Sri K. Vivek Reddy Representing Sri P v. Venkata Ravi Sankar

thc High Court for fresh consideration. Needless to state that the High Court is expected to hear both lhe appellant and the respondent at length and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from today. We make it clear that all the issues are left open.

5. As law mandates, the interim order which was in existence before the High Court, pending the impugned order, shalI gct revived automatically.

6. The appeal is allowed, accordingly."

7. After remanding the matter, leamed counsel on either side made their submissions cxtensively

8. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are that the petitioner during her term between

17.05.2006 to 10.10.2009 as Secretary, Industries & Commerce, R 4 KI, J Crl R.C. No.693 of2022 Govemment of Andhra Pradesh abused her official position as a public servant by not including the condition of 'captive mining' in the final leases and issued G.O' Ms' No'151 and G'O Ms' No' 152 dated 18.06.2007 in favour of IWs. Obulapuram Mining Companl' Private Limited (for short 'OMCPL')' The Petitioner allegedly facilitated the other accused to cheat the Govemment by violating all the Rules & the Procedures prescribed in the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act' 1957') and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and thus caused hugc loss to thc Public exchequer.

9. Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended mainly as follows: i) The order of leamed Special Judge suffers from lack of aPPlication of mind' ii) There is no allegation against the petitioner in the charge sheet filed bY the CBI' iii) The petitioner assumed charge as Secretary' Industries & Commerce, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh State only on

17.05.2006, by which date, the Govemment has already ) KI-, J Crl.R C No 693 of2022 taken a decision, concerned Minister has approved the note. The petitioner has implemented the same. As such, there was no role to be played by the petitioner in the commission of offences alleged against her. iv) The petitioner being the Secretary, Industries &. Commerce, Government of Andhra pradesh State, has to implement the decision taken by the Govemment and she cannot say 'NO' to the said decision. v) The prosecution alleged that the petitioner has intentionally omitted the word .,captive mining,, in G.O.Ms.Nos.15l and 152 and thereby facilitared M/s. OMCPL to do illegal mining. MMDR Act as on the date of issuance of the said GOs i.e., 18.06.2007 does not provide for any restrictive clause, such as ,captive mining'. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any power Lo frame a policy de hors the MMDR Act and the MC Rules. vi) Section - 27 of the MMDR Act protects public Servants from motivated prosecutions or other legal proceedings I I - 6 KL. J Crl RC No.693 of2022 for the acts done by them in discharge of their oflicial duties. vii) Learned Special Judge acquitted accused Nos'8 and 9 and, therefore, the same also should be considered in this revlslon l0 Leamed Senior Counsel ptaced reliance on the following decisions: i) Contending that mere suspicion is insufficient to frame the charge, he placed reliance on the decision in CBI v' Srinivas D. Sridharr' ii) While considering discharge petition' the Court can sift and weigh the evidence to test grounds to try the accused' he relied upon the decision in Sanjay Kumar Rai v' State of UP2 and Union of India v' Prafulla Kumar Samaf. iii) In the absence of specific allegations in the charge shee! the Court can discharge the accused as held by the Apex r. 1zozs1 t scc 3zs '..{zo?l) ts scc zzo '. (1979) 3 scc 4 7 KL, J CrIRC No.693 of2022 Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra patel v. Gujarata, Sharif Ahmed v. U.p.s, Srinivas D. Sridhart, Srinivas D. v. CBt'. iu) While considering the discharge petition, roving inquiry is not necessary, but a simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication as held by the Apex Court in Kanchan Kumar v. BiharT. v) In revision, the High Court can reverse dismissal of discharge if materials of charge sheet are not considered as held by the Apex Court in Srinivas D.6. vi) Offence of criminal breach of rrust (5.409 of IpC) is not made out wtlen precise ,direction of law, allegedly violated has not been identified as held by the Apex Court in N. Raghavender v. A.p.8. vii) 'fhree wings of Clause (d) of Section - 13 (l) are independent, alternative and disjunctive as held by the Apex Court in Neera yadav v. CBIe. t 6 1 3 (2019) 16 scc 547 2024 SCC Online SC 726 2017 SCC Online Guj.29OO (2022) 9 SCC s77 (202t) 18 scc 70 (20r 7) E SCC 757 8 KL, J Crl R C. No 693 of 2022 viii) Reliance or continuation of predecessor's actions cannot constitute criminal liability as held by- the Apex Court in lV1unish Singh Sikarwar v. State of M'Pr0' ix) Mere procedural irregularity cannot constitute criminal liability as held by the Apex Court in C'K' Jaffer Sharief v. Staterr and Union of India v' Major J'S' Khannat'. x) Govemment's decisions anain hnality through a Minister as held by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v' Kripalu Shankarl3.

