Telangana High Court
Cheruku Prabhakar vs State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.731 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Gaddam Sethu Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned
Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.
2. The present criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner/ accused
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2024 passed
in Crl.MP No.270 of 2022 in CC No.61 of 2021 wherein the prayer of the
petitioner/accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge from CC No.61
of 2021 was rejected by the trial Court.
3. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education, Nampally, Government of Telangana State, Hyderabad,
the Station House Officer Town-1, Godavarikhani, Peddapally District registered
Crime No.16 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 403, 405, 415, 417, 418
and 420 of IPC alleging that the accused/Ch.Prabhakar, retired lecturer in
Mathematics, Government Degree College, Mahabubabad, while working at
Government Degree College, Godavarikhani, Peddapally District has misutilized
the Government funds at the time of NAAC Programme during the year 2006-
2007, did financial fraud for an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- which amounts to
dereliction of duties and causing inconvenience to the college.
4. Basing on the registration of the said crime, the investigating officer
commenced investigation and laid charge-sheet before the Court of the learned
I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Godavarikhani alleging that during
the year 2006-2007, while the accused was acting as FAC Principal in
Government Degree College, Godavarikhani the State Government has
sanctioned an amount of Rs.36,44,657/- to the said college for its development
works and subsequently, the accused, upon conducting a meeting with the
lecturers, allotted the said amounts as works-wise to various departments.
Further, the accused, out of the amounts allotted to be spend under his control
i.e. Rs.5,61,131/-, spent amounts by establishing cycle stand, laying drainage
pipe line, canteen, to meet the expenditure for photos, stationary, lab
equipment, chemistry equipments, duel desk transport charges and uden rifles
without calling for tenders and gave works to his relatives and accordingly, he
misused the said funds without following the Government procedure. Further,
the NAAC team conducted enquiry and found procedural lapses in withdrawal of
the amounts. On 28.08.2020 the accused gave a written letter agreeing to pay
an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- from and out of his retirement benefits. It was
also found that the accused and other lecturers have done the works with the
students under NCC and withdrew the coolie amount from their allotted budget
and against such act, the students did a protest programme. The trial Court
took cognizance of the same and assigned CC No.61 of 2021 and proceeded
further.
5. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioner/
accused filed Crl.MP No.270 of 2022 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking his
discharge from CC No.61 of 2021 contending that the petitioner was falsely
implicated in the present case, no sanction, as mandated under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C., was obtained, inordinate delay of around 15 years occurred in filing a
criminal complaint against him and his implication in the present case is nothing
but abuse of process of law, initiated with oblique motive of harassing a retired
Government servant. Since no recovery steps were initiated by the Department
in pursuance of agreement of the accused to repay an amount of Rs.5,61,131/-
or finalization of his retirement benefits are not settled, initiation of criminal
proceedings against the accused is not justified. The accused, due to frustration
of not getting retirement benefits and frightened by the threats of his superiors,
in a fit of emotion gave letter dated 28.08.2020 but subsequently, realizing the
said mistake, he withdrew the said letter under his second letter dated
05.09.2020 and the said fact is suppressed by his higher authorities. The
petitioner filed WP No.19933 of 2020 seeking release of his retirement benefits
wherein, this Court as per interim directions dated 31.12.2020 directed the
authorities to release his provisional pension and unable to digest filing of writ
petition Sri Naveen Mittal, CCE, Hyderabad resorted to initiate criminal
proceedings against the accused. He did the works allotted to him without
giving scope for any suspicion or doubt and that proper accounting of funds is
the responsibility of the principal and other staff and that the petitioner assisted
the principal in creating the facilities as per the directions of principal and
hence, the petitioner, in no way, is responsible for the accounts and finalization
of the bills and hence, he cannot be found fault with.
6. The trial Court, while relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in Matajog Dobey Vs.H.C.Bhari 1 observing that sanction can
be taken at any stage of proceedings before the Court even prior to
pronouncement of judgment and the question of sanction may arise at any
stage of the proceedings, the complaint may not disclose that the act
constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of
official duty, but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial
inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may
establish the necessity for sanction and that whether sanction is necessary or
not may have to be determined from stage to stage and the necessity may
reveal itself in the course of progress of case and other aspects including delay
have to be decided upon full-fledged trial and while dealing with a petition
under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the contents of the charge-sheet and documents
appended are to be looked into and that the facts collected during investigation
revealed a prima-facie case against the accused, dismissed the said application.
