted any amounts to the Government as per the records of the

Government Social Welfare Department. As the petitioner did not

mis-appropriate any government funds, the question of repaying

would not arise at all. The Investigating Officer had not filed the

remitted challans for fair trial. As the Government had not entrusted

any funds/supply of rice and food items to petitioner-Accused No.1

for the year 1993-94, the question of mis-appropriation of funds

would not arise. The court could not take cognizance as original bills

and vouchers were already destroyed by the Accountant General Dr.GRR,J

office. The Investigating Officer had fabricated the FSL report by

sending false bills and vouchers. When the original bills were

destroyed in 2004, the Investigating Officer could not send the

original bills in August, 2015 to the FSL. Any of the provisions of the

offences under IPC were not attracted against the petitioner. The

enquiry officer, who conducted the departmental enquiry, found that

the petitioner was not involved in any fraud or mis-appropriation of

funds. Thus, the petitioner was reinstated into service. The reasons

given by the trial court for dismissing the discharge petition were

unsustainable, and prayed to set aside the order dated 18.12.2019 in

Crl.M.P. No.691 of 2019 in C.C. No.2826 of 2018 in Crime No.04 of

1995 passed by the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal.

9. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed written

arguments.

Dr.GRR,J

11. Perused the record. The petitioner was working as a

Warden in the Social Welfare Girls Hostel, Narasampet in Warangal

District at the relevant time. As per her contention, she worked for

one year only, out of the total period of three years, in the hostel

where the mis-appropriation of funds was alleged. As per the charge

sheet, she worked during the financial year 1993-94 at the Girls

Hostel, Narasampet. Every year, the Government would allot budget

district wise for the maintenance of the social welfare hostels of all

districts in the State. At the District Level, basing on the budget

received from the Government, the Deputy Director, Social Welfare

with the assistance of D.S.W.O. and A.A.O. would re-allot hostel-wise

budget to hostels once in every quarter from April to March after

taking the approximate monthly expenditure of each hostel as per the

strength of boarders of the [email protected] Rs.150/-, 160/- per month per

boarder into consideration. The budget allotment would be treasury

head-wise and the 270 'head' is concerned to the diet charges of the

hostel. He would issue budget allotment proceeding and communicate

to the Wardens of the Hostels and he would also communicate the

same to the District Treasury Officer. The District Treasury Officer

in-turn would approve it and communicate the same to all the Sub-

Dr.GRR,J

Treasuries of the District authorizing them to release Government cash

from Government Treasury as per budget allotted by the DDSW for

the maintenance of Social Welfare Hostels. The amount would be

paid to the Wardens through Bank wherever S.B.H. Branch was

available and cash would be paid from Treasury itself, if the S.B.H.

Branch was not available. While collecting money from the Bank, the

Warden should take cash if the bill amount was less than Rs.1,000/-

and disburse it to the concerned, if the bill amount was more than

Rs.1,000/-, he should take Demand Draft in the name of the party

itself and hand over the D.D. to party under proper acknowledgment.

12. The warden of Social Welfare Hostel was authorized by the

Government to run the hostel on credit purchase and clear the credit

dues after drawing the cash from the Government Treasury as per

procedure. He should purchase provisions and Vegetables, mutton,

chicken, eggs, fire-wood etc., in local market on credit as per the

requirements of the hostel as per the strength of the boarders @

Rs.150/-,160/- per month per boarder grade. He should enter all the

food provisions purchased on credit and the provisions received

through Departmental supply in the stock and issue register of the Dr.GRR,J

hostel and the page number of that register must be mentioned on

credit vouchers (original and duplicate) as a proof of that he entered

the purchased food provisions in the stock and issue Register of the

hostel. Subsequently the stock would be stored in the hostels store

room. Later he would issue food provisions from the hostel stock to

the cook daily as per the day requirement. The day-wise consumption

should be entered in the stock and issue Register invariably. The

warden should obtain credit vouchers in duplicate from the party from

whom he purchases food provisions on credit. The warden in the first

week of succeeding month should prepare the monthly bill in

duplicate in APT.C Form No.58 as per the credit vouchers and submit

it in duplicate to the A.S.W.O along with credit vouchers, students

attendance statement and monthly expenditure statement for his

scrutiny and approval.