11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI contended as follows: There are specific allegations against the petitioner even in the charge sheet filed by the CBI though not named her' However, on completion of investigation, more particularly with regard to the role played by the petitioner in the commission of aforesaid offences, the Investigating Officer laid hrst supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner herein. ro.2017scconLineMP7l ". (20t3) I scc 205 ''. (rgzz) : scc tz: ". (tgta r scc l+ 9 KI-, J CrIRC No 693 012022 ll. The petitioner used her official position, issued the aforesaid G.Os. to favour accused No.4 Company. While working as such she entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.l to 3 and others to cheat the Govemment of Andhra pradesh in the matter of sanctioning of Mining Leases of Iron Ore to M/s. OMCPL violating all the Rules and the procedures prescribed in the MMDR Act, 1957. tlt. The rvrit petition filed by the petitioner vide W.lr. No.3gg6 of 2015 seeking quashment of proceedings in the subject C.C.No. 1 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

02.02.2022 on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, the same are triable issues and that the petitioner has to face trial and prove her innocence. Mere non-adding the name of petitioner as an accused in the charge sheet is no ground to discharge her in the subject C.C. The petitioner wantonly did not mention the wording 'captive mining' in the aforesaid G.O.Ms. 15 I and 1 52. .fhus, petitioner abused her official position. l0 KL, J Crl.R.C. N0.693 of2022 vi. Considering all the said aspects only, learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge application filed by the petitioner' Thus, there is no error in the said order' vii. Acquitting accused Nos.S and 9 is a subsequent event, which cannot be considered in this revision.

12. In support of his contentions, , learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the decisions in Lakshmi S.T' Mining and Leasing Labour Contractor cooperative Society Ltd', v' Gov' of Andhra Pradeshla, State v. G. Easwaranls; Jamin v' State of U.P.r6, IC Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadul?, State of Tamil Nandu v' R. Soundirarasu", State of Tamil Nadu v. Suresh Rajanr', Arnit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandelo, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishoresinh Rao2r and State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station v. M.R. Hiremath22'

13. The aforesaid rival submissions and record would reveal that earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition vide WP. No.3886 of ''. zoo+ 1z; alo 6oc; too t5. 2025 scc online sc 643 16. 2025 scc online sc 506 ". 2024 INSC 6+2 ". (zDlt scc zes 'e. (20t4) ll scc 709 '0. (2012) 9 scc 460 ". 2023 scc online sc 1294 ". 1zol9; ; scc sts KL, J CrIRC No69l of2022 2015, 1o quash the proceedings against her in C.C. No.l of 2012. The same was dismissed by this Court vide order d,ated, 02.02.2022. The petitioner did not challenge the said order and, therefore, it attained finality.

14. She has also filed a Criminal petition under Section _ 4g2 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P. No.6534 of 2020, seeking a direcrion ro the Special Judge to conduct hearing on charges and discharge petitions. Vide order dated 2 I .09.2021, this Court dismissed the said criminal petition. There is no challenge to it. It attained finalifv.

15. 'I'hereafter, the petitioner filed an application undcr Section - 239 of Cr.P.C . vide Crl.M.p. No.47 of 2021 seeking her discharge in the aforesaid C.C. Vide order dated l7.lO.2022,leamed Special Judge dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed present revision. Vide order dated 08.ll.ZOZ2, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed said revision, setting aside the order dated

17.10.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.47 of 2021 passed by leamed Special Judge. Challenging the said order dated 08.11.2022, the CBI preferred an appeal before the Apex Court vide Crl.A. No.2654 of

2025. Vide order dared 07.05.2025, the Apex Court, without going i t .,"..i' lY,, i 12 KL, J Crl.R.C. No6910f2022 into the merits of the case, allowed the appeal remitting the matter to this Court for passing a reasoned order by giving opportunity to both sides.

16. Leamed Senior Counsel would contend that leamed Special Judge after completion of trial and pfter hearing both sides, convicted some of the accused i.e., accused Nos.l to 4 antl 7 , while acquitting accused Nos.S and 9. Therefore, this Court has to take into consideration of subsequent events including the acquittal of accused Nos.8 and 9 while deciding the present revision under Section - 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. In support of the same, he relied upon the decision in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v' State of Maharashtra23 and Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v' State of Jharkhand2a.

