Sri Kanthala Raj Vital,A1 vs Ante Corruption Bureau,
2025 Latest Caselaw 4316 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Kanthala Raj Vital,A1 vs Ante Corruption Bureau, on 27 June, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

           CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.237 AND 246 OF 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2009 is filed by Accused Officer No.1,

while Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2009 is filed by Accused Officer No.2,

challenging the same judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed by Special Judge

for Speedy trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship amounts in

Social Welfare Department at Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court') in C.C.

No.1 of 2007.

2. Heard Mr. R. Rama Brahmma, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of deceased Accused Officer No.1 represented by his wife -

appellant No.2 and Mr. P. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for Accused

Officer No.2 and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for ACB.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of one and the same judgment,

both the appeals were heard together and the same are being disposed of

by way of this common judgment.

4. By the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found both the

appellants herein - Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offences

under Section - 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption

Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988') read with 34 of IPC and accordingly

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) year each

and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months each for the

said offence.

5. It is relevant to note that during pendency of the present

appeals, the appellant in Crl.A. No.237 of 2009 - Accused Officer No.1

died on 04.10.2015 and, therefore, his wife being legal representative was

brought on record vide order dated 10.07.2023 and accordingly proceeded

with as per Section - 394 (2) of Cr.P.C.

6. As stated above, the deceased appellant in Crl.A. No.237 of

2009 is Accused Officer No.1, while the appellant in Crl.A. No.246 of

2009 is Accused Officer No.2. For the sake of convenience, they are

hereinafter referred to as per their status/ranks in C.C. No.1 of 2007.

7. The case of the prosecution against both the Accused Officers is

as under:

i) Accused Officer No.1 worked as Principal, Industrial Training

Institute (ITI) (Girls), Nalgonda from 21.05.1992 to 31.05.1998, while

Accused Officer No.2 worked as Senior Assistant-cum-Store Keeper in

the same Institution from 01.04.1994 to 31.05.2001. Thus, they are public

servants as defined under Section - 2 (c) of the Act, 1988.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

ii) Accused Officer No.1 having shared common intention with

Accused Officer No.2, received huge budget to a tune of Rs.22.00 lakhs

under the World Bank Scheme under Plan and Non-Plan budget during

the year 1997-98 to the Government ITI (G), Nalgonda. Without any

formal requisition than the eligible requirement, both the Accused

Officers knowingly accepted the quotations from the Firms i.e., Cosmo,

Indo-links and Deccan Traders of Hyderabad. Accused Officer No.1 with

the assistance of Accused Officer No.2 placed purchase orders on the

aforesaid three Firms by splitting up the same within his financial power

i.e., below Rs.1,000/- to get over the hurdle of getting permission from

the Director, Employment & Training, Hyderabad and placed the

purchase orders for huge materials more than the required without

requisition of the concerned officials at exorbitant rates than the

prevailing rates in the market and placed the supply orders to a tune of

Rs.18,18,812/- without following the procedure in vogue in respect of

purchase of materials and also accepted substandard material, and thereby

both the Accused Officers abused their official position and caused

wrongful loss to the Government exchequer to a tune of Rs.4,75,716/-

and pecuniary advantage for themselves. Thus, both the Accused

Officers committed the aforesaid offence.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

8. On credible information with regard to the above irregularities

committed by the Accused Officers, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)

registered a case on 05.02.2001 in Crime No.3/ACB-HR/2001 for the

offences under Sections - 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of Act, 1988,

Sections - 420 and 120B read with 34 of IPC and investigated into.

9. After completion of investigation, the ACB Officials laid the

charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.24 of 2005 by

learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

Thereafter, as per the orders dated 22.11.2006 of this Court in Transfer

Criminal Petition No.176 of 2006, the said case was transferred to the

trial Court and re-numbered it as C.C. No.1 of 2007.

10. The trial Court framed charge under Section - 13 (1) (d) read

with 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 and read with 34 of IPC. On examination,

both the Accused Officers denied the said charges and prayed for trial and

accordingly the trial Court conducted trial.

