The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs K. Janardhan, And 34 Others,
2025 Latest Caselaw 3629 Tel

Telangana High Court

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs K. Janardhan, And 34 Others, on 21 August, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO


                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2008


ORDER:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the Judgment

passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in

C.C.No.74 of 1995 dated 20.12.2004, whereunder acquitted

respondent Nos.1 to 35 who are the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with 120-B IPC.

2. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Senior Counsel

representing respondent Nos.9 to 29, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned

Counsel representing Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.7.

3. Mr. Akkam Eswar, learned Counsel submits that during the

pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.33 viz.,. Mr. D. Buchaiah died.

In view of the same, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed against the

said respondent as abated.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor basing upon the

instructions received from the concerned officers submits that during

the pendency of this Appeal, respondent No.9 viz., Md.Nasarullah

Khan, respondent No.10 viz., Madduri Siva Kumar Reddy, respondent

No.17 viz., M.Ramaiah, respondent No.19 viz., Koduvari Prasada Rao,

respondent No.34 viz., C.D.Harikishan and respondent No.35 viz.,

Bayali Himavantu were died and filed memo before the Registry by

enclosing the death extracts of the said respondents. In view of the

same, the Appeal is dismissed against the above said respondents as

abated.

5. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as under:

"APPSC conducts departmental tests for Sale Government Employees twice in a year for their benefits and promotions, etc. A2 to A35 are the Government servants working in different departments who appeared for departmental examinations conducted by APPSC several times, but they failed. During the year 1989-90, A2 to A34 approached A1, who is working as Senior Assistant in APPSC and paid huge amounts from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/- for getting their candidature passed in the departmental tests. After making promise to A2 to A35, A1 prepared a fake memorandum of marks that the said candidates have passed departmental tests, by forging the signature of P.W.34- P.Ibrahim Khan, P.W.38-K.B.Lingam, P.W.41-Gulam Ali Khan and M.S.C (L.W.70) officials of APPSC and delivered to the accused persons purported to have been issued from APPSC, Hyderabad. A1 prepared fake and false supplementary notification declaring that A2 to A35 passed the departmental tests. The said notification and the said letters related were allegedly got typed in Ushodaya Typewriting Institute, Hyderabad by A1, and sent them to government Printing Press, Chanchallaguda by P.W.39-MNarasinga Rao and P.W.40- V.Lingam who were the attenders in APPSC for printing.

Further the case of the prosecution is that after receiving the same, B.Shanker Rao (L.W.9) and V.S.R.Sastry (L.W.11) belongs to Government Printing Press, Chenchalaguda returned the said notification with some remarks and objection by seeking some clarifications After came to know about the return of the said notification. A1 prepared a fake Gazette copies to A2 to A35. After collecting the said fake gazette copies, A2 to A35 submitted them to their concerned

departments, got entries in the service registers, as if they have passed the departmental examinations to claim their future benefits. Therefore it is further case of the prosecution that A1 committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with 120(B) IPC, and A2 to A35 committed offences punishable under Sections 471, 420 read with 120(B) IPC."

6. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, P.Ws.1 to

P.W.48 were examined and Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-130 were marked and

Exs.D-1 to Ex.D-16 were marked for defence of respondents/accused.

The trial Court after taking into consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties,

acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 35 (except A-3, A-12, A-

20 and A-25) for the offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and

420 read with 120-B IPC. The record further reveals that during the

pendency of the C.C. No.74 of 1995, accused Nos.3, 12, 20 and 25

were died and the C.C is dismissed as abated against the above said

accused concerned.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the

Court below passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the

respondents/accused only on the ground that Ex.P-3 complaint dated

25.05.1993 was lodged after lapse of one (1) year two (2) months from

the date of alleged offence and the same was hit by Section 162

Cr.P.C, and the same is contrary to law.

8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial

Court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record,

acquitted the respondents/accused by giving cogent findings. There

are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by

the trial Court. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.7 also reiterated the very same submissions.

9. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals

that the defacto-complainant lodged the complaint on 25.05.1993

which was marked as Ex.P-3, basing on the same, a crime was

registered for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with

120-B of IPC, the Inspector of Police, CID, Hyderabad after conducting

investigation filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under

Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC against

accused No.1 and for the offences under Sections 471 and 420 read

with Section 120-B of IPC against the accused Nos.2 to 35 on the file

of IX Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance and

issued summons to the accused in C.C. No.74 of 1995.

10. After perusal of the said impugned judgment, it reveals that on

behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws-1 to 48 were examined and Exs.P-1 to

P-130 were marked and Exs.D-1 to D-16 were marked for defence of

accused. The trial Court taking into consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, passed

the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2004 and acquitted the

respondent Nos.1 to 35 (except 3, 12, 20 and 25)/accused for the

offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with 120-B of IPC. The

trial Court in the impugned judgment specifically held that Ex.P-3

complaint was filed after lapse of one year two months from alleged

offence.

11. It is relevant to extract para 13 of the impugned judgment

which reads as under:

"In this case, basing on the 1st reference letter of APPSC dated 31.03.1992, the CID police did not issue any FIR knowingly that it is a cognizable offence, and the same must be treed as FIR investigation would have conducted on that basis. But crime was registered only after Ex.P-3 complaint was addressed to the CID police. Therefore, Ex.P-3 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the very complaint Ex.P-3 itself is not maintainable in law. It suffers from legal infirmity. The matter was informed to the CID police vide letter dated 31.03.1992, whereas Ex.P-3 is lodged on 25.05.1993 and received in CID office on 31.05.1993. There is a gap of about '1' year and '2' months between the first complaint and Ex.P-3 and the witnesses were examined during the said period, but their statements were not recorded, and a report was also filed to that effect. On the basis of the said report only Ex.P-3 complaint was again submitted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ex.P-3 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C."

12. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the

impugned judgment passed by the Court below dated 20.12.2004 in

exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Section 378(3) of

Cr.P.C.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the

impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition,

shall stand closed.

_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

Date: 21.08.2025

Note: Issue C.C. in one week.

B/o MRKR/SZT