17. Whereas, Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that while considering the revision subsequent events cannot be considered and more particularly in the present case, earlier writ petition hled by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in the subject C.C. was dismissed and the said order 2'. r2oot\ to scc 394 ". (2021,T1 SCC 636 KL, I CrIRC No69l of2022 attained finaliq,,. In support of the same, he has relied upon the 13 principle laid down by the Apex Court in G. Easwaranrs.

18. In view of the above, before deciding the issues at hand, this Court feels it apposite to discuss the scope of revisional powers conf'erred under Section - 397 to Section - 401 of the Cr.p.C. and the same are extracted below: "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision._ (l) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examinc the record of any proceeding beforc any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction lor the purpose of satisffing itself or himselll to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order bc suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub_section and of section 398. ::&l -"tj l4 KI, J Crl.R C No.693 of2022 (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub'section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) lf an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other ofthem." "398. Power to order inquiry.-On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or thc Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate bi' himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made'" "399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision.{l) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himse[ the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub- section (1) of Section 401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions t5 KL, J CrIRC No.693 of2022 of sub-sections Q), Q), (4) and (5) of Section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judgc. the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be hnal and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." "401. High Court's powers of revision.{l) In the case ol any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowlcdge, the Iligh Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court ofAppeal by sections 3g6, 3g9, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by secrion 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case sha be disposed of in the manner provided by secrion 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. l'3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction. I :l 1 t6 KL, J CrlRC. No 693 of2022 (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the pa(y who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the l-ligh Court is satisfied that such application was made under the elroneous betief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do' the I{igh Court may treat the apptication lor revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly'" The powers of revision under Section - 397 of the Cr'P'C' are concurrently vested on both the Sessions Courts and the High Courts' Section - 399 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the Sessions Court shall have the same powers of revision as are conferred on the High Court under Section - 401 of the Cr.P'C' Therefore, the courts derive the power of revision from Section - 397 of the Cr'P'C' read with - 401 of the Cr.P.C.

19. Under the revisional powers, the Courts are empowered to call for records of any inferior or subordinate criminal court to test the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding of such inferior or subordlate criminal Court. The powers of revision are limited and i i I I I I 17 KL, J CrlR C No 693 of2022 cannot be invoked lightly. The object behind exercising the revisional powers is to set right an error or illegality in thc orders passed by the lower Courts. The revisional powers under Section _ 397 read with 401 of the Clr.P.C. are discretionary and the same shall be exercised to ensure that .justice is done and the lower Courts do not exceed and abuse the powers vested in them. Interference with the orders of trial Courts is warranted only if findings in such orders are illegal, improper, perverse, contrary to the material on record or are grossly erroneous. Irurther, the revisional power may be exercised only to set right a patent defect to an error of law orjurisdiction.

20. The Apex Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdharfs explained the scope of revisional powers under Section _ 397 and, Section - 401 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: "127. Now [et us briefly cogitate over the legat issue relating to the revisional and inherent j urisdiction of the High Court to call for the records and examine the records of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisffing itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or ". 1t9ez; + scc 3os I I l i I ; 1 1E KI, I Crl.R C No.693 of2022 order, recorded or passed and to quash criminal proceeding, deliberate on the tegality and oorrectness of the later part of the order of Justice M.K. Chawla in and by .which he has assumed the jurisdiction to initiate suo - motu proceedings, particularly for quashing the first information report and all other connected and allied proceedings arising during the course ol lhe investigation. 128. Sections 391, 4Ol and 482 of the new Code are analogous to Sections 435, 439 and 561-,4. of the old Code of 1898 except for certain substitutions, omissions and modifications. Under Section 397, the High Court possesses the general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it which discretionary power when administered on administration side, is known as the power of superintendence and on the judicial side as the power of revision. In exercise of the discretionary powers conferred on the High Court under the provisions of this section, the High Court can, at any stage, on its own motion, if it so desires and certainty when illegalities and irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. The words in Section 435 are, however, very general and they empower the High Court to call for the record of a case not only when it intends to satisfu itself about the correctness ofany finding, sentence or order but also as to the regularity of any proceeding of any subordinate court' 129. By virtue of the power under Section 401, the High Court can examine the proceedings of inferior courts if the necessity for doing so is brought to its notice in any manner, l9 KL, J Crl R C No 693 of2022 namely, (1) when the records have been called lor by itself, or (2) when the proceedings otherwise comes to its knowledge.

