The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSItrVIAN AL APPEAL Nos.23 7 AI{D 2460F 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Criminal Appeal No'237 of 2009 is filed by Accused Offrcer No'1' while Criminal Appeal No'246 of 2009 is filed by Accused Officer No'2' challenging the same judgment dated ll '02'2009 passed by Special Judge for Speedy triat of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Depar-tment at Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court') in C'C' No.l of 2007.

2. Heard Mr. R. Rarna Brahmma' Ieamed counsel appearlng on behalf of deceased Accused Offrcer No'l represented by his wife - appellant No.2 and Mr' P' Ravi Shankar' leamed cortnsel for Accused Officer No.2 and Mr. T. Bala Motran 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 th€ same are being disposed of by way of this common judgment'

4. By the afbresaid judgment' the trial Court found both the appellants herein - Accused Offrcer Nos'l and 2 guilty of the offences under Section - 13 (2)read with 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of comrption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988') read with 34 of IPC and accordingly 2 ca.a. Nos::zfllr orzoos sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) year each and to pay a fine ofRs.l0,000/_ (R-upees Ten Thcusand Only) each, rn defaulq 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.I died on 04.lO.ZOl5 and, therefore, his wife being legal representative was brought on record vide order dated lO.O7.2l23and accordingly proceeded withas per Seoion - 3g4 (2)of Cr.p.C.

6. As stated above, the deceased appellant in Crl.A. No.237 of 2009 is Accused Officer No.l, 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 starus/ranks in c.c. No. l of 2007.

7. The case of the prosecution against both the Accused officers is as under: i) Accused Officer No. I worked as principal, Industrial Training Institute (ITI) (Girls), Nalgonda from 21.05.t992 to 31.05.199g, while Accused Officer No.2 worked as Senior Assistant_cum_Store Keeper in the same Instirurion tiom 0 I .04. 1994 ro 3 I .05.2001 . Thus, they are public servants as defined under Secrion _ 2 (c) olthc Acr. 1988. J KLJ CrU.. Nos.23? & 2'16 of 2009 ii) Accused Offrcer No'l 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 lggT-98 to the Govemment ITI (G)' Nalgonda' Without any il; ., formal requisition than the eligible requirement' both the Accused f'!; Offrcers knowingly accepted the quotations from the Firms i'e'' Cosmo' ,',Uii f i IndoJinks and Deccan Traders of Hyderabad' Accused OffrcerNo'l 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, E,mployment & Training' Hyderabad and placed the purchase orders for huge materials more than the required without requisition of the concemed offrcials at exorbitant rates than the prevailing rates in the market and placed the supply orders to a tune of Rs.18,18,812/- without fotlowing the procedure in vogue in respect of purchase of materials and also accepted substandard material' and thereby both the Accused officers abused their offrcial position and caused wrongfut loss to the Govemment exchequer to a tufle of Rs'4'75'716/- Thus, both the Accused and pecuniary advantage for themselves' Officers committed the aforesaid offence' 4 KLJ Crl.A. Nos.237 & 2,t6 of2009

8. On credible information with regard to the above irregularities cornmitted by the Accr-sed Officers, the Anti_Ccrnrption Bureau (ACB) registered a case on O5.O2.2OO| in Crime No.3/ACB_HR/2001 for the offences under Sections _ 13 (l)(d) read wirh 13 (2) of Act l9gg, Sections - 420 arrd l20B read with 34 of IpC and investigared into.

9. After completion of investigarion, rhe ACB Officials laid the charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.24 of 2005 by leamed Additional Special Judge for SpE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Thereafter,-as per the orders dated 22.t.2006 0f this Court in Transfer Criminal petition No.l76 of 2(/|i6, the said case was transferred to the trial Court and re_numbered it as C.C. No. I of 2007.

