Telangana High Court
Ramavath Dhanjilal, vs The State Of Telangana on 7 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3580 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.18 of 2017 on the
file of I-Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V-
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The
offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 7 and
13 (1) (d) r/w.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
short 'P.C.Act') and under Sections 201 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code.
2. The facts of the case are that on 04.03.2013 the 2nd
respondent-defacto-complainant gave a complaint to the police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad stating that he is running
toddy business and having license. The said license is required
to be renewed every five years by the Prohibition and Excise
Superintendent, Nagarkurnool. The 2nd respondent along with
six other individuals from his village were also holding toddy
business licenses, all of which expired on 30.09.2012. The 2nd
respondent alleged that they applied for renewal of their licenses
for the next five-year period and, to that end, approached the
Petitioner/Accused Officer in December 2012 by submitting
requisite license fee and advance rental amount through
challans in duplicate. The 2nd respondent further alleged that
the petitioner informed them that he would forward the renewal
applications to the Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnool. He
also instructed the 2nd respondent to personally meet him in the
month of December, 2012 on behalf of all the license holders.
Subsequently, on 23.01.2013, the 2nd respondent met the
petitioner in his office, where he allegedly demanded a bribe of
₹7,000/- and warned that their license renewals would be kept
pending if the bribe amount is not paid.
3. The 2nd respondent allegedly informed the Petitioner that
he would discuss the matter with the other six license holders.
Upon doing so, the license holders expressed their unwillingness
to pay the bribe and asked the 2nd respondent to convince the
officer to reduce the amount. After two weeks thereafter, the
petitioner allegedly contacted the 2nd respondent by calling him
through his mobile phone and reiterated his demand
threatening to withhold the renewed licenses which were
allegedly in his possession. Upon the complainant's request to
reduce the bribe amount, the petitioner finally agreed to accept
₹4,500/-. Though unwilling, the 2nd respondent allegedly agreed
under compulsion and sought two weeks' time to pay the bribe.
As the 2nd respondent did not wish to pay the bribe but feared
that the renewed licenses would not be handed over without it,
he lodged a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad, on 04.03.2013 at 11:00 AM,
seeking appropriate legal action. Upon receiving the complaint,
a case was registered in Crime No. 7/ACB-CR-1/2013 under
Section 7 of the P.C.Act. During the investigation, the ACB
secured two mediators and, after completing the necessary legal
formalities, organized a trap against the petitioner. On
05.03.2013, at about 2:20 PM, the 2nd respondent entered the
Prohibition and Excise Station, Kalwakurthy, where he found
the petitioner in his office. At around 2:30 PM, he entered the
officer's room, the officer immediately enquired whether the
bribe amount had been brought and further demanded
₹4,500/-. The 2nd respondent allegedly took out the tainted
currency from his right pant pocket and handed it to the
petitioner, who accepted it with his right hand and put it in the
left-side pocket of his shirt. He allegedly informed that the
licenses would be handed over after lunch. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent exited the room and gave the pre-arranged signal to
the trap party. The ACB team entered the room and confronted
the officer. Though petitioner denied having demanded or
accepted a bribe, the tainted currency of ₹4,500/- was recovered
from his left side shirt pocket upon production. The
phenolphthalein test conducted on the inner lining of his shirt
pocket yielded a positive result.
4. Further, on being questioned, the petitioner claimed that
he did not demand any bribe and that the amount received was
towards toddy rental dues for five months from Sri Bala
Kistaiah. However, when confronted, the complainant reiterated
that the amount was a bribe demanded by the officer for
processing and handing over the renewed licenses but not rental
dues. He categorically denied that the officer had ever discussed
toddy rental amounts with him. Further, during the course of
investigation it was revealed that the petitioner demanded and
accepted the bribe amount from the 2nd respondent for showing
official favour and the Government had accorded sanction
orders vide G.O.Ms.No.157, dated 07.09.2015 to prosecute the
petitioner.
5. Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-
Special Public Prosecutor ACB appearing for the 1st respondent.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner is innocent, a honest public servant and he is falsely
implicated in this case. The 2nd respondent and others went to
the office of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent on
08.10.2012 and obtained renewal of their toddy licenses on the
same day itself, for a period of five years from 01.10.2012 to
30.09.2017 with annual ration 400 and annual rent of
Rs.10,000/- which amount was paid by them and received
copies of renewals of TFT license of Kuppagandla village and
without the knowledge and processing of TFT licenses of
Kuppagandla Village, by the petitioner. Further, after one and
half month, the 2nd respondent and others approached the
petitioner for renewal of TFT licenses which were already
renewed on 08.10.2012 for a period of five years, with a
malafide intention to implicate the petitioner in a false bribe
case and ACB officials did not find any favour with the
petitioner nor having renewed original TFT license of
Kuppagandla village.
