Telangana High Court
The State Through Dy. Supdt. Of Police, vs Sri Dandu Ashirwadam Jaipal on 23 October, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
IA.NO.2 OF 2024 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.305 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed by the State ACB questioning the Judgment of
acquittal by the respondent-accused. The Judgment was rendered on
03.10.2018 for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Petition seeking condonation of delay of 1999 days is also filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the affidavit filed along with
the petition under Section 5 of the limitation Act, the reasons given for
the delay are as follows;
"It is submitted that after receipt of the copy of the
Judgment along with the opinion from the L.A-cum-
Spl.Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, the Director General,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Telangana, Hyderabad, was
pleased to address a letter vide Rc.No.241/RCT-NMD/2008,
dated 18.12.2018 to Government of Telangana, seeking its
permission to file a Criminal Appeal before Hon'ble High
Court as there are grounds to file an appeal. Accordingly,
the Government of Telangana, Revenue(Vigilance-III)
Department accorded permission vide Memo
No.53418/Vig.III/2008, dated 09.10.2023 enabling ACB to
file criminal appeal against the Judgment passed in
CC.No.82/2013. The copy of the same was received by the
Office of Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Telangana, Hyderabad on 19.10.2023. Thereafter, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Telangana, Hyderabad, addressed a
letter to SC-cum-Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High
Court for the State of Telangana vide C.No.241/RCT-
NMD/2008, dated 14.11.2023 by duly enclosing the copy of
the order passed by the Government for filing an appeal. The
said letter was received by the S.C.-cum-Spl.Public
Prosecutor on 16.11.2023 and the SC-cum-Spl.Public
Prosecutor has filed the appeal on 21.06.2024."
3. The reasons given are that communication was addressed to the
State Government in the year 2018 and reply was received in the year
2023. Having received the permission from the Government on
19.10.2023, present appeal was filed on 28.03.2024. Nothing is stated
in the affidavit as to the steps taken by the ACB in pursuing with the
permission sought from the State Government to file an appeal.
Further, after receiving the permission, there is a delay of nearly five
months in filing the appeal.
4. For the first time, the case was listed on 05.06.2024 and none
appeared for the ACB, similarly on 10.07.2024 and 01.08.2024 no one
appeared. On 14.10.2024 also there was no appearance by the counsel
and this Court ordered to list the matter on 21.10.2024 under the
caption 'for dismissal'. On 21.10.2024 Public Prosecutor appeared
and requested the Court to issue notice to the respondent/accused
and no other arguments were advanced.
5. Since the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is an
offence against the society, I have gone through the record.
6. The respondent/accused was trapped on the allegation of
demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.8,000/- for issuing
proceedings in respect of the land purchased by one Kista Reddy ( not
examined in Court). According to the defacto complainant-PW.1, the
said Kista Reddy asked him to pursue with the revenue office
regarding the proceedings.
7. The learned Special Judge found that the documents pertaining
to the purchase of land by the said Kista Reddy were not produced. On
the basis of the application made, the accused had gone to the land
which was claimed to have been purchased by the said Kista Reddy.
In Ex.P6-file, the accused endorsed that Kista Reddy failed to produce
the purchase papers to which he is claiming rights. It is further
mentioned by the accused that the case was filed before the Civil Court
and temporary injunction was obtained. As such, the applicant (Kista
Reddy) was advised to approach the Civil Court. The actual owner of
the land Kista Reddy and also the Revenue Divisional Officer who are
the material witnesses were given up by the prosecution. Except for
the evidence of demand by the defacto complainant, there is no other
supporting evidence. The learned Special Judge found that the work of
the accused officer was complete and for the reason of asking the
applicant/Kista Reddy to go to the Civil Court to assert his rights, the
accused was involved in a false case. Accordingly, benefit of doubt was
extended, since the prosecution failed to prove either that there was
demand or that any work was pending with the accused. The only
evidence was the recovery of the tainted amount which cannot be
made basis to infer demand.
8. The Honourable Supreme Court in The State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Bherulal in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.9217 of
2020, dt.15.10.2020, held that though some leeway can be given to the
cases filed by the Government, however, it is for the Government
Departments who are under special obligation to ensure that they do
their duties with diligence and commitment. However, on facts, the
Honourable Supreme Court found that such a method of delayed filing
of appeals is made only to save the skin of the officers who are at fault
and such practices and process of filing applications was deprecated.
On the facts, the Honourable Supreme Court imposed costs of
Rs.25,000/- on the Government Authority for wasting judicial time.
9. The appeals filed by the State cannot be made an exception and
they stand on the same footing as any party who comes to the Court
seeking redressal. The intent of 'limitation' is to avoid litigation or filing
petitions/appeals before Courts at the whims and fancies of the
parties. The Courts are already overburdened with judicial work and
such delays without being explained cannot be appreciated and permit
the party to prosecute its case by condoning such delays. In the
present case, 1999 days delay is sought to be condoned. As extracted
above, except stating that there was communication in between the
ACB and Government Department, no other reason is given. The delay
cannot be condoned.
10. Accordingly, IA.No.2 of 2024 is dismissed, consequently, appeal
is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 23.10.2024
tk