10. The trial Court framed charge under Secrion _ 13 (l) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act l9g8 and read with 34 of IpC. On examination, both the Accused offrcers denied the said charges and prayed for trial and accordingly the hial Court conducted trial. I l. During trial, the prosecution examined thirteen (13) witnesses i.e., PWs.l to 13 and got marked Exs.pl ro p22. Eloth the Accused Officers neither adduced oral evidence nor produced documentary evidence to disprove the prosecution case. 5 KLJ Crl3. Nos237 & 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 Offrcers Preferred these aPPeals'

14.Theteamedcounselforthedeceasedappellant-Accused Offrcer No.1 contended as follows: i. There was no evidence to show that Accused Officer No'l purchased material and tools to the subject Institution durirg financial year 1997 -98 with exorbitant rates' The trial Court convicted the Accused Officers on mere surmises and conjunctures without there-being any rnaterial to show the actual price of the material purchased and the extra amourrt paid by them for Purchasing the material' r11. The triat Court grossly erred in holding that articles purchased by the Accused Ofticer are exorbitant solely on the oral testimony of PWs.5,6andllwithoutthere.beinganydocumentaryevidence. 6 KLJ Crl-A- Nos.237 & 246 of2009 lv. The Accused Officers had taken utmost care and caution in purchasing 1972 items to r-tre subject institution and prosecution failed to disprove the same. There is no proof to show that pecuniary loss caused to the Govemment or pecuniary gain to the other or Accused Officers. There is also no evidence to show that the value of articles purchased is more than that of market value. vl.

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 ofthe rates quoted by the Traders is not the dutv of the Store_Keeper. iii' He is only maintained the articres information in the Store and, therefore, he is not concerned with the duly ofpurchase ofarticles. 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 leamed counsel would contend that in similar cases the dssussd Officers were acquifted. In support olthe samc, thev placed 7 KI,J Crt-A. Nos.237 & 246 of 2009 reliance on the judgments in Crl'A' Nos'I740 of 2006 and lE of 2007' dated 07.11.2023 rendered by this Court, Madubhusi Seshadri Balaji v' Statel, and V.V.V.N.S.S. Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2 and also N. Dasaradhrami Reddy v. The State of 'dP'3 rendered by the .it' High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

17. On the other hand, the leamed 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 eticited from the prosecution witnesses' Having considered the said evidence onty, the trial Court found them guilty of the aforesaid offence. Therefore, there is no elror in the impugned judgment' l8.Inviewoftheaboverivalcontentions,thefollowingpoints that arise for consideration: i) Whether the appetlans herein - Accused Officers were the public servants during relevant point of time? ii) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of Accused Offrcers under Section - 13 (l) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act 1988 read with 34 of IPC? iii)Whether the judgment of the triat Court is sustainable factuallY and legallY? r- Crl.A. Nos.l?39, 174t, 1755 of m06 and 20 of 2007' decided ol 0/.12'2023 2. C.t.A. No.+t7 of20t4, decided on 29.01 2025 '. Cri.n. No".fz, l5 & li of 2007, 174 t of 2006 and 1750 of 2006' decided otr2l ll'2023 8 KLT Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of2009 POTNT Nos. to llr

19. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the undisputed facts are that the appellants herein - Accused officer Nos.l and 2 worked as Principal, ITI (Girls), Nalgonda and Senior Assistanr-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 subjecr institution under the World Bank Scheme. The principal [TIs has power to purchase any type of material not exceeding Rs.l,000i- 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. r is that he being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the purpose ol.drawing money from the Treasury during the financial year 1997 _9g by comrpt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as public servant obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.4.75.176l_ and caused wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer by purchasing substanriard 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 off-ence. 9 KLJ Crl-A. Nos.23? & 245 of2009