11. During trial, the prosecution examined thirteen (13) witnesses

i.e., PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22. Both the Accused

Officers neither adduced oral evidence nor produced documentary

evidence to disprove the prosecution case.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

12. After completion of trial, and on consideration of evidence,

both oral and documentary, the trial Court found both the Accused

Officers guilty of the aforesaid charges and accordingly convicted them

vide the impugned judgment and imposed sentence on them in the

manner stated above.

13. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, both the Accused

Officers preferred these appeals.

14. The learned counsel for the deceased appellant - Accused

Officer No.1 contended as follows:

i. There was no evidence to show that Accused Officer No.1

purchased material and tools to the subject Institution during

financial year 1997-98 with exorbitant rates.

ii. The trial Court convicted the Accused Officers on mere surmises

and conjunctures without there-being any material to show the

actual price of the material purchased and the extra amount paid by

them for purchasing the material.

iii. The trial Court grossly erred in holding that articles purchased by

the Accused Officer are exorbitant solely on the oral testimony of

PWs.5, 6 and 11 without there-being any documentary evidence.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

iv. The Accused Officers had taken utmost care and caution in

purchasing 1972 items to the subject institution and prosecution

failed to disprove the same.

v. There is no proof to show that pecuniary loss caused to the

Government or pecuniary gain to the other or Accused Officers.

vi. There is also no evidence to show that the value of articles

purchased is more than that of market value.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer No.2

contended as follows:

i. Accused Officer No.2 was a store-keeper and he is no way related

with the offence. The same was not considered by the trial Court.

ii. Cross-checking of the rates quoted by the Traders is not the duty of

the Store-Keeper.

iii. He is only maintained the articles information in the Store and,

therefore, he is not concerned with the duty of purchase of articles.

iv. There is no evidence to connect Accused Officer No.2 with the

charge framed against him.

v. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are unsound.

16. Both the learned counsel would contend that in similar cases

the Accused Officers were acquitted. In support of the same, they placed

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

reliance on the judgments in Crl.A. Nos.1740 of 2006 and 18 of 2007,

dated 07.11.2023 rendered by this Court, Madubhusi Seshadri Balaji v.

State1, and V.V.V.N.S.S. Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2 and

also N. Dasaradhrami Reddy v. The State of A.P. 3 rendered by the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

17. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for TGACB

supporting the impugned judgment would contend that there was

evidence to prove the charge framed against both the Accused Officers.

Nothing contra was elicited from the prosecution witnesses. Having

considered the said evidence only, the trial Court found them guilty of the

aforesaid offence. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned judgment.

18. In view of the above rival contentions, the following points

that arise for consideration:

i) Whether the appellants herein - Accused Officers were the public servants during relevant point of time?

ii) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of Accused Officers under Section - 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 read with 34 of IPC?

iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable factually and legally?

. Crl.A. Nos.1739, 1748, 1755 of 2006 and 20 of 2007, decided on 04.12.2023

. Crl.A. No.417 of 2014, decided on 29.01.2025

. Crl.A. Nos.12, 15 & 19 of 2007, 1741 of 2006 and 1750 of 2006, decided on 21.11.2023

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

POINT Nos. (i) to (iii):

19. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the undisputed facts

are that the appellants herein - Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 worked as

Principal, ITI (Girls), Nalgonda and Senior Assistant-cum-Store Keeper

in the same Institution, respectively, at the relevant time. During the

financial year 1997-98, Rs.22.00 lakhs budget was allotted to the subject

institution under the World Bank Scheme. The Principal ITIs has power

to purchase any type of material not exceeding Rs.1,000/- without

obtaining any permission.

