Telangana High Court
Sri K. Jagan Mohan A1, Khammam Dist., And ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Spl. P.P., ... on 19 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.815 and 879 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2010 is filed by appellants/A1
and A2, and Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2010 is filed by A4. The
appellants A1, A2, and A4 are questioning their conviction vide
judgment in C.C.No.29 of 2005 dated 30.06.2010, passed by the
Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad.
2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the same
judgment in C.C.No.29 of 2005, they are being heard together
and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
3. The appellants will be hereinafter referred to as A1, A2, and
A4 as mentioned in the trial Court. In all, A1 to A4 were tried by
the learned Special Judge. However, A3 was acquitted of all the
offences. The ACB did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal
of A3.
4. Heard Sri J.Manikanta Reddy, learned counsel for A1,
Mrs.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for A2 and Sri M.Bala
Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, for the
improvement of the Erra Cheruvu of Lachagudem village, tenders
were called for and work was awarded to A-4, who is a President
of M/s.Tribal Labour Co-operative Society, Narayanapuram,
Khammam. The estimated value was Rs.4,79,000/-. Later on,
due to the representation by the villagers for widening of the top
width of the bund up to 3 Mts., to enable the movement of Carts
and Tractors, modified estimates were prepared for Rs.9,23,000/-
under a supplemental agreement dated 17.8.1993. After
execution of the improvement work to Erra Cheruvu at
Rs.4,79,000/-, the Ryots of Rajaboinagudem village submitted a
representation about the deficiency of work, and one Sri
Damodar Reddy (not examined) of the Area submitted a
complaint before A.P.Lokayuktha alleging irregularities in the
works. The Joint Director of A.P. Lokayukta Sri K.Narsing Rao
(not examined) was entrusted to enquire, and after enquiry, he
submitted a report to the Hon'ble Lokayukta. In turn, the report
was sent to the D.G., ACB to investigate into the allegations of
fraud. In turn, the D.G, ACB, issued proceedings to Sri
M.Lazarus (not examined), the then DSP, ACB, Warangal to
investigate and accordingly, Sri M.Lazarus registered the case
vide Crime No.14/ACB-WKH/2000 under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Act and under Section 477/A r/w Section 34
IPC. The case was entrusted to Sri G.Raghava Reddy (P.W.8),
Inspector of Police, ACB, Khammam for the purpose of
investigation and report.
6. During investigation, it was observed that the
measurements were recorded by A1 and the bill was prepared for
Rs.8,74,987.31ps. A2, D.E.E, Check measured and restricted the
amount to Rs.7,01,658.78 ps, and A3/E.E super checked and
further restricted it to Rs.4,04,249/-. After thorough verification
by Sri Chalamaiah (P.W.4), the then E.E., restricted the amount
to Rs.1,20,000/- since the work was found to be defective, both
quantitatively and qualitatively, and the said amount was paid to
contractor-A4 vide cheque dated 31.3.1994, and A4 accepted the
same under protest.
7. It is further the case that the M.Book disclosed that the
work was completed on 15.5.1993, whereas, the agreement for
enhanced estimates was entered into between A4 and S.E on
17.8.1993. After completion of the investigation, Inspector, ACB,
observed that the measurements recorded in the M.Book were
false, and the measurements were found to be recorded before
entering into the supplemental agreement. A charge sheet was
laid after completion of investigation against A1 to A4 for the
offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 15 of Prevention
of Corruption Act r/w Section 34 of IPC, Under Sections 420 and
477-A r/w Section 34 and Section 511 of IPC, against A1 to A3,
Under Section 420 r/w Section 511 of IPC against A4.
8. Charge was framed against the appellants for obtaining
pecuniary advantage to a tune of Rs.4,04,249/- during 1993-
1994, by recording false measurements in measurement books
even before entering into the supplemental agreement in respect
of the execution of the work for improvement of Erra Cheruvu of
Lachagudem Village. The said contract was executed by A4.
9. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked
Exs.P1 to P27 on behalf of the prosecution. Three witnesses,
D.Ws.1 to 3, were examined on behalf of the appellants.
10. P.W.1 speaks about the contract work estimations and the
role played by A1 and A2, as narrated above. P.W.1 further stated
that Chalamaiah (P.W.4), Executive Engineer, Irrigation, visited
the work, made enquiries, and found that there was a deficiency
in the work executed by A4. Thereafter, P.W.4 addressed a letter
Ex.P5 to the District Collector, pointing out the deficiency, and
also issued a notice to A4 to rectify the defects. P.W.1 also
recorded the measurements, after the rectification work had
taken place.
11. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that he recorded the
work only after the completion of work and payment being made
to the contractors, in accordance with the measurements in the
M.Book. P.W.1 further stated that A4 had completed the contract
work. The recording of measurements by P.W.1 was on
27.03.1996.
12. P.W.2 also deposed the case of the prosecution in the same
lines as P.W.1.
13. P.W.3, who retired as the Executive Engineer, found the
following differences with regard to the work done:
"Benching to old bund worked out to 388.4 Cubic meters,
which is actual. But it was shown as the work done of
1,496.11 cubic meters, which is in excess. Reflected at
Page 47 of the work statement.
Excavation work-raising bund actual worked out to 9087
cubic meters whereas it is mentioned 12426.20 cubic
meters which is also in excess at page 47.
225 MM thick rough stone dry packing or revetment to bund
actual work out to 332.34 cubic meters, but it is shown
597.66 cubic meters which is also excess. I have worked
out the above said quantities prior to rectification of the
work."