7. The further contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that no official favour is pending with the petitioner
and the trap laid on 05.03.2013 at 2.45 p.m., is nothing but
abuse. The report of the investigating officer is that due to non-
payment of Rs.4500/-, petitioner did not handover the renewed
licenses, whereas, the same were already renewed on
08.10.2012 itself, and the 2nd respondent and others have
already obtained the renewed licenses on 08.12.2012. However,
the 2nd respondent and others have again approached the
petitioner with a request to renew the TFT licenses, as if they
have not renewed the same. As the licenses were already
renewed for a period of five years, no official favour is pending
before the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned
counsel relied on the judgment in Union of India V Prafulla
Kumar Samal 1. His further contention is that the 2nd
respondent is an Ex-MPTC, approached the petitioner, and
stated that there are eight persons who are running toddy
business. Among them seven persons created a group or
syndicate and kept aside the 8th person namely K.Narayana,
and demanded not to renew the license of the said person. The
petitioner did not heed to the demand of 2nd respondent, as
1 (1979) 3 SCC 4
such, he bore grudge against him and implicated the petitioner
in this false case. He further submitted that when the alleged
TFT licenses were already renewed in the month of October,
2012 itself, there cannot be any demand in the month of
January, 2013. The ACB officials without any preliminary
enquiry laid trap which is not in accordance with law. He also
contended that the sanction order was issued by the Principal
Secretary who is not competent to remove the petitioner from
service, as such said sanction is bad in law. When there is no
evidence collected against the petitioner, framing of charges is
improper which is not considered by the investigating officer.
As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner.
8. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the averments of
petition and contended that as per the evidence on record, the
2nd respondent along with six others approached the petitioner
during the month of October, 2012 and submitted their
application to the petitioner, who forwarded the same to the
Prohibition and Excise Superintendent on 08.10.2012 through
his private Assistant Sri Balaiah, who handed over the same to
the Senior Assistant at the office of P & E Superintendent,
Nagarkurnool and received approved licenses on the same day
and handed it over to the petitioner for further process. It is
further contended that during the post-trap proceedings, when
enquired about the pending work of 2nd respondent, petitioner
admitted that 2nd respondent and six others submitted
application for renewal of their licenses in the month of October,
2012 and he forwarded the same to the Prohibition and Excise
Superintendent, Nagarkurnool along with Annexure by
recommending for renewal through Balaiah, retired Junior
Assistant who was working as Private Assistant in the office to
collect the same from ES Officer after its approval. The said
Balaiah brought the above renewed licenses two weeks back and
kept it in the office almirah. So saying, petitioner took the said
renewed licenses from the Almirah with the help of Balaiah and
placed before the trap members. Therefore, the licenses were
already renewed and handed over to the 2nd respondent is not at
all correct and the question whether charge will eventually
stand or not can be examined only after the evidence is adduced
in the case and there is no base to show that 2nd respondent
developed grudge against the petitioner. The contentions raised
by the petitioner cannot be decided in a quash petition and it
requires adjudication. The ACB officials laid trap and he was
red-handedly caught by them. In the preliminary enquiry, he
stated that the amount received is rental amount and his
version is contradictory to his contention that the renewal was
in the month of October, 2012 itself. The further contention of
petitioner that receipt No.281092 dated 05.03.2012 at 2.30
p.m., was also issued to the 2nd respondent, was evident from
the office of Prohibition and Excise is also false as it is an
afterthought. According to the evidence of Sri Nune Veera
Reddy, Prohibition and Excise S.I and FAC SHO, Kalwakurthy,
the Kuppagandla village comes under Excise Station,
Kalwakurthy and there are eight TFT licenses. The rent of the
said village was Rs.10,000/- approximately per annum for 8
TFT licenses and the monthly rent was Rs.834/- to all the above
8 licenses. On verification of cash book, it contained pages 1 to
185, maintained from 03.10.2008. It was the practice to make
any entry in the said cash book about the receipt of net cash by
the SHO. Further during the tenure of petitioner as SHO,
Kalwakurthy, there was no entry about receipt of any amount.
However at page No.66, on 05.03.2013, the opening balance was
NIL and SHO affixed signature on the said entries. However,
below the said entry, there was another entry mentioned by
entering some entries with white fluid that "received Rs.4,500/-
towards toddy rental for the months October 2012 to February,
2013 and part of Mach, 2013 from M.Balakistaiah, toddy shop,
Kuppagandla at 2.30 p.m." Further on verification of cash book
No.28001, it contained receipt Nos.281001 to 281100 were
issued upto 24.03.2011. Further, during the period from
01.01.2000 to 24.03.2011, there was no entry regarding receipt
of toddy rents. However, receipt No.281092 was issued on
05.03.2013 for Rs.4,500/- towards toddy rental for October,
2012 to February 2013 and part of March, 2013. There were no
entries either in the receipt books or in the General Diaries, that
it came to light during last week of April, 2013, the petitioner
visited the Excise Station, Kalwakurthy and made entries in the
General Diary, cash book by threatening the Junior Assistant
and petitioner himself wrote the receipt books with old dates.