20. Now, it has to be seen whether the appellants herein

committed the aforesaid offence of criminal misconduct by misusing their

official position. The charge framed against Accused Officer No.1 is that

he being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the purpose of drawing

money from the Treasury during the financial year 1997-98 by corrupt or

illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as public servant

obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.4,75,176/-

and caused wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer by purchasing

substandard materials from the Firms i.e., Cosmo, Indo-links and Deccan

Traders, Hyderabad at exorbitant rates than the prevailing market rates to

the Stores of the subject institution and thereby he committed the

aforesaid offence.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

21. PW.3, Mr. B. Bala Obanna Gowd, the then Deputy Director in

the Directorate of Employment & Training, deposed that there were 49

Institutions covered under World Bank Project at the relevant point of

time. As per G.O.Rt.No.1961, dated 01.07.1997, the Government

released fund of Rs.1436.00 lakhs to various ITI Institutions covered

under World Bank Scheme. He also deposed that Principals are having

powers of purchasing for Rs.1,000/-. Above Rs.1,000/-, they must obtain

sanction and release. His evidence discloses that the aforesaid budget

was allocated to the subject institution under the World Bank Scheme.

22. PW.2, Mr. Gulam Mimtaz Ahmed, the then Training Officer in

the subject Institution, deposed with regard to the procedure to be

followed for purchase of items. He also deposed that if each item is up to

Rs.1,000/-, the Principal is having power to present bills and draw the

amount. Accused Officer No.1 purchased computers in piecemeal manner

with an intention to see that the purchase is less than Rs.1,000/-.

Normally, the Instructors will give indents about the required material.

Basing on the same, quotations will be called for. After receiving

minimum three (03) quotations from different firms/companies, the

Principal will address a letter for allotment of budget to the Director,

Employment and Training. After allotment of budget if each item is

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

more than Rs.1,000/- or above, the Principal will address a letter to the

Director for necessary permission.

23. PW.5, Mr. S. Satyanarayana, the then Joint Director

(Training), deposed with regard to inspection conducted by him on the

subject institution along with PW.6. He deposed that they verified Ex.P9

- Treasury Bill Register, Ex.P1 - Daily Purchase Register, Ex.P2 - Stock

Register and Ex.P4 - bills. Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 purchased

computers, printers, stationery, tools and equipment etc., by deviating the

established procedure in existence. The Director, Employment &

Training allotted Rs.22.0 lakhs for procurement of machinery, equipment

and tools and also other materials.

24. He further deposed that Accused Officers purchased

assembled computers and printers by spending an amount of Rs.6.6 lakhs.

They checked Exs.P1 to 4 and 9 at random and prepared an inspection

report and found there are abnormal rates when compared to prevailing

market rates. They submitted Ex.P10 - joint report along with Ex.P11 -

list prepared by them in respect of items consists of 71 purchased by the

Accused Officers. As per Article - 102 of Finance Code, the Principal

has power to purchase any type of material.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

25. PW.6, retired Principal, also deposed on the same lines as

deposed by PW.5. He further deposed that all the bills were adjusted to

below Rs.1,000/- as the Principal was having power only up to Rs.1,000/-

. Item No.22 of Ex.P11 monitor picture tube purchased at Rs.990/-,

definitely its cost would be more than Rs.1,000/-. Item No.10 SMPS

(Simple Mode Power System) was purchased for less than Rs.1,000/-, but

its actual cost must be more than Rs.1,000/- and those items were not

entered in Stock Register and even not available for inspection.

26. PW.4 deposed with regard to rates of certain items, such as

type-writing machine oil, carbon papers packet, type-writer ribbons, type-

writing machine space key, type-writer front keys and back spaces and all

other items mentioned in Ex.P7 consists of item Nos.1 to 21. PW.7 also

deposed with regard to furnishing appropriate cost of costume design and

dress making by PW.9 as in Ex.P12. PW.9, Senior Lecturer in Kamala

Nehru Polytechnic College for Women, Hyderabad, deposed with regard

to her furnishing rates as in Ex.P12.

27. PW.8, businessman in electrical and electronic goods at

Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda, deposed that he runs the aforesaid business

under the name and style 'Srinivasa Radio and Electricals'. He never

supplied any article to the subject institution, nor gave quotations.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

However, his clerk gave the rates mentioned in Ex.P13 and quotation

supplied by him in Ex.P14. However, this witness was declared hostile

by the prosecution and he was cross-examined by learned Special Public

Prosecutor.

