The High Court · 2025

The State of A.P., Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB., Khammam Range, Khammam, Rep- by Spl. Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad. ... Petitioners/AppellanUAccused No.1& 2 ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant No.1: Sri Jaggari Manikanta Reddy Counsel for the Appellant No.2: Ms. D Sangeetha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB CRIMINAL APPEA L NO: 879 OF 201 0 Between: . r. Sri J. Ramulu S,/o. Purraiah, president rribal Labour cooperative Society Narayanapuram, l(hammam District. AND Ilg Shlg of A P , Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of potice, ACB , Khammam Kange, Knammam, Rep by Spl. public prosecutor High Court, Hyilerabad. ...Appeltant ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. D Sangeetha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.S 15 and, 879 of 2O1O :.. COMMON JIJDGMENT: 1. Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2010 is hled by appellants/Al and A2, and Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2010 is filed by 44' The appellants Al, A2, and A4 are questioning their conviction vide judgment in C.C.No.29 of 2005 dated 3O'06 '2OlO, 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 Red'dy, learned counsel for A2 and Sri M'Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB' I j, l 'I j I t 'I I ! I i l I I r I I l 2

5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, for the improvement of the Erra eheruvu of Lachagudem village, tenders were called for ernd work was awarded to A-4, who is a president of M/s.Tribal Labour Co-operative Societ5r, Narayanapuram, Khammam. The estimated value was Rs.4,7g,OOO/_. Later on, due to the representation by the villagers for rvideni.g of the top width of the bu,d up to 3 Mts., to enable the movement of carts and rractors, modified estimates were preparecl for Rs.9,23,ooo/- under a supplemental agreement d.ated lT.g.1gg3. After execution of the improvement work to Erra Cheruvu at Rs.4,79,OOO /-, idte Ryots of Rajaboinagudem village submitted a representation about the deficiency of work, arrd one sri Damodar Redd5., (not examined) of the Area sr.rbmitted a complaint before A.p.Lokayuktha alleging irregularities in the works. The Join1. l)irector of A.p. Lokayukta Sri K.Narsing Rao (not examined) u,as entrusted to enquire, and after enquiry, he submitted a report to the Hon,ble Loka5rukta. In turn, the report was sent to the lf.G., ACB to investigate into the allegations of fraud. In turn, the D.G, ACB, issued proceedir:Lgs to Sri M.Lazarus (not r:xamined), the then DSp, ACB, Warangal to investigate and accordingly, Sri M.Lazarus registere<l the case 3 vide Crime No.14/ACB-WKH/200O under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act arid under Section 4771A 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 prepa-red 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 lF,'E super checked ald further restricted it to Rs.4,O4,249/-. 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'L994, and ,\4 accepted the same under Protest. It is further the case that the M'Book disclosed that the 7. work was corhpleted on 15.5.1993, whereas, the agreement for enhalced estimates was entered into between A4 and S'E on 17.8.1gg3. After completion of the investigation, Inspector' ACB' observed that the measurements recorded in the M'Book were 4 fa-lse, and the .measurements were found to be recorded before entering into ttLe supplemental agreement. A charge sheet was laid after completion of investigation against A1 t, 44 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r7',*, 15 ,f prevention of Corruption A.t r/w Section 34 of IpC, Under Sections 42O and 477-A r/w Section 34 and Section 511 of IpC, agair.;:st A1 to 43, Under Section 42O r / w Section 5 1 1 of IpC against 44,

8. Charge was framed against the appellants f<rr obtaining pecuniary advantage to a tune of Rs.4,04,24g/_ during 1993_ L994, by recording false measurements in measurement books even before entering into the supplemental agreemer_^Lt in respect of the execution of the work for improvement of Erra cheruvu of Lachagudem Vill:age. The said contract was executed bv 44.

9. Learned Special Judge examined.p.ws.l to g ernd marked Exs.Pl to P27 on behalf of the prosecution. Three witnesses, D.Ws.1 to 3, werer examined on behalf of the appellalts.

10. P.w. 1 spea,k:s about the contract work estimations and the role played by A1 and 42, 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 5 in the work executed by A4. Therea-fter, P.w.4 addressed a letter Ex.PS to the District Colliictor, pointing out the dehciency' and also issued a notice to A4 to rectifu the defects' P'W' 1 also recorded the measurements, aJter the rectification work had taken place. ll.Inthecross-exalnination,P.W.lstatedthatherecordedthe work only after the completion of work and payment being made tothecontractors,inaccordancewiththemeasurementsinthe M.Book. P.W. 1 further stated that A4 had completed the contract work. The recording of measurements by P'W'l was on

27.O3.t996. t2. 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 utorked out to 388'4 Cubic m'eters' uhich is actual. But it uas shoutn as the utork done of 1,496.11 cubic meters, which is in excess' ReJlected at Page 47 of the utork statement. Excauation uork-raising bund actual utorked out to 9087 cubic meters uhereai it is mentioned 12426'20 cubic meters uthich is also in excess at page 47' 6 M,M thi:k rough rtr:"^lra qocking or reuetment to bund. ?2-: actuat utork out to 332..34 iti" *Jt")i,"LZ, is shotun se7.66 cubic meters uthich.is;"; ;;;;."i nor" taorked out the aboue said dt - nntities pior to rectificatiorL .f ;; work.,, "