130. The obiect of the revisional iurisdictio n under Section 401 is to confer oower UDon suDerior criminal courts - a kind of Daternal or suDervrsorv Iurisdiction - in order to correct miscarria seofiustice arisins from misconcention of law. irrezula rify of Drocedu re. neslect of Droper precaution or ADDarcn t harshness of treatm ent which has resulted, on the one hand. or on the othcr hand in some underserved hardshio to individuals. The controllin p DOWer of the Hish Court is discretionarv and it must be exercised in the interest of i ustice with resard to all facts and circumstances of each na rticular case. anxlous attention bein siven to the said facts and circumstances which varv sreatlv from case to case."

21. Similarly, the Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke26 has held that the Magistrate,s order can only be interfered by exercising revisional jurisdiction if such order is perverse and is marred by glaring illegalities. I.he Court therein held that revisional Courts are not supposed to act as appellate Courts. They only have to satisfli themselves regarding the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings of the lower Court which are under challenge. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: 'u. 1zo1s;3 scc tz3 20 KI, J Crt R.C. No.693 of2022 " 14. In the case before us, the leamed Magistrate went though the entire records of the case, not limiting to tho report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is pewerse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is patpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appcllate court' The whole nurpose of the revNronaI iurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do i ustice in accordance with the principles of criminal iurisnrudence. The revisional oower of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be eouated with that of an anoeal. Unless the findins of the cou rt, whose decision is sought to be is shown to be Derverse or untenable in law or is grosslv erroneous or slarinslv unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are whollv ignored or where the iudicial discretion is exercised arbitrarilv or capriciou slv. the courts mav not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional iurisdiction."

22. In Amit Kapoorz0, the Apex Court made the following observations: \ I 2t KL. J Crl R C. No 693 of2022 "12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The obiect of this provision is to set righl a Dalenl defecl or an error of iurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and il mav nol be ao for the court to scrutinise the orders. which uoon of it bears a token of careful consideralion and aooear to be in accordance wilh law, If one looks into the various judgments of lhis Court, it emerges that lhe revisional iurisdiction can be invoked where lhe decisions under challense are srosslv erroneous, lhere is ce n ilh the Drovisions of law, the n recorded is based on no eviden material gvidence is ianored or iudicial discrelion i.s exercised arbitrarilv or oerverselv. These are not *haustive classes. but are mcrelv indicative. Each case would have lo be delermined on its own merils.

13. Anolher norm is thst lhe revisional iurisdiction of the hisher court is a yefv limiled one and cann ol be exercised in a rouline man ner. One of lhe inbuill restrictions is that il shoald not he aeainst an inlerim or inlerloculorv order. The Court has to keeo in mind lhat the exercise of revisional iurisdiclion ilself should not lead to iniuslice ex facie. llrhere the Court is dealing with the question os lo u'hether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be rcluctant to interlere in exercise of its revisional jttrisdiction unless the case substanlially fa s u,'ithin the categories aforeslated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.

18. Il mav also be noticed that the revisional the Eieh Court is in a is available iurisdiction exercised bv wav final and no inter court i.i. :,i.. I I \ 22 KI, J Crl.R.C. No.693 of2022 in such cases. Q'f course, il mty be subiect to lhis Court under Article 136 o ur$diction o the Constilulion of Indio- Normallv, a revisional urisdict,ion should be exercised on a ueslion o law. Howeve r. when faclual aoorebialion k involved, then it musl find olace in the class of cases resultins in a Derverse findins. Basicallv. lhe power b reouired to be exercised so lhat iustice is done and lhere is no abuse of oower bv the courl Merelv dn aDDrehension ot susDtcron of the same would not be a sufficient sround for inlerference in such cases. --xxx-- 20. The iurisdiction of the court under Sectioll 397 can be exercised so as to examine the lepolilv or DroDriety of an order correclness, passed bv the trial courl or lhe inferior courl. as the case mav he. Thoush the seclion does not use the expres'sion "prevent abuse of orocess of any coarl or otherwise lo seculgJllte ends of iustice". the iurisdiction ander Section 397 is t limiled one. The les oroorietv or corfeclness of an order oassed bv a court is the very foundation of exercise of iurbdiction under Seclion 397 but ultimatelv it also requires iustice to be done. The iurisdiction coukl be ercleitq4 where there b oalpable error, non-comDlinnce with lhe Drovisions of law, lhe decision is comoletelv erroneous or where lhe iudicial dbcrelion is exercised ar bitrar ilv. t .1" @mPhasis suPPlied)" Thus, the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and is to set right a patent illegality or defect of law in the order of a subordinate Court. The power of revision is not as extensive as that under Section - 482 ,d 23 KL. J Crl.R C. No 693 of2022 of Cr.P.C. and should not be exercised lightly. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in Jaminr6.

