The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPE AL NO :841 OF 2008 Appeal under Section 37ae) of cr.p.c against the order dated 07-07-2008 in cc.No. 5 of 2000, on the fire of the speciar Judge for cBr cases at criminar Courts Complex, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad. Between: Rep. by LR, L Amaravalli,Wo. Late L. Janki L. Janaki Ramaiah (Died), Ramaiah,, R/o. Flat No. 101,' Vaishati' Ap"rt.unt,-Ot"rirGii, fiJrtl Ameerpet, Hyderabad. _ L. Amaravalli Wo Late L. Janaki .Ramaiah, aged about 66 years, R/o Flat No. 101, Vaishali Apartment, Dharamkaram no"O] nrn""rpli, f_f VO. As per Court Order Dt: 23-2-24 in CrtA.tvt.p.No. 1407t2O13 LR,s amended. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND State of A.P. reo_ bv Sot public prosecutor, for CBI Cases, High Corut, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D. Sangeetha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy Standing Counsel for Cgl The Court delivered the foltowing JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER 'I]RIMINAL APPEAL No. E41 OT 2OO8 JIIDGMENT: The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. l3(1)(e) of the Prevention of Cornrption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.3O,OOO/-.

2. This Court on 23.02.2024 granted permission to the wife of the appellant to come on record to prosecute the appeal, since the appellant died on 23.Oa.2OL3, vide Crl.A.M.P.No. 1407 of 2Oi3.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was appointed in Cement Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad, on 11.O1.1995 and as on the date of raid conducted by CBI, the appellant was Zonal Officer. The C'BI issued FIR on 29.O8.1997, having received information regarding the appellant possessing disproportionate assets. The house of the appellant was searched by' PW. l0-lnspector of CBI along with other CBI personnel on 06.ll.1997

4. The check period is considered from o1.01.1986 to 06.t1.1997 by the prosecution, i) the total income during check period was Rs. I 1,10,826.60. ii) the total expenditure is Rs.8,30,962.25 iii) the likely savings are Rs.2,79,864.35. 2 However, the total assets were valued at Rs.9,47,2O2.10. Accordingly, tJre quantum of disproportion was arrived at Rs.6,67,337.75.

5. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.l to 11 and the exhibits marked were Exs.Pl to P73. In defence the appellalt examined DW. 1 and marked Exs.D1 to D7. Income:

6. The income arrived at by the prosecution is Rs. 1 1,10.fi26 /- and the Court also has arrived at the income of Rs. 1 1 ,10,826 / -. T}re income according to the accused is Rs. 15,71,326/-. There is no dispute regarding items 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 of income, as such the items are not described. Out of 1 1 items of income as assessed during investigation, item No.6 is agricultural income from lands in East Godavari District. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.3 and marked Ex.P16. According to the prosecution case Rs.22,75O/- was the income on agriculture which was upheld by the Court.

7. karned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the income should have been assessed at Rs.4,60,500/-. According to PW.3, the wife of the appellant was holding 6O cents of land in Attarnuru village. PW.3 is the MRO of Mandapeta of East Godavari District. Ex.P6 was assessment made by her. According to Ex.P6, the agricultural income was Rs.45,5O0/- for the year 1995-1996 and I I I I 1 l 3 1997 onwards. Learned Counsel submits that in accordance with Ex.P16 which isr a letter addressed by PW.3, the income was assessed at Rs.45,5OOl- p.a.as such, for the period 1996-1997 the said amount ought to have been multiplied accordingly and the income would be Rs.4,60,500/-. The said amount has to be added to the lncome.

8. On the otl.rer hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the question of making Rs.4,6O,5OO/- during the relevant period in 6O cents of land which was less than 1 acre is highly improbable. Further, the learned public prosecutor submitted that in the declaration hled by the oflicer under Ex.P37, he specifically stated that the paddy and pulses from cultivation was for self consumption. If the paddy was for self consumption as declared by the appellant, the question of ;aly income does not arise. 9 . Having gone through the record, Ex.P37 is the statement of immovable property as declared by the accused to his department. He stated that he owned agricultural land at Attanuru village which he got by inheritance and its value was Rs. I lakh. He further declared that he was getting paddy and pulses which was for self consumption.

10. PW.3-MRO had given Ex.P16 which is a letter addressed by PW.3 about the agricultural lald. Her assessment regarding the value of the yield from the year 1986 to 1997 was Rs.45,500/-. In view of j I I 4 the declaration of the accused to his department that the yield from the agricultural land was for self consumption, the amount of Rs.as,SOO/- can be deducted from the expenditure. However, the income as claimed by the appellant at Rs.4,60,500/. on the agricultural land, cannot be accepted. E4tenses: I I . The prosecution had described 19 items under expenditure. However, except item No. 16 (domestic expenditure), in respect of all other items, there is no dispute. For the said reason, there is no necessi$r to give details of all the other items. The tota-l expenditure as per the prosecution during check period was Rs.8,3O,962/-. T}rre Court arrived at Rs.6,72,248/- but the accused claimed that the expenditure was Rs.5,23,70 1 / -.