14. P.W.3 furtleer stated that he has not personally visited the work spot, but lee based his calculations on the stalements 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.O0 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,o00/- was made by him. According to P.W.4, he addr,:ssed a letter to ..A,4 to recti$r the defective work done by him. L6. In the cross-examination, p.W.4 admitted that he has not grven any reasons for restricting the amount to Rs.1,2O,000/-. Further' the deficiencies were also not mentioned in the M.Book. According to p.W.4, he inspected the work along with A l and 42. Experience certificate was issued by p.W.4 to ,A4 on lZ.06.7993, stating that the work was satisfactory. However, p.W.4 added 7 that the said certihcate 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-exarnination, 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' 1g. P.W.8 is the Investigating ofhcer. He stated that the FIR was registered on 06.09.2OOO, based on the report of the Lokdyuktha' 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 certihcate issued by P.W.4 on 1'7.06.1993. Further, according to the Lokayuktha report, A1, A2, one Patnayak' and the alleged P.W.4/Chalamaiah were responsible for misappropriation of the government funds' lg. P.W.8 further admitted that by the year 1996' the entire work was executed and the f,rnal pa5rment was also made' The first agreement for the contract was on 28'01'1993 and the 8 second agreement was on 17.08.1993. However, none of the witnesses, inclu.ding P.w.8 stated about the contenrs of the two agreements.

20. All the witnesses stated that 43 was not concerned with the work and he only conducted super check ofthe work executed by A4. For the said reason, learned Special Judge acquLitted 43, as no incriminating evidence was found against him. ^ttended

21. D.W.l is eLn agriculturist, examined by the r:lefence. He stated that he the work of repairs of Erra cheruvu during 1993, i.e., the work in question. According to him, after 1993, A4 did n.t do any repairs of Erra cheruvu ilnd no one attended to the repairs. 22- Though wit.esses, p.ws.1 to 4, speak abo,t the r:ectirrcation work done, however, no witnesses were examined to specifically speak about the rectihcation work executed by A4.

23. The work wers done in the year 1993, and even according to the prosecution case, the entire work was completed, even prior to 1996 and the e:ntire amounts were paid to A4. 9

24. D.W.3 worked as Superintendent, Irrigation. He deposed in his chief examination, as follows: "I retired as Supeintendent lrrigation. Afier the works are complete later the reuised estimates are submitted. TtLe concerned E-E has to inspect the utorks and satisfg himself qnd then onlg has to send the reuised estimates to the Sanctioned Authoitg. In the Ex.P12 certificate Executiue Engineer futlg satisfied certified the u.tork afier inspection and signed to that effect. If ang deductions are to be made the E.E has to get the abstract prepared and uhen mentioned the deductions before passing of the bill. Without assigning ang reasons bg tLLe E.E the bill cannot be limited. After the finishing utork is ouer when it becomes old it tuould not be possible to check up uthether the finishing u.tork properlg or not. Afier one gear afier execution of uork unless the undisturbed cori sample is taken and sent to the Quality Tests laboratory it uit not be possible ,o assess u.thether the consolidation is properlg done or not. In the reuitmant utork a toe utall has to be constructed from the base leuel and graduallg it should be raised upto the required leuel. While inspecting the reuitmant work it has to be inspected from the base leuel to upuard stage. In Ex.P25 there is no mention that the reuitmant uork uas inspected from the base leuel. Due to Ioss o/ time and seepage of uLater the base leuel of the reuitmant the silt tuill be formed ouer the reuitmant and if the silt is remoued the reuitmant utill be disclosed." As stated by D.W.3, no scientihc test was conducted to determine any dehciency of work. In the cross-exarnination, 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

1993.9+. No reasons are given by any of the witnesses as to how 10 the said amoun t was arrived at, and none of the wit,esses speak about aly scientific estimation of the work done vis-a-vis the entries made in the measurement book. 26' The charges are framed for attempt t.o cheat and also attempt to falsiry ttre records. As already discussecl, none of the witnesses spoke about how amount was arrived at trased on the records. The ACB registered the case nearly after si,r: years after the work was e.xecuted. According to the investigating officer, P.W.4 restricted the amount to Rs.4,04,24g1_, w:rich is the alleged misapprc,priated amount. p.W.4 did not speal,: about how the arnount of Rs.4,04,249/_ was arrived at or in what way the said amount wa.s subject to any pecuniary advantage by the appellants. 27 ' The case of the prosecution is not based on an.y scientirrc evidence but solely on the Lokayuktha report, which formed basis to register the FIR. The person who pre pared the Lokayuktha 'rep'rt was not examined. on the basis of assumption that the appellants have attempted to either cheat the government or attempted to falsifu the accounts, the prosecution of the appellants is improper. Admittedly, t.here is no 17 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 aJleged by the prosecution.

28. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.29 of 20O5 dated 30.06.2010 is set aside, and the appellants/Al, A2, and A4 are acquitted. since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

29. Accordingly, trottiCriminal Appeals are allowed. SD/-K.SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS o R I/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri Jaggari Manikanta Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Ms. D Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK/PSL w HIGH COURT' DATED:1 9103t2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.81S and 879 of 2010 f HE Si ( 0J lpr 2W t' : I l ALLOWING THE BOTH GRLAs 0) 7 {