21. PW.3, Mr. B. Bala Obanna Gowd, the then Deputy Director in the Directorate of Employment & Training, deposed that there were 49 Instihrtions covered under Wortd Bank Project at the relevant point of time. As per G.O.Rt.No.l96l, dated 0l'07'1997' the Govemment releasedfundofRs.l436.00lakhstovariouslTllnstitutionscovered under world Bank Scheme. He also deposed that Principals are having powers of purchasing for Rs-I,000/-' Above Rs'l'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.z,Mr.GulamMimtazAhmed,thethenTrainingOffrcerin the subject Institution, deposed with regard to the proceCure tc 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 bitls and draw the amount. Accused Offrcer No.1 purchased computers in piecemeal manner with an intention to see that the purchase is less than Rs' 1'000/-' Normally, the lnstructors will give indents about the required material' Basing on the same, quotations will be calted for' After receiving minimum three (03) quotations from different firms/companies' the Principal will address a letter for allotment ol budget to the Director' Employment and Training. After allotment of budget if each item is l0 KLJ Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of2009 more than Rs.1,000/- or above, the principal will address a letter to the Director for necessary permission.

23. PW.5, Mr. S. Satyanarayan4 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 Bilr Register, Ex.pl - Daily purchase Register, Ex.p2 _ Stock Register and Ex.p4 - bills. Accused Officer Nos.l and 2 purchased computers, printers, stationery, tools and equipment etc., by deviating the established procedure in existence. The Director, Employment & Training alloned Rs.22.0 lakhs for procurement of machinery, equipment and tools and also other materials.

24. He further deposed that Accused Otficers purchased assembled computers and printers by spending an amount of Rs.6.6 lakhs. They checked Exs.pl 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.pl I _ Iist prepared by them in respect of items consists of 7l purchased by the Accused Officers. As per Article _ 102 of Finance Code, the principal has power to purchase any type of material. KI,J Crl.A. Nos.23? & 2'16 of2009

25. PW.6, retired Principal, also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW.5' Hp further deposed that all the bills were adjusted to below Rs.1,0001 as the Principal was having power only up to Rs't'000/- . Item No.22 of Ex'Pll monitor pichue hrbe purchased at Rs'990/-' definitety its cost would be more than Rs'l'000/-' Item No'10 SMPS (Simpte Mode Power System) was purchased for less than Rs'l'000/-' but iB 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 ffpe-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'l to 2l' PW'7 also deposed with regard to fumishing appropriate cost of costum€ 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 rc her fumishing rates as in Ex'Pl2' 27 . PW.8, businessman in electrical and electronic goods at Prakasarn Bazar, Nalgonda, deposed that he runs the aforesaid business under the name and style 'Srinivasa Radio and Etectricals'' He never supplied any article to the subject institution' nor gave quotations' 12 KU Crl.A. Nos-23? & 246 of2009 However, his clerk gave the rates mentioned in Ex.pl3 and quotation supplied by him in Ex.p14 However, this witress was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross_examined by learned Special public Prosecutor. {

28. pW.lO, Dara processing Ofiicer in A.p. Technology Services, deposed that at the request of lnspector of police, ACB, Nalgond4 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 sub-rect instirution. 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 dislq processor, RAM, motherboard, memory slots. Total units together and other minor pafls must be assembled then onty it will be called as computer. Accused Officer No. I purchased computer components, but not computer. The Invoices mentioned in Ex.p4 of Cosmo traders clearly show Accused Officer No. I purchased only components ofa computer and not computer. They also found that out of eight computers, one is pentium System and seven are 80486 computem. I-he then Managing Director submitted Ex.p16 reporr 13 KLJ CrtA. Nos.23? & 246 of 2009 stating that computer was not purchased but only components were purchased

29. PW.ll, the then Inspector of Training in Employment and Training Departmen! deposed that he along with one Mr' Brahmanandam, another Training Offrcer visited the subject institution on 276 and 28m April, 1998. There are six trades in the subject irstitution i.e., draftsman, civit, electronics, secretarial practice' costurne design and dress making, computer science and instrument mechanic' The sanction strength of trainee is 160. A-fter the inspection' they observed that Accused Officer Nos.l and 2 split each item into several bills as each item value is more than Rs.1,000/-' As far as computer parts are concemed, 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.22,7701-' Nine (09) Demand Drafts (DDs) were lylng with the subject institution without handing over them to the concemed suppliers. Out of nine DDs, four DDs belong to Dcccan Traders amounting to Rs.l'92,060 l-, fle 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'Pl7' According to them' there is a loss of Rs.9.00 takhs to the Govemment Exchequer' l4 KIJ CrlA. Nos.237 & 2,16 of 2009