23. In IC RavirT, the Apex Court held that the scope of interference and exercise ofjurisdiction under Section - 397 of Cr.p.C. is extremelv limited. Apart from the fact that sub-section (2) of Section - 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of revision, even the powers under sub-section (l) thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial Court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

24. In R. Soundirarasut8, the Apex Court hetd that at the stago of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the Court cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations and contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses. It was further held that in rarest of rare cases only, to correct the patent error of jurisdiction, revisional Court can interfere with the order of discharge. Revisional power cannot be exercised in i,' t: 24 KT, J Crl.R.C N0.693 of2022 a casual or mechanical manner and, it can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot bc equated with the appetlate power and, thus, a revisional Court cannot undbrtake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial Court or appellate Court. It further held that Section - 239 of Cr.P.C. envisages a careful and objective consideration of the question whether the charge against the accused is groundlcss or whether there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. Section - 239 of Cr.P.C. prescribes is not, therefore, an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision to the advantages of accused, and its breach is not permissible under the law. But, if the Judge, upon considering the record, including the examination, if any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is "ground for presuming" that the accused has commifted the offence triable, he is required to frame a charge under Section - 240 of Cr.P.C. in writing.

25. In M.R. Hiremat22, the Apex Court held that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the Court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record 25 KL. J Crl RC No 693 of2022 b1, the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine rvhether the facts.emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constifute the offence. 26 In State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan27, the Apex Court held as under: "29. ... At this stage, probative value of the rnaterials has to be gone into and the court is not cxpected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is rvhether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative r,alue, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.,, 27 . Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and scope of revision, now coming to the case on hand, it is contended by leamed ". izot+; r t scc zoe \ 26 KT. J Crl RC No.693 of2022 Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner herein' In the tight of the said submission, it is relevant to note that in the charge sheet hled by the CBI, it is alleged against the petitioner which is as under: "Smt. Y. Srilakshmi, in frrtherance of the conspiracy issued a rejection letter dated 18.06.2007 on flimsy grounds wherein it rvas mentioned that IWs.OMCPL (A-4) had proposed to set up an integrated steel plant consisting of 2 x 20 tonnes induction furnace, 20 tonnes continuous casting and 500 TPD rolling mill by utilization of ore available in the proposed gnnt atea with the investment of Rs.450 Crores and IWs OMCPL (A- 4) through M/s Brahmani Industries Limited has proposed to set up a green field integrated Steel Plant. Whereas' lvf/s Sathavahana was already in the business of prodrction PIG Iron in their plant in Ananthapur District since 1992 and usage of Iron Ore is an essential raw material in the said business. The Observations/findings of SmL Y' Srilakshmi were on the basis of conjunctures' Surmises and hypothetical and the same is arbitrary and the same has been substantiated by intentionally omitting the term captive usage of iron ore excavated from the mines in the GO 27 Kr. J Crl.RC No 693 of2022 Ms.No.l51 dated 18.06.2007 thereby intending to eliminate real end users-and to extend undue benefit and favour to M/s OMCpL (A-4) and thereby Smt. Y. Srila kshmi resorted to abuse of her official oosi tion a s a Public Servant Investigation revealed that while the pL applications of Sri C. Shashi Kumar were still pending, he had approached the then DMG i.e. Sri \/.D. Raja Gopal (A-3) as well as Smt. y. Srilakshmi, Secretary, lndustries and Commerce and requested them to consider his case as he is deserwing and better than others on merit. Sri V.D. Raja Gopal (A-3) and Smt. y. Srilakshmi dem anded from him huse bribes runnrns into crores of Ru es for the srantof PL to him Smt. Y. Srilakshmi by abusing her ofhcial position projected that M/s OMCPL (A-4) requires the mining lease for captive purpose and that because of which it deserves preferential treatment when compared to the other applicants. However, in the Govemment Order the word ,captive mrning' was not mentioned deliberately/ intentionally. Accused Smt. Y. Srilakshm i had committed vartous omrsstons cons iracv with other accused commlsslons resorted to IN I 'iFiq'l ' l.' " .,.,. .i I :l 28 KI-. J Crl RC No 693 of2022 abuse of official Dosition to extend n advantaqe to Sri B.V. Sreeniyasa Reddy (A-l), Sri Gali Janardhan Reddv (A-2) and M/s OMCPL (A-4). The investisation with resard to the alleqations of demand of money by her from Sri C. Sashi Kumar and the quid-pro-quo in this case aqainst her is in progress and hcnce further investigation is required. A supnlementary report will be frled accordinslv."

