Ravipati Prabhakar Rao Prabhakar Rao vs State Of Telangana

This petition is filed by the petitioner-Accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.166 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District.

The case of the petitioner in brief was that he was working as Mandal Agricultural Officer. The 2nd respondent - the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nagarkurnool lodged a report against him before Nagarkurnool Police on 10-7-2009 at 11:00 AM alleging that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.14,38,099/- collected from farmers in relation to the subsidy seeds. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.122 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 403, 409, 417 and 420 IPC. Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against him for the above offences.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a theft took place in the house of the petitioner on the intervening night of 19/20-06-2009 and a bag containing the above amount was stolen. The petitioner lodged a complaint before Nagarkurnool Police Station. The same was registered as Crime No.112 of 2009 on 20-6-2009 for the offence under Section 379 IPC, but the police did not conduct investigation in a proper manner and closed the case as a false one. Even in the present case, the charge sheet would not disclose any incriminating material against the petitioner. All the polygraph tests performed on the petitioner did not yield any result. However, in the last polygraph test, an opinion was given that the petitioner might be speaking false. However, the same was not a conclusive proof. The investigating officer failed to collect any material against the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner had not remitted the amounts, the complainant presumed that the petitioner misappropriated the said amount. The money misappropriated was not traced. The bank accounts and the properties of the petitioner were duly verified by the investigating officer but failed to collect any evidence. In fact, the case should have been closed due to lack of evidence. Only on the allegation of the department, the charge sheet had been filed and prayed to quash the proceedings.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor admitted that the charge sheet was filed basing on suspicion and no evidence was collected by the investigating officer to prove the involvement of the petitioner.

Perused the record. The record would disclose that Government was supplying seeds to the farmers on subsidy basis and was distributing the subsidy seeds through the concerned Mandal Agricultural Officer. The petitioner took charge of the Pedda Kothapally Mandal on 12-2-2009. He supplied seeds on subsidy basis to the farmers during the Kharif 2009-10 in Mahabubnagar District from 25-5-2009 to 19-6-2009 and collected non-subsidy portions from the farmers amounting to Rs.17,36,199/- through 15 bill books. He kept the said amount in two bags, one bag containing Rs.14,07,750/- and the other bag containing Rs.2,98,100/- and kept it in his house to remit the said amount in favor of APSSDC on the next day morning. But on the night of 19-6-2009, the bag containing Rs.14,07,750/-was found missing. The petitioner lodged a complaint before Nagarkurnool Police. The same was registered as Crime No.112 of 2009 under Section 379 IPC. Police, after investigation, referred the case as false. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a report before the police on 10-7-2009.

The charge sheet would disclose that the police conducted polygraph tests, but none of the tests resulted any positive results. In the last polygraph test, an opinion was given that the petitioner might be speaking false. The police verified the call details of the petitioner, verified his bank account details, the immovable properties if any acquired by the petitioner and stated that all reasonable efforts were made to trace out the misappropriated amount from the petitioner, but all went in vain. However, they filed charge sheet against the petitioner as he failed to remit the amount immediately alleging that he filed a false case to cheat the superior officers and APSSDC ltd.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and his services were terminated vide orders dated 16-10-2012. The petitioner challenged the same vide OA No.8706 of 2012 and the OA was allowed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits, as the termination order was issued for allegations which were not proved. In the present criminal case also, police filed charge sheet without collecting any incriminating material against the petitioner. No sanction was even obtained by the police under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before filing the charge sheet and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain AIR 2020 SC 3292 and in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander and another (2016) 13 SCC 44.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in D. Devaraja’s case (1 supra) by considering its previous judgment in State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew [2004) 8 SCC 40] held that:

“The protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty.”

In Punjab State Warehousing Corporation’s case the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“20. A survey of the precedents makes it absolutely clear that there has to be reasonable connection between the omission or commission and the discharge of official duty or the act committed was under the colour of the office held by the official. If the acts omission or commission is totally alien to the discharge of the official duty, question of invoking Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not arise. We have already reproduced few passages from the impugned order from which it is discernible that to arrive at the said conclusion the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the authority in B. Saha’s (supra). The conclusion is based on the assumption that the allegation is that while being a public servant, the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed while he was in public service. Perhaps the learned Judge has kept in his mind some kind of concept relating to dereliction of duty. The issue was basically entrustment and missing of the entrusted items. There is no dispute that the prosecution had to prove the case. But the public servant cannot put forth a plea that he was doing the whole act as a public servant. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court. As is noticeable he has observed that under normal circumstances the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC may be of such nature that obtaining of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not necessary but when the said offences are interlinked with an offence under Section 409 IPC sanction under Section 197 for launching the prosecution for the offence under Section 409 is a condition precedent.”

Admittedly, the petitioner is a public servant and collected the amount in discharge of his official duty. The amount kept in two bags was placed in his house on the night to deposit the same in the bank for obtaining DD on the next day. But on the said night, one bag containing an amount of Rs.14,07,750/- was lost. As per the charge sheet an amount of Rs.30,349/- was found to be in variance with the statement of the petitioner. The second bag containing an amount of Rs.2,98,100/- was deposited by the petitioner. The act of misappropriation alleged against the petitioner is intrinsically linked with his official duties. Hence, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is also required to be obtained by the prosecution before filing the charge sheet against the petitioner. The prosecution failed to obtain any sanction order. There is an express legal bar for continuance of proceedings against the petitioner without obtaining any sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution also failed to collect any incriminating material against the petitioner to prove that he misappropriated the said amount. In the absence of any material gathered against the petitioner, forcing him to undergo the tribulations basing on suspicion, leading to an eventual acquittal is also a futile exercise and a waste of the valuable time of the court which cannot be encouraged. Hence, it is considered fit to quash the proceeding against the petitioner in CC No.166 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District.

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-Accused in CC No.166 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.