28. PW.10, Data Processing Officer in A.P. Technology Services,

deposed that at the request of Inspector of Police, ACB, Nalgonda, she

along with Inspector visited the subject institution and verified the

invoices and found that total assembled computer systems purchased

were 8 in number and 2 dot matrix printers. During inspection, they

found two computers and one printer were shifted to Regional Deputy

Director Office, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and six systems and one

printer at the subject institution. The invoice of one item was purchased

for more than Rs.1,000/-, it was split up into number of invoices. For

instance, one computer requires hard disk, processor, RAM, motherboard,

memory slots. Total units together and other minor parts must be

assembled then only it will be called as computer. Accused Officer No.1

purchased computer components, but not computer. The Invoices

mentioned in Ex.P4 of Cosmo traders clearly show Accused Officer No.1

purchased only components of a computer and not computer. They also

found that out of eight computers, one is Pentium System and seven are

80486 computers. The then Managing Director submitted Ex.P16 report

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

stating that computer was not purchased but only components were

purchased.

29. PW.11, the then Inspector of Training in Employment and

Training Department, deposed that he along with one Mr.

Brahmanandam, another Training Officer visited the subject institution

on 27th and 28th April, 1998. There are six trades in the subject institution

i.e., draftsman, civil, electronics, secretarial practice, costume design and

dress making, computer science and instrument mechanic. The sanction

strength of trainee is 160. After the inspection, they observed that

Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 split each item into several bills as each

item value is more than Rs.1,000/-. As far as computer parts are

concerned, they split into 85 parts and each printer into 9 parts.

Assembled computer 85 parts value is Rs.78,582/- and 9 parts of printer

components cost would be Rs.22,770/-. Nine (09) Demand Drafts (DDs)

were lying with the subject institution without handing over them to the

concerned suppliers. Out of nine DDs, four DDs belong to Deccan

Traders amounting to Rs.1,92,060/-, five DDs of Cosmo Traders

amounting to Rs.1,87,580, making a total of Rs.3,79,640/-. They

enquired shops orally at random and prepared a list as in Ex.P18 and

submitted their enquiry report as in Ex.P17. According to them, there is a

loss of Rs.9.00 lakhs to the Government Exchequer.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

30. PW.12, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nalgonda, deposed

that he along with two (02) constables in the presence of PW.1 and

LPW.2 conducted inspection on 31.01.2001. During the course of

inspection, he searched the stores of the subject institution and also seized

Exs.P1 to P3 and P19. He received audit report file and bills file Ex.P4.

Thereafter he registered a case in Crime No.03 of 2001 for the aforesaid

offences. He recorded statements of PWs.2, 3, 5 and 6. He also received

letter vide Ex.P7 from Kamala Nehru Polytechnic, Hyderabad furnishing

prevailing market rates of items mentioned in Ex.P7. After receipt of

Ex.P7 and P8, he recorded the statements of PWs.4, 7 and LW.9. He also

recorded the statement of PW.8. Exs.P13 and P14 are the rates furnished

by PW.8. He prepared prevailing market rates statement (Ex.P21). He

also obtained market value of computers, Ex.P22 collected from the

Principal of the subject institution. To facilitate purchase materials of

computers, Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 prepared bills less than

Rs.1,000/- to avoid clutches of law though the value of each article is

more than Rs.1,000/-. He further deposed that though the market value

of computer is Rs.25,000/-, Accused Officers purchased the same at

Rs.75,000/-.

31. PW.1 - Mr. Syed Jalaluddin Hussain in whose presence and

the presence of LW.2, PW.12 conducted surprise checks in the subject

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

institution, deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW.12. He further

deposed that he and LW.2 (not examined by the prosecution as he is no

more as per evidence of PW.1) verified invoices and contingent bills

relating to the purchase made during the financial year 1997-98. They

found 713 bills which were all for Rs.990/- each, relating to purchase of

various components of computers. In the records, it was shown as if

eight (08) computers were purchased by spending Rs.6.74 lakhs from two

firms i.e., Cosmo Traders and Deccan Traders of Hyderabad. He further

deposed that if the computer is assembled with those components, its

value may be Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/-. As per records, Rs.75,000/-

was spent towards each computer. On verification, they found that

almost all total amount of Rs.22.00 lakhs was spent by the subject

institution towards purchase of material.