13. It was further alleged that the Social Welfare Auditors had

conducted audit of the records and found the following irregularities

misappropriation of Government fund to a tune of Rs.70,052/-

(D-10):

PARA-I. Excess diet charges has been claimed (From 1.4.93 to 31.3.94) for Rs.10,041/-

Dr.GRR,J

PARA-II. Excess diet charges claimed from 1-4-93 to 31-3-94 for Rs.39, 491/-

PARA-III. Stock not accounted for in the balance sheet, stock registered (Purchased items) for Rs.10,325/-

PARA-IV. Irregular drawl of amounts towards electric repairs/charges need Recovery for Rs.10, 195/-

RECOVERY PARTICULARS

Sl. Para Amount No.

               1.       Para-I              10.041-00
               2.       Para-II             39,491-00
               3.       Para-III            10,325-00
               4.       Para-IV             10,195-00
                        Total               70,052-00

14. The CID auditors also had conducted audit on the records

and found Rs.70,052/- were misappropriated by the accused.

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner was that basing on the complaint given by the Joint Director

(Vigilance), Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad, the CID Police,

Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1995. The Investigating

Officer, after investigation, filed charge sheets splitting them into 33

criminal cases against 50 accused. 48 accused were acquitted in 31

Calendar Cases. The criminal proceedings registered against all the

50 officials were one and the same. Accused Nos.2 to 8 were Dr.GRR,J

common in all the 33 Calendar Cases. The trial court, after

conducting full-fledged trial in 31 cases acquitted all the accused. The

Government/CID, RO, Warangal had not challenged the said orders

acquitting the accused in 31 cases before any forum and the said

orders had become final and conclusive. Conducting the trial against

the petitioner after 25 years would be a futile exercise and relied upon

the judgments in CC No.210 of 2010 dated 29.08.2018 and in CC

No.178 of 2012 dated 29.08.2018.

16. On a perusal of the judgment in CC No.210 of 2010 dated

29.08.2018, the trial court observed that:

"PW.1- the Joint Director (Vigilance), Social Welfare Department, who lodged the complaint stated that he found an amount of Rs.109.50 lakhs were, over drawn above the eligibility and authorization given by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts. They verified the records as per the norms fixed by the Government under each budget head i.e. diet charges, cosmetic charges wages, electricity charges, rents etc. None of the officials shall draw excess amount than the sanctioned budget by the D.D.O. The accused No.1 the DDO in collusion with the accused Nos.4 to 7 had not accounted for the cash book, stock and issue register and other Registers and mis- appropriated the said excess amount, as such he recommended for taking action against 32 Wardens of Social Welfare hostels at Warangal, Deputy Director Social Welfare, Warangal, The Deputy Director Social Welfare Accountant, Accounts Officer and treasury officials."

The trial court further observed that:

"One of the Investigating Officer i.e. Ch.Rajaiah, Inspector of Police, CID, RCC, Warangal, had addressed a letter Dr.GRR,J

to the Additional Director General of Police, CID on 12.12.2004 to the effect that he personally verified budget control Registers of all S.T.Os to know whether the Treasury staff had released Government cash over and above the budget or not and found that all S.T.Os have released the budget to the bill amount within the budget only. No one STO found of releasing of amount over and above the budget. The Dy. Director (Vigilance) of Social Welfare Department Sri. U. Subrahmanyam in his enquiry report has wrongly alleged that the Treasury staff had released the Government cash over and above the budget allotted. But in my Investigation the said allegation was not established.