28. Even in the first supplementary charge shect, thcrc arc specific allegations against the petitioner to the effect that the role of the petitioner clearly shows that she in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons abused her official position as a public servant and ensured that lv{/s. OMCPL represented by accused Nos.l and 2 were allotted the Mining Leases in the areas of 68.5 ha and 39.50 ha. It is also mentioned that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and to facilitate the exploitation of Iron Ore by M/s. OMCPL, the petitioner intentionally did not include the rider 'captive mining' in the Govemment orders promulgated by her.

29. There are also specific allegations against the petitioner that the subject mining is only re-grant and the same are in respect of '-MElapanagudi village, whereas the petitioner inctuded : 29 KI, J Crl.R C. No.693 of2022 Antargangamma Konda in Siddapuram Village and Mallamma Konda in the aforesaid G.Os. and it is only to benefit accused No.4 Company There is also allegation against the petitioner that she has changed the Survey Nurnber and area. There is also specific allegation that the subject lease is with regard to virgin area and the petitioner failed to consider thc same while issuing the G.Os. Intentionally she has not mentioned in the said G.Os. that it is not for captive use. She has intentionallv allocated the land/mining lease which is not there in the notification. l'here is also a specific allegation that she has issued the aforesaid G.Os. clubbing the two applications and issued approvals in favour of accused No.4 company. Though the Central Govemment directed the petitioner to dispose of the applications submitted by the applicants in accordance with law, she has not disposed of the same in accordance with law. There is also allegation against the petitioner u,ith regard to demarcation of forest area and Stage-I and Stage-II approvals.

30. Vide letter dated 10.04.2007 under Secretary to the Govemment of India, Ministry of Mines informed the petitioner that the recommended area is in two segments (Segment-I and II), which have been notihed separately. To enable the Central Government, to \ I 30 KL, J Crl R.C N0.693 of2022 take a view regarding the proposal, the State Govemment is requested to send two separate comparative statements of merits (in enclosed proforma) in respect of all the applicants (including those who have been rejected as premature applicants) for both Segments I and lI clearly mentioning the reasons for selection of IWs. OMCL and rejection of other applicants. The petitioner intentionally failed to comply with the same only to help accused No.4 Company. 3 1 . There is also an allegation against the petitioner that though accused No.4 Company informed the State Government that at the time of submission of its application dated 02.11.2004, it has stated that it witl use Iron Ore as a captive purpose by establishing an lntegrated Steel Plant with an estimated cost of Rs.450 Crores But, now accused No.4 Company is floating a Special Investment Vehicle i.e., M/s. Brahmani [ndustries Limited for setting up of an Integrated Steel Plant and accused No-4 Company is promoting the said Company holding 5lolo shares in the said Company. It has submitted proposal to set up ten million tones Integrated Steel Plant with an estimated cost of Rs.20,000 Crores in Jammalamadugu of Kadapa District in a phased manner and another Steel Plant with a capacity of 3l KI, J CrIRC No.693 of2022 two million tones with an estimated cost of Rs.4,500/- Crores and provide employment. It has already entered MOU dated 02.05.2006. Accused No.4 Company failed to keep up the same. The petitioner _ accused No.6 failed to consider the same while issuing the subject G.Os. and also in the proceedings dated 05.06.2007 issued by the petitioner.

