Telangana High Court
Sunil Kumar Ahuja And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 4 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10772 OF 2022
Between:
Sunil Kumar Ahuja and another ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.01.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 10772 of 2022
% Dated 04.01.023
# Sunil Kumar Ahuja and another. ...Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
2 AIR 1958 Supreme Court 857
3 1997(2) MWN (Cr.) 290
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10772 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. The petitioners are questioning their implication in CC
No.1227 of 2021 on the file of XII Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad, as Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 171-B r/w 171-E, 420 r/w
120(B) IPC, Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act 1956 and 123(I) of
The Representation of People Act 1951.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.11.2018, the
Inspector of Police, City Task Force received information that
Hawala operators were planning to distribute crores of rupees
to various political parties for bribing the voters in the
forthcoming legislative assembly elections scheduled in the
month of December 2018 in the State of Telangana. During
checks, they intercepted the car of A1 on 07.11.2018 at 03.00
hours. The accused tried to escape from the police, however
police chased and stopped the said car. In the said car two
persons were present, who are A3/2nd petitioner and A4
(Mohd.Azam). On searching the dicky of the car, police found
Rs.2,00,07,500/- cash. The said amount and also the cell
phones of A3 and A4 were seized under panchanama.
Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner(A3) was taken by the police to his
residence and found the 1st petitioner/A2 in the premises.
Having searched the house, an amount of Rs.5,47,75,750/-
along with cell phones, laptops, cash counting machine, 30
cheque books of various banks, land documents, blank non
judicial stamp papers and blank signed cheques etc., were
seized at the instance of the 1st petitioner/A2. From there, the
police personnel also conducted search in the premises of A1's
residence at Goshamahal and seized an amount of
Rs.3,27,650/- and one .32 NP bore licensed revolver issued by
the Karnataka Government and its area validity restricted to
Gulbarga District.
3. During the course of investigation, the total amount of
Rs.7,51,10,300/- was deposited with the State Bank of India,
Criminal Courts Branch, Nampally, Hyderabad. Further, the
investigation was done by the CCS Police and all the bank
documents of these petitioners and other accused were also
collected during the course of investigation. According to the
investigation, the Police found that crores of rupees were
colleted in the guise of shell companies and the same were
meant for providing to the political leaders, who in turn would
distribute the said monies to the voters in the elections to be
held in the month of December 2018. The said acts of the
accused in providing money to political leaders is nothing but
cheating various governmental organizations, for which
reasons charge sheet was filed.
4. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that none of the allegations made in
the charge sheet make out any of the offences alleged under
Section 171-B r/w 171-E, 420 r/w 120(B) IPC and Section
25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1956 and 123(I) of The Representation
of People Act, 1951.
5. He further submits that, reading of the provisions makes
it abundantly clear that mere seizure of amounts from these
petitioners would not entitle the police to prosecute them for
the offences alleged. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others1 and argued that where the un-
controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
evidence collected in respect of the same do not disclose
commission of any offence or make out any of the offences,
then the same can be quashed. He also relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.B.Adityan v. S.Kandaswami2 and S.Veeraraghavan v.
Rajnikanth3 and argued that under similar circumstances,
the Madras High Court had quashed the proceedings against
the petitioners therein.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
submits that all the facts have to be decided during trial and
the proceedings cannot be quashed.
7. In the present case, the police found huge amount of
cash i.e., Rs.7,51,10,300/- from the possession of these
1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
AIR 1958 Supreme Court 857
1997(2) MWN (Cr.) 290
petitioners and another on 06.11.2018. The alleged elections
were scheduled in the month of December 2018. For the sake
of convenience, Section 171-B & E of IPC are extracted
hereunder:
" [171B. Bribery.--
(1) Whoever(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any
other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised
any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for
exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise
any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or
a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a
gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification
shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive
for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall
be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward."
[171E. Punishment for bribery.--Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
Explanation.--"Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food,
drink, entertainment, or provision.]
8. To attract an offence punishable under Section 171-E of
IPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of IPC have to be
fulfilled. If a person gives any gratification to any person for
exercising any electoral right or for having exercised such right
or accepts such amount from any person as a reward for
exercising any right or inducing or attempts to induce any
person in exercise of such rights amounts to bribery. In the
present case, the amounts were allegedly found in the
possession of the petitioners. The police assume that the said
amounts are meant for political leaders to bribe the voters in
the ensuing elections of December 2018. Admittedly, no
person was bribed or any money was accepted by those people
for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said
reasons, the offence under Section 171-B of IPC is not made
out and consequently the question of prosecuting these
petitioners for the offence of bribery punishable under Section
171-E of IPC does not arise.
9. The other offence is under Sections 420 r/w 120B IPC.
To attract an offence of cheating, the ingredients of Section
415 of IPC have to be fulfilled. Under Section 415 of IPC, there
has to be fraudulent misrepresentation and believing such
misrepresentation and persons have been induced and parted
with property. In such circumstances, offence of cheating
punishable under Section 420 of IPC would be made out. In
the present case, the political leaders for whom the amounts
were meant to be given are not identified nor the political
parties. Mere possession of cash would not attract an offence
of cheating. At the most, if the money is unaccounted, it may
be an offence under Income Tax Act. Further, if the said
amounts are identified as crime proceeds of any offence that
was committed, the person possessing such cash can be
prosecuted for the said offence.
10. In fact, the amount that was found was handed over to
the Income Tax authorities, who have released an amount of
Rs.2,00,07,500/- after adjusting the amount of
Rs.5,47,75,150/- towards tax liability of the 1st
petitioner/Sunil Kumar Ahuja/A2. On an affidavit given by the
2nd petitioner/A3 that the said amount of Rs.2,00,07,500/- is
that of his father, the same was returned by the Income Tax
Department.
11. The amount that was seized from these petitioners was
adjusted towards tax liability of the 1st petitioner and
remaining amount was released by the Income Tax
Department after conducting enquiry. In the said
circumstances, it cannot be said that mere seizure of the said
amount would entail prosecution of the petitioners. On the
basis of the assumptions of the investigating authorities that it
was meant for funding the political leaders to contest the
elections in December 2018 elections, cannot in any manner
sustain the prosecution against these petitioners.
12. In the result, the proceedings against these petitioners in
CC No.1227 of 2021 on the file of XII Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.01.2023
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10772 OF 2022
Date: 04.01.2023.
kvs