30. PW.12, the then Inspector of police, ACB, Nalgonda, deposed that he along with trvo (02) constabres in the presence of pw.r and LPW.2 conducted inspection on 31.01.2001. During the course of inspection, he searched the stores of the subject institution and arso seized Exs.Pl to P3 and pl9. He received audit report frle 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 polytechnig 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 sratement of pW.g. Exs.pl3 and pl4 are the rates fumished by PW.8. He prepared prevailing market rates statement (Ex.p2l). He also obtained market value of computers, Ex.p22 collected from the Principal of the subject instirution- To facilitate purchase materials of computers, Accuscd Officer Nos.l 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.25,000i-, Accused Officers purchased the same at Rs.75,000/-

31. PW.l - Mr. Sycd Jalaluddin Hussain in whose presence and thb-presence of t_W.2. pW. l2 conducted surprise checks in the subject l5 KLJ CrlJA.. Nos-237 & 246 of2009 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'l) verifred invoices and contingent bills relating to the purchase made during the lmancial 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 (0E) computers were purchased by spending Rs'6'74 lakhs from two firmsi.e.,CosmoTradersandDeccanTradersofHyderabad.Hefurther deposed that if the computer is assernbled 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 atmost all total amount of Rs'22'00 lakhs was spent by the subject institution towards purchase of material'

32. Nothing conka was elicited from the aforesaid witnesses by accused No. 1 during cross-examination'

33. [n 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 ofhcials as Accused offrcer No.l being the Principal of the subject institution has power to sanction bills below Rs' l '000/-' Perusal o[ bills/invoices would clearly reveal that they are all below Rs' 1'000/- as t6 KLJ Crl.A. Nos.23? & 2{6 of2009 deposed by PW.l. Accused Officer No.l deliberately evaded statutory procurement procedure by splitting purchase orders below Rs.1,000 to circumvent higher-level approvals. Thus, Accused Officer No.l violated the procedure laid down under Financial Code and the same is in violation of the principles of transparency and faimess that govem public procurernent and is further proof of dishonest intent. The materials procured were found to be more than the instifutional requiremenl 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.l supported by prosecution evidence. This conduct crearry reflects htentionar abuse of his official position to cause undue pecuniary advantage to himself. The same establishes not only criminal misconduct under the Act, l9gg, but also wrongful loss to the Govemment and corresponding gain to Accused Offrcer No.l himself. There is no evidence of any animosity or ill will on the part of the prosecution witnesses- more particurarry. pw.1 that would suggest a motive to give false testimony against Accused Officer No.1 .

34. The trial courr rerying on the aforesaid evidence found both the Accused Officer Nos. t and 2 guilg, ol the aforesaid offence. As far as Accused Officer No. I is concemed, the trial Court observed that the rates shown under Ex.pl2 are compared with the rates of items purchased bfr{:cused ofricer No. r during 1997-9g are much exorbitant. Thus, t7 KLJ Crl.A- Nos.2l7 & 246 of 2009 ftom the oral and documentary evidence, prosecution proved that Accused Officer No.l purchased the articles with exorbitant rates and the atleged lowest rates i'e., quotations submitted by the aforesaid three (03) hrms were really more than the rates existing in the local market then' There is suffrcient evidence from PWs'4'7' 9' 10' 5'6' 11 and 12' who inspected the institution and collected local market rates for the year lggT-g8. So, their evidence will prevail' PWs'5' 6 and 1l clearly mentioned under Exs.Pl0 and 17 inspection reports that the articles purchased by the subject institution are exorbitant and it is clearly shown that Accused Officer No'l violated the financial code and purchased the articles worth above Rs.1,000/- by splitting the bills for below Rs'l'000/- in respect of items shown under Ex'Pll' Thus' Accused Offrcer No'l violated the hnancial 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 repeatedty without any requisition from the concemed Trade'