It was also further mentioned by Ch. Rajaiah in his letter that Sri U. Subrahmanyam had stated that he treated the amount drawn by the Wardens from Treasury after 31.03.1994 as over and above the budget as this release had taken place prior to the release of budget from the Government. This contention of the Deputy Director Vigilance was found as incorrect as, as per Treasury records the amount drawn by the Wardens after 31 March 1994 was clubbed in the budget of 1994-95 but not included in the budget of 1993-94. Hence the Deputy Director Vigilance findings of the amount released after 31st March 1994 as excess to the budget of 1993-94, is not correct and baseless. Moreover as per G.O. Ms. No. 144, dated 30.03.1994 of the Finance Department, the Government had authorised the Treasury staff to admit the bill of first quarter (1.4.1994 to 30.5.1994) in the pending release of budget for the year 1994-

95. Basing on the said G.O. only the Treasury staff had admitted the hostel bills passed by the D.D.S.W. in the 1st quarter of 1994-95 in the pending release of budget from the Government. However, after getting budget release proceedings for the 1st quarter of 1994-95 from D.D.S.W. the amount which was already released in the quarter in the pending budget allotment, has been adjusted in the budget released. The then Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Hyderabad Sri M.N. Keshava Rao, who conducted departmental enquiry about the involvement of Treasury staff in the Social Department scam, had mentioned that during the year 1993-94 some mis- classification was taken place in booking of the hostel bills due to the negligence of the treasury staff and the computer operators. But the Government amount was not released over and above the budget. Hence, the Treasury staff had not released Government amount over and above the budget during the years, 1993-94 and 1994-95 as alleged by the Deputy Director vigilance.

Dr.GRR,J

17. The trial court observed that the prosecution failed to

examine the persons, who supplied wood, vegetables and provisions

to the hostels from whom the accused obtained fake bills. As such,

there was no incriminating material collected by the Investigating

Officers. The Investigating Officer Mr. Naresh Kumar admitted that

he did not collect any of the documents or records to show that

LWs.17 to 20 supplied provisions to the Social Welfare hostels.

18. The enquiry officer - P. Soma Raju, who conducted

departmental enquiry against 32 hostels, Social Welfare Officers and 3

Account Social Welfare Officers, was examined as PW.9 and as per

his enquiry report, the accused spent excess amount in the Social

Welfare Girls Hostel, Ghanpur-A, but not mis-appropriated the

amount. Though the Government had to supply subsidy rice to the

hostels, the Government did not supply the same and the concerned

Wardens of the hostels at Warangal District including the accused A2

purchased rice from open market as such, they spent the excess

amount. It was also observed by the trial court that the said report

under Ex.P.10 given by PW.9 Soma Raju was a general report but not

delinquent wise. Thus, the said observations of the Enquiry Officer Dr.GRR,J

were applicable to all the accused, but, not only to the one against

whom trial was conducted. It was also observed by the trial court that

as per the proceedings issued by the District Collector dated

25.05.1996, the Enquiry Officer observed that the Wardens were not

found involved in any mis-appropriation and he did not know whether

the diet charges were enhanced from Rs.150/- per month for boarder

to Rs.170/- per month per boarder as per G.O.Ms.No.72 dated

25.04.1998. The trial court observed that the Investigating Officers

failed to collect the documents i.e. proceedings dated 25.05.1996

issued by the District Collector, Warangal as well as G.O.Ms.No.75,

dated 25.04.1998.

19. The trial court also observed that there was no mention in

column Nos.2, 3 and 4 in stock and issue Register under Ex.P.12 with

regard to the person to whom the stock was issued, rate of quantity of

stock issued for boarder. When there was no specific mention under

Ex.P.12 with regard to the person to whom the stock was issued and

also the quantity per boarder issued, then the question of specific stock

mis-used would not arise.

