The High Court · 2025

Order

1. This Crimina1 Petition is hled to quash the order in Crl.M.P.No.579 ol 2018 in C.C.No. l8 of 20 14, dated 31.10.2018 on the file of Special Judge under the Prevention of Cormption Act for the Speedy tria-l of Cases of Ernbezzlernent of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., at Crimina-l C)ourts Complex, Nampally.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor for ACB filed Crl.M.P.No.579 of 2018, seeking withdrawal of the prosecution on the ground that the Director General, Anti Corruption, Hyderabad addressed letter dated 19.O2.2ola to the Public Prosecutor, directing implementation of the Government's Order issued vide Rc.No.96/RCA-CIU-2O 11, to withdraw the prosecution against the petitioner, as per Government Memo No.465OlVig.2-2Ol 1, dated

17.O5.2O14 , from the Agriculture & Co-operation (Vig.lll) / Department.

3. The petitioner/accused ofhcer was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of I 2 Cormption Act, 1988 (for short the Act'). The a-llegation is that the ACB authorities conducted searches on 26.04.2011 at different places and seZed incriminating documents. Crime was registered on 25.O4.2011.

4. The investigating ofhcer, having seized incriminating documents, conducted investigation pertaining to the assets, income, ald expenditure of the petitioner.

5. According to the investigation, the total assets acquired by the petitioner in his name and in the names of his family members were arrived at Rs. 1,49,98,891/-.

6. The income from all known sources during the check period, which was taken from O 1 .02. 1988 to 26 .O4 .2oll , totalled Rs.36,9 1,957 I -. T!i-e expenditure incurred during the check period was arrived at Rs.62 ,7 4 ,299 / -

7. The investigation revea-led that there was an excess expenditure of Rs.25,82,342/- over and above the income during the check period. Accordingly, taking assets as Rs. 1,49,98'891 /- ) I l':!,=. 1 l I i I i t i I i I I I l i i I 3 plus excess expenditure of Rs.25,82,342/-, the disproportion of assets was arrived at Rs. 1,75,81,233 / -.

8. The ACB filed annexure I, which is extract of assets containing 29 items of immovable and movable properties. The extract of income is filed as Annexure-Il, wherein, the income was arrived

under 7 items. Similarly, Annexure-Ill was filed. The expenditure under 15 items was arrived at Rs.62,74,299/-. Irr all, 60 persons were cited as witnesses to the case of the prosecution.

9. Prior to fiiing charge sheet, the Managing Director of Hyderabad Agricultural Co-operative Association Ltd., granted prosecution orders against the petitioner. The ACB was granted sanction on 24.10.2013 to prosecute the petitioner/accused vide proceedings No. HACA/ Estt. / 20 1 3 dated 24.1 0. 20 I .1. 1O. Thereafter, the Principal Secretaqr to the Government, Agriculture & Cooperation (Vig.lll) Department, A.p. Secretariat, Hyderabad addressed letter No.4650/Vig.III/Al -2Olt-2, dated

77.O5.2O74 to the Managing Director, the Hyderabad Agricultural Co-op. Association Ltd., Hyderabad. The sajd letter reads as follows: 4 " Gouernment afier careful examination of the entire matter, it is obserued from the records that the Accused Olficer has filed all releuant documents in support of the contention that he is not hauing ang disproportionate asseas and it has been herebg order to initiate departmental action against Sri S.Gouerdlmn Reddg, Branch Manager, Adilabad, dulg dropping prosecution in a Court of LAW for the offence under Sectton 13(2) r/ut 13(1)(e) of tLrc P.C.Act, 1988 on tLrc allegation of acquisition orf asse/s disproportionate to the knou.tn sources of income. I, therefore, request gou to take further course of action in the matter and to inform the action taken report to Gouerutment as u.tell as the Director General, Anti- Corntption Bureau, Hg de rab ad, immediatelg. "

11. The Memo No.4650/Vig.2l2ol1, dated 18.O1.2016, issued by the Agriculture and Cooperation (Vigilance) Department to the Director General, ACB, TS, Hyderabad specihed that the orders of the Government to initiate departmental action against the petitioner holds good. The Agriculture Department again issued Memo dated 12.09.2016 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad and requested to drop the prosecution against the petitioner before the learned Special Court, and the Memo reads as follows: "A @pA of the reference 8th cited is hereuith sent to the Director General, Anti-Corntption Bureau, Hgderabad ond he ts requested to furni.sh the draft article of charges dulg dropping prosecution in a court of lau agatnst Sn S. Gouerdhan Reddy, Distict Manager, HACA pending before the Hon'ble Court of I w'}!! ./ 5 Addl.Special Judge of SPE & ACB Cases, Hgderabad as ordered uide reference Sth cited to the Gouernment, immediatelg for taking further action in the matter."

12. Finally, vide Memo dated 16.10.2017, the Agriculture and Cooperation (Vigilance) Department, requested the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad to furnish the draJt article of charges. The same is extracted hereunder: "The attention of the Director General, Anti-Cor^ruption Bureau, Hgderabad is inuited to the references cited and he is informed that the orders haue alreadg been issued uide Gouernment letter dt. 17.05.2014 in the reference Sth cited for initiating departmental action against Sn S.Gouerdhan Reddy, Branch Manager, Adilaba.d dulg dropping prosecution in a court of latu for the offence U/ s 13(2)r/w13(1)(e) of the Preuention of Corntption Act, 1988 on the allegation of acquisition o.[ assels disproportionate to his knotun sources of legal income are reiterated. He is therefore requested to furnish the drafi article of charges as already been requested uide Gouerrtment Memo in the reference 9Lh cited to Gouerutrnent immediatelg for taking further action in tle matter."