7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner/accused preferred
the present criminal revision case mainly contending that sanction under
1956 AIR 44
Section 197 Cr.P.C., for prosecuting a public servant is missing in the present
proceedings, the misdeed attributed to the petitioner was alleged to be
pertaining to the period when he was discharging his official duties and a
protection under Section 197 of Cr.PC in the form of sanction safeguards the
public servants from the acts did by them while performing their official duties
but the trial Court had erroneously observed that the sanction can be obtained
at any stage of proceedings. The said findings is contrary to the observations
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and for that matter only the
present criminal revision case is entitled to be allowed by setting aside the
impugned order of the trial Court. In support of the contentions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
decisions rendered in JSB Chandel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in
M.Cr.C.No.14484 of 2012 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Matajog Dobey
Vs. HC Bhari (1st cited supra) and Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of
Bihar and others 2.
8. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the
present criminal petition mainly contending that the grounds urged by the
petitioner through this petition do not have any force warranting interference of
this Court with a well considered findings of the trial Court and hence, the
present criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.
AIR 2006 Supreme Court 820
9. In view of the above rival contentions this Court sits to evaluate the
findings of the trial Court in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge.
Firstly, so far as the sanction is concerned, the law is settled that it is not
required to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, if the public
servant is no longer in service at the time the Court takes cognizance of the
offence, but is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C., even where the public
servant is no longer in service at the time the Court takes cognizance of the
offence.
10. The first and foremost contention advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that without obtaining sanction to prosecute the petitioner,
who was a public servant, the prosecution was initiated against him and hence,
the same cannot stand for legal scrutiny. The proposition of law is very clear,
as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions including the cases of
Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa 3 and State of Punjab Vs. Labh
Singh 4 that in case a public servant had retired, there was no necessity to seek
prior sanction for prosecuting him, accordingly, the said contention cannot hold
water. The legal position, therefore, is that an accused facing prosecution for
offences cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he
ceased to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of
(2011) 7 SCC 167
the said offences. In the case of K.Kalimuthu v. State 5, the Hon'ble Apex
court held that the question as to whether a sanction is necessary to prosecute the
accused officer, a retired public servant, is a question which can be examined during
the course of the trial.
11. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that the petitioner
while working as lecturer in Government Degree College, Godavarikhani,
Peddapally District has misutilized the Government funds at the time of NAAC
Programme during the year 2006-2007, did financial fraud for an amount of
Rs.5,61,131/- which amounts to dereliction of duties and causing inconvenience
to the college. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge-
sheet are that while the accused was acting as FAC Principal in Government
Degree College, Godavarikhani the State Government has sanctioned an
amount of Rs.36,44,657/- to the said college for its development works and
subsequently, the accused, upon conducting a meeting with the lecturers,
allotted the said amounts as works-wise to various departments and out of the
amounts allotted to be spend under his control i.e. Rs.5,61,131/-, spent
amounts by establishing cycle stand, laying drainage pipe line, canteen, to meet
the expenditure for photos, stationary, lab equipment, chemistry equipments,
duel desk transport charges and uden rifles without calling for tenders and gave
works to his relatives and accordingly, he misused the said funds without
following the Government procedure. Further, the NAAC team conducted
(2005) 4 SCC 512
enquiry and found procedural lapses in withdrawal of the amounts. It was also
alleged that the accused and other lecturers have done the works with the
students under NCC and withdrew the coolie amount from their allotted budget
and against such act, the students did a protest programme.
12. The record further goes to show that on 28.08.2020 the accused gave a
written letter agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- from and out of his
retirement benefits. However, subsequently, he resiled from the same stating
that due to pressure exerted on him, out of fear and threat he addressed the
said letter. When the above facts are taken into consideration, the petitioner is
changing his versions from time to time making the same unbelievable. When
the above facts and circumstances and the proposition of law laid down in the
above referred decisions are taken into consideration, the findings of the trial
Court appears to be convincing and there is nothing found fault with the same.
Inconsistency in the versions put-forth by the petitioner with regard to his
admission of misappropriation of funds makes his contentions unbelievable.
Further, he has not initiated any steps against the persons who exerted
pressure and offered threats for making such admission of misappropriation.
Further, there is no apparent error on the said findings warranting interference
of this Court. The grounds urged herein are already answered by the trial
Court and hence, they cannot warrant any interference of this Court.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
13. In the result, the present criminal revision case is dismissed. As a
sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.
___________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated :30-04-2025
abb