32. Nothing contra was elicited from the aforesaid witnesses by

accused No.1 during cross-examination.

33. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that Accused

Officer No.1 purchased various items by splitting the invoices below the

price of Rs.1,000/- so as to avoid obtaining permission from the Higher

Officials as Accused Officer No.1 being the Principal of the subject

institution has power to sanction bills below Rs.1,000/-. Perusal of

bills/invoices would clearly reveal that they are all below Rs.1,000/- as

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

deposed by PW.1. Accused Officer No.1 deliberately evaded statutory

procurement procedure by splitting purchase orders below Rs.1,000 to

circumvent higher-level approvals. Thus, Accused Officer No.1 violated

the procedure laid down under Financial Code and the same is in

violation of the principles of transparency and fairness that govern public

procurement and is further proof of dishonest intent. The materials

procured were found to be more than the institutional requirement. The

purchases were made at inflated rates. Prosecution has shown a loss of

Rs.4,75,716/- due to the conduct of Accused Officer No.1 supported by

prosecution evidence. This conduct clearly reflects intentional abuse of

his official position to cause undue pecuniary advantage to himself. The

same establishes not only criminal misconduct under the Act, 1988, but

also wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding gain to Accused

Officer No.1 himself. There is no evidence of any animosity or ill will on

the part of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW.1 that would

suggest a motive to give false testimony against Accused Officer No.1.

34. The trial Court relying on the aforesaid evidence found both

the Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the aforesaid offence. As far

as Accused Officer No.1 is concerned, the trial Court observed that the

rates shown under Ex.P12 are compared with the rates of items purchased

by Accused Officer No.1 during 1997-98 are much exorbitant. Thus,

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

from the oral and documentary evidence, prosecution proved that

Accused Officer No.1 purchased the articles with exorbitant rates and the

alleged lowest rates i.e., quotations submitted by the aforesaid three (03)

firms were really more than the rates existing in the local market then.

There is sufficient evidence from PWs.4,7, 9, 10, 5,6, 11 and 12, who

inspected the institution and collected local market rates for the year

1997-98. So, their evidence will prevail. PWs.5, 6 and 11 clearly

mentioned under Exs.P10 and 17 inspection reports that the articles

purchased by the subject institution are exorbitant and it is clearly shown

that Accused Officer No.1 violated the financial code and purchased the

articles worth above Rs.1,000/- by splitting the bills for below Rs.1,000/-

in respect of items shown under Ex.P11. Thus, Accused Officer No.1

violated the financial code and purchased the articles with exorbitant rates

and caused pecuniary loss to the State. He did not take even minimum

care when purchased the items, because the articles were purchased

repeatedly without any requisition from the concerned Trade.

35. With the aforesaid observations, the trial Court found guilty of

Accused Officer No.1 and accordingly recorded conviction against him

and imposed sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Thus,

the trial Court has rightly convicted Accused Officer No.1 after a full-

fledged trial, based on legal, procedural and evidence, both oral and

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

documentary. There is no error either of law or fact. Thus, the

conviction does not warrant any interference by this Court.

36. Insofar as Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, the trial Court

also found him guilty of the aforesaid offence and accordingly recorded

conviction against him. The trial Court did not appreciate the evidence

on record properly. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed with

regard to the role of Accused Officer No.1 in commission of the aforesaid

offence. Moreover, during cross-examination, PW.12 specifically

admitted that Accused Officer No.2 is no way concerned with purchase of

material. However, during re-examination by prosecution, he stated that

Store Keeper colluded with Accused Officer No.1 to purchase the

material. PW.12 being the Investigating Officer himself admitted that

Accused Officer No.2 is no way concerned with purchase of material.