35. With the aforesaid obsewations' the trial Court fowrd guilty of Accused officer No.l and accordingly recorded conviction against him and imposed sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above' Thus' the trial Court has rightly convicted Accused Offrcer No'l after a full- fledged triat, based on legal, procedural and evidence' both oral and .i ?,...:. IE KLJ Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of2009 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 concemed, 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.l in commission of the aforesaid offence. Moreover, during cross_examination, pW. t 2 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. t to purchase the material. PW.l2 being the Investigating officer himsetf admitred that Accused OfEcer No.2 is no way concemed 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 arong with Accused officer No. l. Accused Officer No.2 is only a Senior Assistant_cum-Store Keepcr at the subject t9 KLJ Crt.A. Nos.23? & 245 of2009 institution. His duty is to maintain stock registers for all consumables' tools, equipment, raw materials and stationery and ensure physicat 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' tn fact' PW'6' retired Principal' deposed that the iterns were not entered in the stock register and not available for inspection. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show Accused offrcer No.2 knowingly participated in commission of offence or intended to benefit from the irregutar procurements' Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charge framed against the accused by producing cogent and reliabte evidence' In the present case' prosecution failed to prove the same and atso failed to discharge its burden' On suspicion, the appetlant - Accused Oificer No'2 cannot be prosecuted' As discussed above, except alleging that Accused Officer No'l in collusion with Accused Officer No 2 committed the aforesaid offence' posecution failed to file any document and faited to prove the same during trial' Therefore, benefit ol doubt shalt be extended to Accused Offrcer No'2' Suspicion, however grave' cannot mke the ptace of legal proof in a criminar triat as herd by the Ho.,ble Supreme court in suiit Biswas v' 20 ca.e. Nos.zttt)t+a ot zoos State of Assamo. Mer suspicion is not enough, prosecution must prove conscious involvement. While Accused Officer No. I ,s involved in manipulation ofprocedures 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 musr be judged based on their own conduct. Liability cannot be imposed vicariously or inferentially, especially when the role is actions clearly subordinate.

38. In view of the abov'e discussion and keeping in view it is clear that Store- rove purchases select eviden ce, both oral and documentary on record keeper does not have independent authority to app vendors, sanction ftnds and split or modi$, purchase orders. These powers rest with the principal or Head of the Institution. I{e 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 rreating administrative Iapses as a criminal conduct in the absence of proven dishonest intent, direct involvement in a fraudulent scherns. ths prosecution did not discharge its burden under the Act, I956. Ignoring all the aforesaid factors and the evidence of prosecution wihesses. more particufudy, evidence of pW.6 and pW. l2 , erroneously concluded that (20t i) t2 SCC 406 2t KLJ Crt A. Nos 237 & 246 of2009 F n \ \ 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'l is dismissed' confirming conviction recorded against him and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him vide judgment dated ll '02 2009 passed by Special Judge for Speedy trial of Cases of Embezzlement o[ Scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Department at Hyderabad in C C No'l of 2007. However, as stated above, Accused Officer No l 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 Offrcer 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 ot him vide judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed by Special Judge for Speedy trial of Cases of x { F 22 KI-J Crl.A. Nos.237 & 246 of2009 Embezzlement of Scholarship amounts in Social welfare Department at Hyderabad in C.C. No.l of 2007. Accused Officer No.2 is acquitted of the aforesaid charge framed against him. Bail bonds fumished by him stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is also ordered to be renlmed to the appellant - Accused Officer No.2 after expiry of appeal As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeals shail stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department at Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nalgonda. 3. One CC to SRI P RAVI SHANKER, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI R RAMA BRAHMMA Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, SC SPL PP ACB TS Advocate loPUcl

6. Two CD Copies SVS Yr HIGH COURT DATED:2710?12025 G COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.237 AND 246 ot 2009 -i l-iE s r,q .a R o; 0 4 AUE 2025 f / e- a) '.) ,l * DISMISSING THE CRLA No.237 of 2009 AND ALLOWING CRLA NO.246 OF 2OO9 gLt\?) \a {i\t