Dr.GRR,J

20. The trial court also observed that in every District, there

was a Purchase Committee in which the Joint Collector would be the

Chairman and the Purchase Committee had to finalise the rate by

calling tenders from the suppliers then the supplier shall supply the

stock i.e. oil, salt, onion upma ravva and all food items. The Enquiry

Officer failed to mention the rates fixed by the Purchase Committee

with respect to essential commodities of the hostels. Every purchase

bill pertaining to the hostel would be scrutinized by the accounts

officer of the concerned District, who would work under the control of

Deputy Director, Social Welfare and thereafter the said bills would be

submitted to the Treasury. When the Accounts Officers scrutinized

the purchase bills before submission to the Treasury, then the

Accounts Officer was the relevant witness but the Investigating

Officers failed to examine the Accounts Officer who scrutinized the

said purchase bills. The trial court also observed that there was no

record to show the specific amount fixed by the Purchase Committee

with regard to purchase of raw-food items like oil, salt, onions, etc., in

the Social Welfare Hostels. Then, the question of spending excess

amounts spent by the hostel wardens in collusion with the accused A1,

A4 to A7 would not arise, as there was no record to show the purchase Dr.GRR,J

of raw food items over and above the price fixed by the concerned

purchase committee.

21. The trial court also observed that the Government

appointed Sri K.S. Ramachandraiah Chetty, Retired Audit Officer to

conduct special audit and the Investigating Officer Ch.Rajaiah failed

to examine the said Ramachandraiah Chetty, appointed by the

Government. Thus, the trial court after conducting full-fledged trial

and after discussing the evidence in detail acquitted all the accused

persons in the said case.

22. The evidence with regard to the present accused also

would not be different as it was the same Enquiry Officer, who

conducted departmental enquiry and the same Audit Officer, who

conducted the special audit and the same Investigating Officers, who

conducted the investigation in the present case also. The complainant

was also one and the same. The procedure with regard to the purchase

committee fixing rates in each district and non-examination of the

relevant witnesses by the Investigating Officer was also applicable to

the present criminal case. Conducting trial 25 years after the Dr.GRR,J

investigation, would dilute the process of trial as many witnesses

might not be available.

22. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner was that the documents were also not available. There was

no original complaint and the original FIR. The Investigating Officer

had not submitted the statements or the information with regard to the

original bills nor filed the alleged vouchers along with the original

FSL report nor the alleged repaid challans of the petitioner-A1 nor the

alleged drawal of amount of Rs.70,052/- from the Treasury. The

Government had set aside the preliminary enquiry submitted by Sri U.

Subramanyam - de facto complainant, dated 02.01.1995 as the same

was not in order and ordered for reopening a fresh enquiry on

13.10.1997 under Rule 41 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991.

Subsequently, the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra

Pradesh, Social Welfare Department, appointed experts in audit, by

name, Sri K.S.R. Chetty and three other audit officers to conduct audit

in all 94 Social Welfare Hostels in Warangal District for the year

1993-94 and they submitted a report in the year 2000. Thereafter,

after lapse of 27 years in the year 2018, the Investigating Officer filed Dr.GRR,J

an audit report. When the Audit Report of the four Auditors was

available in the office of the Inspector of Police, CID, RCIU,

Warangal, which would disclose that no mis-appropriation of

government funds for the period 1993-94 took place, the audit reports

filed by the Investigating Officer were null and void. The learned

Magistrate, Warangal erred in coming to the conclusion that audit

report, vouchers and bills filed along with the FSL report could be the

basis to continue the criminal proceedings.

24. The trial court in C.C. No.210 of 2010 also observed that

the statements of the accused, the statements of the Investigating

Officers, the three Vigilance Officers, Audit Officers, Directorate

Officials and records collected by them were prepared as annexures,

but, the said statements of accounts and the statements were not

enclosed with the preliminary enquiry report under Ex.P.1 and it

would create a doubt and the preliminary enquiry report without

statements and enclosures could not be considered, and observed that

the evidence of the witnesses would not be sufficient to bring home

the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections Dr.GRR,J

406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A and 120-B IPC beyond reasonable

doubt.

25. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also alleged

that the original audit report of K.S.R. Chetty, who conducted audit

along with his team stated that the Accounts Officer issued a

certificate dated 16.12.2008 to the effect that the original vouchers and

bills pertaining to the year 1993-94 in respect of the Social Welfare

Hostel in Warangal District had been weeded out (destroyed) in 2004

as per the procedure laid down by the Government. When the original

vouchers and bills pertaining to the year 1993-94 were weeded out,

the Investigating Officer sending them to FSL on 13.08.2015, could

not be believed. The documents marked in C.C. No.210 of 2010 also

would not disclose filing of any FSL report or citing any FSL Officer

as witness to the case. When the original FIR, original complaint,

original vouchers, original bills, original audit report, original

statements part-II under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which were primary

evidence were not available, conducting the trial after 25 to 27 years

would not serve any fruitful purpose.

Dr.GRR,J

26. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon

the judgments of the High Court of A.P. in Kovvru @ Kommuru

Prasad Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1, on the

aspect that:

"7........since some of the main accused in the criminal case have already been acquitted after full- fledged trial, the other accused in split up cases are also entitled to be acquitted."

25. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in

Polishetty Nagishetty Arun Kumar v. The State of Telangana and

another2 wherein by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Pothula Suresh v. The State of A.P. [2011 Crl.L.J. 609];

and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2018 11 SCC 570], this

Court held that:

"When some of the accused in the same case found not guilty and acquitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings against the other accused are liable to be quashed."

26. The trial court dismissed the discharge petition on the

ground that each and every case had to be decided on the merits of the

case and acquittal of certain accused in other cases could not be a

ground to discharge the petitioner from the present case. But, the

2020 (1) Law Summary 173

2022 Latest Caselaw 110 Tel Dr.GRR,J

prosecution failed to explain as to why it took such a long delay of 27

years in filing the charge sheet against the revision petitioner-accused

when it could file the charge sheet against the other accused persons.

It would affect the right of the petitioner-accused for fair and speedy

trial. Taking cognizance of the offence on the FIR lodged in the year

1995 in connection with the incident alleged to have taken place in the

year 1993 and the trial to be commenced after 27 years itself is a

violation of the petitioner's right to fair and speedy trial. The revision

petitioner was also exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings as

per the District Collector's proceedings in R.C. No.A3/780/94 dated

25.05.1996. The departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings

were conducted on identical and similar set of facts. On the

allegations made by the Joint Director, the District Collector,

Warangal, served a charge memo on the revision petitioner-accused

No.1 vide charge memo Rc.No.A3/A1/780/94-(V), dated 26.12.1994

to the petitioner for the charge of mis-appropriation of funds for an

amount of Rs.54,765/-. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The

Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found that the petitioner

was not involved in the fraud or mis-appropriation of funds.

Accepting the enquiry report, the District Collector reinstated the Dr.GRR,J

petitioner into service. The contention of the petitioner was that since

she was exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings, she may also be

discharged from the criminal proceedings as both the proceedings

were based on same material i.e. Joint Director's report and the audit

report.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari

vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another3 to

contend that criminal prosecution cannot proceed against the

petitioner after being exonerated in a departmental enquiry for the

same allegations. In the said judgment, a three Judge Bench led by

Justice R.F. Nariman, had held that:

"...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."

30. In the present case also, the charges levelled against the

petitioner in the departmental proceedings and the criminal

proceedings are on the same set of facts, charges and circumstances.

Basing on the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and since

2020 (9) SCC 636 Dr.GRR,J

the petitioner was exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings, she

can also be discharged from the present criminal proceedings. Hence,

for all the above reasons, it is considered fit to allow the revision case

by setting aside the impugned order.

31. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting

aside the order dated 18.12.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.691 of 2019 in C.C.

No.2826 of 2018 on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of