The High Court · 2025

TT]:E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOIIAL CRIITIINAL REVISIO N CASE No. 1 oo2 0F 2(124 ORDER: The p rc.' r 'nt Criminal Revision Case is lilecl ur der Sections 438 and 4 1,t rf BNSS by the petitioner aggneve,i rv the order dated 19, )', ..). ) ,t1passed in Cr1.M.p.No.23B of 2Olli itr C.C.No.g of 2013 on tl-r,: f r of the learned principal Special -udg,e lor Trial of SPE & ACtl ,ases, Hyderabad, wherein and rr.hcreunder an applicatirn 1il r -l by the respondent/complainan ,r Lder section 321 of Cr. F . ll . seeking permission to withdra,,v ttt e prosecution case agains,. tl r revision petitioner/ accused was dt_sn1 5."6.

2. The mat< /accused o1F r: r ial facts may now be briefly staterl Tlre petitioner ',' \vas joined as Executive Engint.er n Irrigation Departmen t o r I 1.08.1989, later promoted as Div sLorLal Engineer in the year t2 ){ Hyderabacl L zr Bund, Hyder':Ll: officer ama ;r;e sources of itcr registered agair 13(1)(e) o1' Pr,:r investig.ation I and was u,orking as Superintendirrg Engineer in <,.:s and Water Body Managerner t Circle, Talk : ,1. On the allegations that the petit or..er/accused : huge assets disproportionate t.) his known rrle a case in Crime No.37/ACB_{)FI-1/2OOg was r ;t the petitioner/ accused under Se c..io t-t l3(2) r / w : trtion of Corruption Act. During -hr: course of he investigating officer had s tlown the I l i l 2 petitioner/ accused acquired assets of movable and immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, to arl extent of Rs.2,04,0 5,879 / - possessing income of the accused officer from all his known sources during the check period i.e., from 11.08.1989 to 23.I2.2OO8 and it - was arrived at Rs.53,54,152/-. But his total expenditure during check period was estimated at Rs.73,0 1,269 l-. It is also stated in the charge sheet that there is no likely savings to the accuse as he has spent an amount of Rs.19,47,117 /- more than the known source of income and the said expenditure was added to his total assets and accordingly the petitioner/ accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.2,23,52,4961-' After completion of investigation the ACB officials filed charge sheet against the petitioner/ accused for the offence punishable under Section l3(2lr/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The case was taken on file as C C.No'8 of 2013. Charges were framed against the petitioner.

4. At that juncture, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed a petition under Secti on 321 Cr.P.C. to withdraw the prosecution against' the petitioner as the Government issued order vide G.O.Ms.No.31, Irrigation and CID Vigilance-I Department, i* l I l i : dated O!i" ) . ','.t23 to withdraw the case againsl tre petitioner stating 1.]-ra t r r r perusal of material evidence ar.rri la1rle on record and the ree s j r s mentioned by the government. t s fit case to withdrau, 5 The tr a rlourt, relying on the decisions renle -ed in Abdul Kareent rs" State of Karnataka and. othersl , Bairam Murlid.har I s, State of Andhra Pradesh)l, ,sheonandan Pasuan us. State of Bihar and otherss, Bansila:.l ts. Chandan Lal and Bah tant Singht by order dated 19.07 2024, dismissed the petil,iorr I 1r:d by the learned Public Proseculor As stated supra, aggli:,, r.,l thereby, the accused filed the p -el,ent criminal revls10n cas,c

6. Hearc rr ,I perused the record.

7. Lea.rrr::. r ounsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitroner - rrs fulfilled all the formalities envisaged bv Section 321 Cr.P.C a \e order ot'r1 set aside arLrl ; embodied by various decisions an I .rlaimed that r learned trial Judge is perverse atrc. is; 1iab1e to be .'r.at the request of the prosecution t,r ryithdraw the prosecution it5 :,rnst the petitioner deserves to be acr:e1:ted. l AIR 2OO1 SC b ' (201 1) r0 sc(_r :3 i 'AIlt l9i.t7 sc tr;7 'AIR 197(i SC i ;r.) 4

8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State had contended that though the Government ordered to withdraw from prosecution, it was for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind to all the relevant material and in good faith and on his satisfaction thereon, that the public interest would be served by his withdrawal from the prosecution had to file an application under Sectio n 321 of Cr.P'C' and the trial court on considering all the material and that the Pubtic Prosecutor acted in good faith and if it was of opinion that the withdrawal from the prosecution was in the public interest and such withdrawal would not stifle or thwart the process of lanv should give his consent and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dnsubrannanirrn Suamg u. Dr.Mornmohan Si,r.rgh and Anothers ' Abdut Wahab K. v. State of Kerala and Athersa' The State of Kerala v' K.Nith and. Others? and in Bairam Muralidhar a' State of Andhra Pradeshs this Court in K'sriniaasulu a' Gooernment of AndhraPradeshandotherfandprayedtodismiss.the Criminal Revision Case. ,/ s (20 t 2)Supreme {SC) 78 6 2018 Supreme (SC) 883 z Crimirr?fA5rpeal No.6gT of 2C2i, dated 28'07 2021- 8 Criminal Appeal No.1587 of2014, dated 3I 07 2Ol4 '2010(3) ALD 452 (DB) . 5