12. karned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that under item No. 16 domestic expenditure, PW.lo-lnvestigating Officer had marked Ex.Pzl8 which is the letter dated 10.O3.1999 addressed to the Inspector of Police, CBI by one T. Koteswara Rao, Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Hyderabad, assessing the approximate expenditure of the accused family. According to the said Koteswara Rao, the family expenditure was Rs.3,95,064.72 ps. On the basis of the said approximate expenditure given for the check period 5 1986- 1997 , tht': prosecution after giving deductions arrived at Rs.3,O7,261 /-. l-he Court also accepted the said amount.

13. As alread5. stated while discussing the income aspect of the appellant, an amount of Rs.45,5OO/- has to be deducted from the expenditure dut-' to the paddy and pulses coming from their land. Further, . the person who had given Ex.P48 i.e. the Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, was not examined. The appellant was deprived of cross-examining the person who had assessed the l'amily expenditure. No reason is given by the prosecution for not examining the witness. During the course of cross-examination of investigating ollicer PW. 10 regarding expenditure, it rvas suggested that the expenditure as arrived at by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics under Ex. Fl8 was incorrect. The I nvestigation Officer stated that the components of house, children education, and electricity charges were also considered undr:r Ex-P48. Though, the expenditure was arrived at Rs.3,95,06a/-, the prosecution had given benefit to the extent of Rs.3,O7,261.61. Since the appellant was deprived of cross examining the va.luer fronr the Bureau of Economics and Statistics under Ex.P48, reasonable reduction of 2oo/o in the valuation of Rs.3,O7,26 1.6 I ,:an be considered. Accordingly, Rs.61,452.32 ps. is reduced from ttre expenditure. The expenditure arrived at by this 6 Court is Rs.5,65,295.68 ps. [Rs.6,72,24a (total expenditure) 1,06,952.32 (45,500 (paddy amount) + 61,452.32l.= 5,65,295.68/-l ,llssets:

14. There are three immovable assets ald the value is not disputed by the accused. In the movable assets the prosecution had described 21 items. The appellant had not disputed item Nos.l to 13 and i5 to

21. The only disputed item is item 14 which pertains to miscellaneous items found during search. Ex.P17 is the inventory report dated

06.tl.t997 .

15. Items 3 to 13 of the movable assets also form part of Ex.Pl7. Other than the items 2 to 13, the prosecution amount of Rs.2,18,82 1/- was for other miscellaneous items which include clothes, sarees, decoration items, flower stand, dining table, T.V.stand, wall decoration, Almtah show pieces found in two bed rooms, wooden sofas, chairs etc. which are more than 12O items of moveable assets narrated under Ex.P17.

16. Having gone through Ex.P17 and description of the items, it can be assessed approximately that the valuation of the Court arrived at Rs.2 lakhs can be reduced to Rs. 1,5O,OOO/-. Accordingly, valuation of assets is reduced by Rs.SO,OOO/-. !' I I I I I 1 t

17. Assets value according to the prosecution is Rs-9,47 '2O2/-. However, the Court arrived at Rs. 10,04,13O/-. No reasons are given in the Judgment as to why the asset value was increased from Rs.9,47,2O21- to Rs.1O,O4, 13O/-. Accordingly, the asset value as given by the prosecution is considered and an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- is deducted which comes to Rs.8,97,202/- (9,47,2O2-5O,O0O)

18. In result ttre following are the values arrived at by this Court; Total income is Total expenditure is Likely savings are (i 1, 1 0,826.60-5,65,295.68) Rs. 1 1, 10,826.60. Rs. 5,65,295.68 Rs.5,45,530.92 Total Asser s Rs.8,97,2O21- Total disproportion (8,97,2O2 - 5,45,s30.92) Rs.3,51,672.08 ps.

19. However, the disproportion as found by this Court is Rs.3,51,672.O8 ps. as against the disproportion of the Special Court @ Rs.5,64,ss2l .

20. Accordingly Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SAILESHI UTY REGISTRAR E SiECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for CBI Cases at Criminal Courts Complex, Red Hills, Nampally, hyderabad. (with records)

2. One CC'to liri D Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to {lri T Srujan Kumar Reddy, SC for CBI [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VII/

6. I I i HIGH COURT DATED: 0310112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.841 of 2008 I I ) \ tt1 S I4 r6 ( 22 riJ 2025 t 6o s ATC DISMISSING THE APPEAL di,r \q)