14. P.W.3 further stated that he has not personally visited the
work spot, but he based his calculations on the statements and
measurements which were furnished to him.
15. P.W.4 is a crucial witness to the prosecution. According to
him, after verification of the work done by A4, though claim for
Rs.7.00 lakhs was made, P.W.4 found that the work was
defective, both in quantity and quality, as such, a
recommendation for Rs.1,20,000/- was made by him. According
to P.W.4, he addressed a letter to A4 to rectify the defective work
done by him.
16. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that he has not
given any reasons for restricting the amount to Rs.1,20,000/-.
Further, the deficiencies were also not mentioned in the M.Book.
According to P.W.4, he inspected the work along with A1 and A2.
Experience certificate was issued by P.W.4 to A4 on 17.06.1993,
stating that the work was satisfactory. However, P.W.4 added
that the said certificate was given on the basis of certification
given by A2.
17. P.W.7 is the retired Tahsildar, who states about the
defective work done. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.7
admits that he was not personally aware about the defective
work, nor did he go for any personal inspection of the work.
18. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. He stated that the FIR was
registered on 06.09.2000, based on the report of the Lokayuktha.
Sri Narsing Rao, Joint Director of A.P. Lokayuktha, who enquired
and submitted report to Lokayuktha, was not examined.
According to P.W.8, he conducted the investigation and seized the
records. P.W.8 admitted that he has gone through the certificate
issued by P.W.4 on 17.06.1993. Further, according to the
Lokayuktha report, A1, A2, one Patnayak, and
P.W.4/Chalamaiah were responsible for the alleged
misappropriation of the government funds.
19. P.W.8 further admitted that by the year 1996, the entire
work was executed and the final payment was also made. The
first agreement for the contract was on 28.01.1993 and the
second agreement was on 17.08.1993. However, none of the
witnesses, including P.W.8 stated about the contents of the two
agreements.
20. All the witnesses stated that A3 was not concerned with the
work and he only conducted super check of the work executed by
A4. For the said reason, learned Special Judge acquitted A3, as
no incriminating evidence was found against him.
21. D.W.1 is an agriculturist, examined by the defence. He
stated that he attended the work of repairs of Erra Cheruvu
during 1993, i.e., the work in question. According to him, after
1993, A4 did not do any repairs of Erra Cheruvu and no one
attended to the repairs.
22. Though witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, speak about the rectification
work done, however, no witnesses were examined to specifically
speak about the rectification work executed by A4.
23. The work was done in the year 1993, and even according to
the prosecution case, the entire work was completed, even prior
to 1996 and the entire amounts were paid to A4.
24. D.W.3 worked as Superintendent, Irrigation. He deposed in
his chief examination, as follows:
"I retired as Superintendent Irrigation. After the works are
complete later the revised estimates are submitted. The
concerned E.E has to inspect the works and satisfy himself
and then only has to send the revised estimates to the
Sanctioned Authority. In the Ex.P12 certificate Executive
Engineer fully satisfied certified the work after inspection and
signed to that effect. If any deductions are to be made the E.E
has to get the abstract prepared and when mentioned the
deductions before passing of the bill. Without assigning any
reasons by the E.E the bill cannot be limited. After the
finishing work is over when it becomes old it would not be
possible to check up whether the finishing work properly or
not. After one year after execution of work unless the
undisturbed core sample is taken and sent to the Quality
Tests laboratory it will not be possible to assess whether the
consolidation is properly done or not. In the revitmant work a
toe wall has to be constructed from the base level and
gradually it should be raised upto the required level. While
inspecting the revitmant work it has to be inspected from the
base level to upward stage. In Ex.P25 there is no mention that
the revitmant work was inspected from the base level. Due to
loss of time and seepage of water the base level of the
revitmant the silt will be formed over the revitmant and if the
silt is removed the revitmant will be disclosed."
As stated by D.W.3, no scientific test was conducted to
determine any deficiency of work. In the cross-examination, the
evidence of D.W.3 remains unchallenged.
25. The charge is for preparing a false statement in the
measurement book to a tune of Rs.4,04,249/- during the year
1993-94. No reasons are given by any of the witnesses as to how
the said amount was arrived at, and none of the witnesses speak
about any scientific estimation of the work done vis-à-vis the
entries made in the measurement book.
26. The charges are framed for attempt to cheat and also
attempt to falsify the records. As already discussed, none of the
witnesses spoke about how amount was arrived at based on the
records. The ACB registered the case nearly after six years after
the work was executed. According to the investigating officer,
P.W.4 restricted the amount to Rs.4,04,249/-, which is the
alleged misappropriated amount. P.W.4 did not speak about how
the amount of Rs.4,04,249/- was arrived at or in what way the
said amount was subject to any pecuniary advantage by the
appellants.
27. The case of the prosecution is not based on any scientific
evidence but solely on the Lokayuktha report, which formed
basis to register the FIR. The person who prepared the
Lokayuktha report was not examined. On the basis of
assumption that the appellants have attempted to either cheat
the government or attempted to falsify the accounts, the
prosecution of the appellants is improper. Admittedly, there is no
loss to the Government or the department. None of the witnesses
speak about any monetary loss but speak about rectification of
the work executed. In the present circumstances, there is no
attempt to cause loss as alleged by the prosecution.
28. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.29 of
2005 dated 30.06.2010 is set aside, and the appellants/A1, A2,
and A4 are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail
bonds shall stand discharged.
29. Accordingly, both Criminal Appeals are allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 19.03.2025
kvs