9. A peruLsil , the impugned order would show that the trial Court after ',re:ill ir-rg the material available on record ira<[ observed as under: " A rtt t .ful perusal of G.O. issued by the Gorrcr tment uide G.O.Ms.Ac ! . dated 03.11.2023 shotD thot rto spzctfic reasons u.thatscteue r : mentioned in the said G.O as to on u4ttt tlrounds the gouerronal'. ,lecided to tuithdrana the prosecu tion . i is simplg stated in 1t't ' t-4 of the G.O, "Gouemment after careft'-! t xamination of the tnc t "2 in the pe i'tt Itaue decided to uLithdraut the prctsec iot ". Further, , also the learned Special F\tblic Prose,:t,tot tnentioned that a penr I of material auailable on record, on ap1'licttiort of her mind irul,,; : ndentlg and for the reasons men.ticn:zd by the gouerrtm(tt 't . this jttnchrr ;he is satisfted that it is a fit case for withCratuaL. At , it is releuant to mention that the prtst:cution has conducte,T 'i ; tl at great length bg examining 45 tuit'rcss es as PW.7 to PW'.4ti. l'he inuestigoting officer uho did t ater ial patl of inuestig1a'i':t ruas also examined by the same k ar ned public prosecLLtor iiuch a tiol uas proceeded by the l=a'ned public prose(tlter c , the premise of binging home the guilt o.f the accused only, but ttc '. on the premise that same u.tould enct n acquittal or that tltent tt ,:; a paucitg of euidence. Furthermore, as obset"ued bA the Hon'b'e * uthich publtr '\pex Court in Abdul Kareem's case. Tie moteial r.troseclttor has considered must be set ,tui bieflg but ,II 6 conciselg in tle appliccttion or in an affidauit annexed to the application. Hotaeuer, the same i-s lacking in th-e instant case. More portianlarly, there is no reasons assigned as to hotr such utithdra u.tal of prosecution is in the public interest uthich is uery important requirement to be satisfted by the public prosecutor. Therefore, no public interest is inuolued prosecution is pennitted to toithdrana its case against the accused. "

10. As per the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Kerala ,s. K.Ajith and otherslo, the principles on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C can be formuiated as: (i) Section 321 entntsts the deci,sion to uithdraut from a proseantion to the public prosecutor but the consent of the Court is required for a uithdrautal of the prosecution; (ii) The public prosecutor maA uithdra ut from a prosecution not merelg on the ground of paucitg of euidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice; (iii) The public proseantor must formtlate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the Court to uithdraut from the prosecution; (iu) While the mere fact that tlrc initiatiue hns come from the gouernment uill not uitiate an application for uithdra u.tal, the Court must mqke on effort to elicit the reasons for uithrlra utal so o,s to 'LL 2021 SC 32a 7 ensure tlrLt '.i,.e public prosedttor u)ds satisfred thal ttrc u,ith.draual of the pro:;e, r r tlon is necpssary for good and releuartt r?r lsons. (u) )n :ieciding whether to grant its consent tc o uithdrawal, the Courl e. r'r6i5ss a judiciol function but it has b<'ert ,lescibed to be sutrtei'r r ' ,11 it7 nature. Before deciding whethttr lo grant its consent tL e. i'curt must be satisfied thot: Im9f( u{tlt tnler( l)rt)( 12 1tn9 rc tf t:c rt of .i,.s t) The function of tLe public prosecttt)t has not been '-'erlA exercised or that it is not an atte'ntpt to interfere I t,e normal course of iustice for illegitintlte reasons or ! €s,' 'b) The application has been made in go,td faith, in the .'. of public policg and justice, not to thtuort or stiJTe the ;: of laut; ':) The application does not suJ.ter from such .,ieties or illegalities as would couse m a,tiJ.zst injustice t,,rlt u.)ere to be giuen; ':1) The grant of consent sub-serues thtz .tdninistration t :'e; and ':) The pennission has not been sought t.tit,tr an ulteior .? unconn ected uith tLe uindication o,f '\rc laut tohich tlic prosecutor is duty bound to maintair,; ' purl{ t]'P r.t lui I i tile detennining u.thether the uLithdratual of the proseoltictl .;ltbserues the odministrotion of jus:tice, the Court utould bz j r;ttfted in scrutinizing the nature qn6t. grauity of the offence' ottc tts impact upon public life especiallg tuhzre matters inuoluittg yt 't.,lic funds and the discharge of a pL bl;c tn-Lst are implicateo: t';.d (ui ) , a situation u.there both the tial futcl1,'e and the reuisi<>nal ( t,ltft haue cona.Lrred in granting or rc'rt $ii1g consent, this CcttLtl t ' rile exerci.sing its jurisdiction under Aft'ck 136 of the constituti on ',:tould exercise caution before disturbrng conannent findings. '[ t,:t Q6ur7 may in exercise of the tuell-s,".ttle:7 principles attach.ed 'o he exercise of this juisdiction, inte "f,=re in a case_ \ 8 uhere there ha.s been a failure of the tial judge or of the High Court to apply the corect pinciples in decidittg uhether to grant or withhold consent.

11. In view of the above, this Court do not find any inference in the submissions made by the petitioner and warrants consideration by this Court in a petition filed for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. As held by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheonanddn PasLUan (supra), it is not the duty of this Court, in a petition under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C, to adjudicate the issues

12. For the reasons indicated above, this Court arrived at a conclusion that there is no merit in the present Criminal Revision Case and shall accordingly stand dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shail starrd closed. Sd/. K. SREE E RAMA MURTHY TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFiCER To 1. The Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases' Hyderabad' 2. The Station House Officer , Anti.Corruption Bureau' High Court for the -' iiate ot felangana at Hyderabad' 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to SRl. M.'8. THIMMA REDDY' Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI' T' BALA MOHAN REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies kul/ghw HIGH COURI- DATED:081011 ,.025 T,3el,\ rI, q e 11 J','\t L$15 v c) .t t "c ORDER CRLRC.No.100 2 of 2024 DISMISSING THI.] CIII,, ]I'T'ISION CASE q*P(4 Y+- raet:q"