As such, the said evidence is no way helpful to the petitioner for
quashing the proceedings. Further the contention of petitioner
that sanction for prosecuting him, issued by the Principal
Secretary is not competent to remove the petitioner from his
service, as such, bad in law is not correct. The State
Government is the competent authority to remove the petitioner
from service under Section 19 (1) (b) of P.C.Act, hence, the
Principal Secretary gave sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.157, Revenue
(Vigilance.II) Department, dated 07.09.2015. As such, the said
contention is also not tenable. The evidence on record clearly
shows that petitioner accepted bribe amount of Rs.4,500/- from
the 2nd respondent for showing official favour to hand over
renewed licenses to him and six others. Therefore, there are no
merits in this criminal petition and prayed to dismiss this
petition.
9. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter filed by
the 1st respondent stating that the renewed TFT licenses were
already processed on 08.10.2012 and 2nd respondent already
obtained the said license from the office of Excise
Superintendent, Nagarkurnool from Mahendra Raja Gopal,
Senior Assistant who is the concerned person for issuing the
renewed licenses and that it is not known to the petitioner how
the Photostat copies of renewed licenses appeared in the room of
petitioner at 2.45 p.m., on 05.03.2013, that petitioner has not
received any Photostat copies of the said licenses from the office
of Superintendent till the date of trap. It is further stated that
the 1st respondent failed to establish evidence before this Court
and there is unexplained delay in filing complaint dated
04.03.2013 against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent and six
others are not paying monthly rent of Rs.834/- to the
Government from 01.10.2012 onwards for a period of five
months, as such, petitioner had made a phone call to the 2nd
respondent and others to ask them to pay monthly rental
amount regularly, but they have not paid the same till the trap
date and the monthly toddy rental amount of Rs.4500/- was
paid on 05.03.2013 and issued receipt to the 2nd respondent.
As such, there is no demand and acceptance. It is further
contended that sanction of prosecution of public servant is not
in accordance with law. In Crl. Appeal No.766 of 2001, the
Apex Court observed that sanction order did not indicate that
authority examined any material against public servant except
the report of police, sanction is not valid. Application of mind
on the part of sanction authority is imperative. The order
granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there
had been proper application of mind on the part of sanctioning
authority. The sanctioning authority had purported to pass the
order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the
Inspector General of Police.
10. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2,
this Court opined that sanctioning authority cannot rely on the
statutory presumption contained in Section 4 of the P.C.Act and
2 (1979) 4 SCC 172
also relied on the judgment in R.S.Nayak V A.R.Antulay 3 and
Prakash Singh Badal and another V state of Punjab and
Others 4.
11. In the present case also the Principal Secretary has not
examined any material against the accused Officer and the G.O.
does not indicate any valid sanction and authority did not apply
its mind. All these facts show continuation of proceedings is
nothing but abuse of process of law, as such, requested this
Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
12. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and a perusal of the material on record, the points to be
considered is whether, there is any prima-facie case against the
petitioner for continuation of proceedings and whether the
sanction under the G.O., is in accordance with law ?
13. The contention of petitioner herein is that the alleged
renewal was in the month of October, 2012 and by the time of
alleged trap, the licenses were already renewed by the concerned
Department and petitioner is no way concerned with it and that
petitioner does not know how the Photostat copies of the
3 (1984) 2 SCC 183
4 (2007) 1 SCC 1
renewed licenses appeared in the Almirah on the date of trap
and that the amount of Rs.4500/- was towards the rental
amount for four and half months.
14. Going through the said contention, the counter affidavit of
the 2nd respondent shows that the alleged receipt book does not
contain any material with regard to payment of rental amount
from the last twenty years and issuing of licenses were after
closure of the said book under the signature. On the alleged
date of trap it was mentioned that it is the receipt of rental
amount. The further allegation is that petitioner herein went to
the Prohibition and Excise office after the trap laid and during
the pendency of trap proceedings, he forcibly made entries in
the G.D., and that the license fee paid was for four and half
months is not at all believable. Even accepting the contention of
petitioner, it has to be for five months, when the rent amount is
due for five months, the allegation that petitioner forcibly made
entries in the G.D, has to be adjudicated by the trial Court.
Petitioner was red handedly caught by the officials of 1st
respondent when he demanded bribe for doing favour. Whether
tainted amount is paid for rental amount and the issue of
entries in the concerned register requires adjudication and the
same cannot be considered at this stage in a quash proceedings.
15. The further contention of petitioner is that the alleged
sanction is not in accordance with law. The contention of
petitioner in the quash petition is that the Principal Secretary is
not the sanctioning authority, whereas in the reply affidavit
petitioner stated that sanction was not given by the sanctioning
authority in accordance with law, as he has not gone through
any record and there are no such averments in the sanction
order vide G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 07.09.2015.
16. After going through the said contention as the
Government is the removal authority of the accused officer, the
Principal Secretary is the proper authority for giving sanction
and the contention that sanction order was not in accordance
with law has to be adjudicated during the course of trial, as in
the sanctioned G.O., the accusations were explained in detail.
Therefore, there is no force in the contention of petitioner on
this aspect. Viewed from any angle, the contentions raised by
the petitioner are not at all tenable and the same has to be
adjudicated during the course of trial. Hence, there are no
grounds to quash the petition against the petitioner and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date : 07.07.2025
Rds