His evidence is crucial because he investigated the entire case. Had

Accused Officer No.2 really been involved in the commission of offence,

definitely he would have deposed that Accused Officer No.2 was also

involved in the commission of offence.

37. Perusal of prosecution evidence would show that none of the

witnesses deposed with regard to the role of Accused Officer No.2 in the

commission of offence along with Accused Officer No.1. Accused

Officer No.2 is only a Senior Assistant-cum-Store Keeper at the subject

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

institution. His duty is to maintain stock registers for all consumables,

tools, equipment, raw materials and stationery and ensure physical

verification of stock and report discrepancies. He also maintains proper

documentary of purchase orders, goods receipt notes, stock entries and

issue registers. File and preserve supporting documents, such as invoices,

challans, supplier bills etc. In fact, PW.6, retired Principal, deposed that

the items were not entered in the stock register and not available for

inspection. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show

Accused Officer No.2 knowingly participated in commission of offence

or intended to benefit from the irregular procurements. Burden lies on

the prosecution to prove the charge framed against the accused by

producing cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, prosecution

failed to prove the same and also failed to discharge its burden. On

suspicion, the appellant - Accused Officer No.2 cannot be prosecuted. As

discussed above, except alleging that Accused Officer No.1 in collusion

with Accused Officer No.2 committed the aforesaid offence, prosecution

failed to file any document and failed to prove the same during trial.

Therefore, benefit of doubt shall be extended to Accused Officer No.2.

Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof in a

criminal trial as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v.

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

State of Assam4. Mere suspicion is not enough, prosecution must prove

conscious involvement. While Accused Officer No.1's actions clearly

involved in manipulation of procedures and abuse of authority, there is no

cogent evidence to prove that Accused Officer No.2 had a common

intention to commit the aforesaid offence. In criminal law, each Accused

Officer must be judged based on their own conduct. Liability cannot be

imposed vicariously or inferentially, especially when the role is

subordinate.

38. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the

evidence, both oral and documentary on record, it is clear that Store-

keeper does not have independent authority to approve purchases, select

vendors, sanction funds and split or modify purchase orders. These

powers rest with the Principal or Head of the Institution. He does not

have financial power. Thus, Accused Officer No.2 cannot be found fault

with the offence charged against him. The trial Court erred by treating

administrative lapses as a criminal conduct in the absence of proven

dishonest intent, direct involvement in a fraudulent scheme. The

prosecution did not discharge its burden under the Act, 1956. Ignoring all

the aforesaid factors and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more

particularly, evidence of PW.6 and PW.12, erroneously concluded that

. (2013) 12 SCC 406

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

Accused Officer No.2 is also guilty of the aforesaid offence. Thus, the

finding of the trial Court in recording conviction and imposition of

sentence of imprisonment is unsound and, therefore, the conviction and

sentence of imprisonment imposed on Accused Officer No.2 are liable to

be set aside.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No.237

of 2009 filed by the appellant - Accused Officer No.1 is dismissed,

confirming conviction recorded against him and the sentence of

imprisonment imposed on him vide judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed by

Special Judge for Speedy trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship

amounts in Social Welfare Department at Hyderabad in C.C. No.1 of

2007. However, as stated above, Accused Officer No.1 expired during the

pendency of the present appeal. His wife was brought on record. As the

offence under the Act, 1988 is personal in nature and the sentence was

also of a punitive kind, no further proceedings shall survive against

Accused Officer No.1 in view of his death.

40. Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2009 is allowed setting aside the

conviction recorded against the appellant herein - Accused Officer No.2

and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him vide judgment dated

KL,J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009

11.02.2009 passed by Special Judge for Speedy trial of Cases of

Embezzlement of Scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Department at

Hyderabad in C.C. No.1 of 2007. Accused Officer No.2 is acquitted of

the aforesaid charge framed against him. Bail bonds furnished by him

stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is also ordered to be

returned to the appellant - Accused Officer No.2 after expiry of appeal

time.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

the Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 27th June, 2025 Mgr