13. On the basis of the memos issued by the Government, as discussed above, the learned Public Prosecutor filed petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C requesting the Court to permit to withdraw the case against the petitioner/accused off,rcer. The relevalt memos, as narated above, were a-1so filed. 6

74. l,earned Special Judge passed the impugned order refusing to grart permission to withdraw the prosecution mainly on the ground that the learned Public Prosecutor has neither applied his mind independently to the facts of the cos€; flor gave any reason as to why the prosecution is to be withdrawn, except frling the Government Memos.

15. Learned Special Judge further held that there is no justification to allow the application made by the Public Prosecutor since there are no valid reasons to withdraw the prosecution against the petitioner/ accused ofhcer.

76. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.2173 of 2013. This Court, while dealing with a similar situation where the learned Special Judge declined to withdraw the prosecution on the basis of petition filed by the Public Prosecutor, a,llowed Criminal Revision Case, hnding that the decision of the State Government to withdraw the prosecution against the accused ofhcer cannot be found fault with. This Court further reasoned that the Government was not totally withdrawing the prosecution against the accused w 7 ofhcer, but decided to conduct disciplinary proceedings against L7. The offences under Prevention of Corruption Ac:t are offences against societlr. A sanction is required by the competent authority for prosecuting a person under Section 13(1)(e) rlr 13(21 of the Act. The Managing Director, HACA, being the competent authority hadaccordedsanction,onthebasisofthematerirr]providedby the ACB. The said sanction was granted after the authorit5r found that the petitioner/accused officer was in llossession of disproportionate assets of Rs.1,75,8\,233 l-, and is a ht case to be tried in the Special Court for ACB.

18. Under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, the Public Prosecutor, in charge of the case, may with the consent of the Court, at any point of time, before the judgment is pronounced, wit.hdraw the prosecution, in resPect of a case. 19 In the petition filed by ttre learned Public Prosecutor, it is mentioned, that the Public Prosecutor received memo dated lg.o2.2ola for implementing the orders of the Government to 8 withdraw the prosecution against the petitioner/accused vide Memo dated 17.O5.2OI4.

20. In the petition, it is further mer3tioned that the petitioner/ accused ofhcer had given a detailed representation dated 21.10.2013 to the Government for dropping action against him, and the Government issued Memo dated 17.05.2014 to initiate departmental action by dropping the prosecution in the Court of law. For the reason of the Government deciding to drop the case, the prosecution felt that it is a ht case to be withdrawn.

21. The petition filed by the Public Prosecutor only gives details of the Government Memos issued regarding initiation of departmental action against the petitioner by dropping the prosecution. However, no reasons are given by the Public Prosecutor, independently.

22. The Hon'lcle Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. A.Ajith and others t, has formulated principles for withdrawa,l of the ) prosecution, which read as follows: '(2021) 17 Supreme Court cases 318 J 9 '25. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdriwal of a prosecution under Section 327CrPC can now be formulated:

25.1. Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the Public Prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the Prosecution.

25.2. Tine Public Prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to furt-her t]re broad ends of Public justice-

25.3. The Public Prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution.

25.4. While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the Government will not vitiate an application for withdraual, the court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure tl.at the Public Prosecutor was satished that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessarlz for good and relevant reilsons- 25.5. In deciding whether to grant its consent to a wilhdrzrwal, the court exercisls a judicial function but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satished that: (o) The function of the Public Prosecutor has not beetr improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course ofjustice for illegitimate reasons or purposes; (b) The application has been made in good faitJl, in the interest of public policy and justice, ald not to thwart or stifle the process of 1aw; (c) Tie application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities ' as *outa cause manifest injustice if consent were to be give n; (d) The grant of consent subserves the administration ofjustice; ald (e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose ' unconnected with the vindication of the law which the Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to maintain.

25.6. While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution subserves the administration of justice, the court would be justified in scrutinising the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especia-I1y where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated.

25.7.In a situation where both the tria-l Judge and the Revisional Court have concurred in granting or refusing consent, tl is Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings The Court may in exercise of the well-setfled principles attached to the exercise oi thi".1,r.i"di"tion, interfere in a case where there has been )r I I I I 10 a failure of the trial Judge or of the High Court to aPPly the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhold consent.'

23. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to give reasons by formulating an independent opinion for withdrawing the prosecution, citing paucity of evidence and ensuring that the ends of public justice would be met. The Court may make al effort to elicit reasons for withdrawal and ensure that the Public Prosecutor is satished with the withdrawal and convincing reasons are given.

24. The Court has to decide whether to grart permission or not and to determine whether such consent given by the Court would sub-serve the administration of justice.

25. As already discussed, learned Public Prosecutor, except stating that the Government has decided to drop the proceedings against the petitioner/accused officer, has not given any reasons for withdrawal, on the basis of the facts of the case. The petition hled by the Public Prosecutor is bereft of any reasoning. The Public Prosecutor has neither stated that there is paucity of evidence or that the withdrawal would further the ends of public justice. 11

26. Learned Special Judge has rightly declined to permit withdrawa-l of the prosecution by the Public Prosr:cutor. There are no grounds to interfere with the reasoning given by the learned Special Judge. Further, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Ajith,s case (supra), the petition deserves to be dismissed.

27. Accordingly, Crimina_l Petition is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSI FTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Special Judg e under the Prevention of Corru tion Act for the SPeedY Trial of Cases of Embezzelment of ScholarshiP Amounts in Social Welfare Department Etc., Nampally, Hyderabad - - -- ^ 2 The I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases' l-lyderabad' 3. The Station House Officer ACB, ClU, Hyderabad' 4. One CC to Sri. C Hari Preeth, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' 6 Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] PSK /plP (n- HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER CRLP.No.5770 ot 2019 , n L .$ $s \ _r^ DISMISSED THE GRIMINAL PETITION vD- .)< \i, s.)L/