32. l-here is also specific allcgation against the petitioner that the Memo No.15477/M-III(I)/2006-04, dared 05.06.2007 is contrary to the earlier proceedings. ln the said proceedings, she has stated that accused No.4 Company is in dire necessity of grant of mining leases for Iron Ore for captive consumption in their promoted Steel Industry. IWs. Gimpex Limited stated that it has invested Rs.50.00 Crores and their major trust is on export of iron ore from which it is evident that they do not need iron ore for indigenous consumption, as a result, no employment is created and value addition aspect is completely ignored. In fact, M/s. Gimpex Limited sought for extension. Therefore, the said memo dated 05.06.2007 issued by the petitioner in the capacity of Secretary of Industries and Commerce (Mines_Ilf Department is contrary to the record and she has issued the said memo 32 KL, J Crl.R.C No 693 of2022 only to favour of accused No.4 Company, which resulted huge loss to the State Exchequer,

33. There is also an allegation against the petitioner that she has rejected the mining lease application of M/s. Gimpex Limited !i erroneously vide Memo dated 18.06.2007 only to favour accused No.4 Company. She is not a party to MOU dated 21.05.2007. She has rejected the application of M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited holding that IWs. Sathavahana Ispat Limited does not have any mining leases in its name and, thus, no experience etc. It is only to favour accused No.4 Company. [n the Memo dated 18.06.2007, she has referred to MOU dated 21.05.2007 which is nothing to do with the subject mining lease and it is only to favour to accused No.4 Company.

34. In the statement of Mr. Chennamaneni Shashikumar (LW.3), he has specifically stated that the mining lease of Mr. Tapal Thimmappa was in Survey Nos.l and 2 of Malpanagudi Village and was in two bits. Total area as per Survey Nos.l and 2 as visible from the records of Survey and Land Records are 481.60 and 827.35 Acres and out of which 147.00 in Survey No.l and Ac.84 in Survey No.2, 33 KI, J Crl R.C No 593 of2022 totaling Acs.231 were granted in favour of Mr. Tapal Thimmappa earlier and the same were advertised for re-grant

35. His PL application is pending and even before granting of lease to accused No.4, he has approached the then Director of Mines and Geology, Mr. V.D. Rajagopal as well as the petitioner with a request to consider his case on merits. The petitioner has demanded huge bribes running into Crores and if the same is paid to her, she is stated that she would gct him the prospecting license of the said area. The demand of the petitioner was made somewhere in September/October, 2006 when he approached her.

36. There is also an allegation that during the course of investigation it was revealed that Mr. M. Rakesh Babu, brother-in-law of the petitioner has acquired many properties during the period 2005 to 2009. Financial soluces of the said Rakesh Babu do not cornmensurate with the value of properties acquired by him.

37. 'lhus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioners are the defences which she has to take during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider On the ground of acquittal of accused Nos.8 and 8, this 34 KL, J Cd.R.C. No.693 of2022 Court cannot discharge the petitioner in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The atlegations against accused Nos.8 and 9 are different to the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein.

38. However, during the course of hearing, leamed Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, on instructions, submitted that the CBI has taken a decision to prefer an appeal challenging the judgment of the trial Court acquitting accused Nos.8 and 9 and they are taking steps to prefer an appeal.

39. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. There are also atlegations of demand of money by the petitioner from Mr. C. Sashi Kumar and the quid-pro-quo in the subject case against her. By the time of filing of charge shee! the investigation, more particularty with regard to role played by the petitioner was pending, therefore, she was not made as an accused in the charge. However, on completion of investigation with regard to the role played by the petitioner, the CBI filed first supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel that there are no allegations in the charge sheet against the petitioner and that was the reason she was not made ?IS ?tt accused is untenable. Moreover, all the said allegations are 35 KL, J Crl.R.C No 693 of2022 triable issues which cannot be considered in a revision and the same have to be decided after full-fledged trial

40. Alother contention raised by learned Senior Counsel that The Govemment has already taken decision to allot the Mining Lease in favour of accused No.4 Company, concemed Minister (accused No.9) approved the note much belore 17.05.2006, the date on which, the petitioner assumed'iharge as a Secretary and, therefore, the f question of thc petitioner entering into criminal conspiracy does not at all arise. \\rhether the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused and the role plai,ed by her etc., are all triable issues which can be decided only after full-fledged trial, but the same cannot be considered in a revision. Thus. the aforesaid contention of learned Senior Counsel cannot be considered at this stage.

41. As discussed supra, it is contended by leamed Senior Counsel that Section - 77 of the MMDR Act protects the public sewants from motivated prosecutions or other legal proceedings for the acts done by them in discharge of their ofhcial duties; that learned Special Judge acquitted accused Nos,S and 9 stating that there may have been some administrative lapses though not mala fides on their part while discharging their duties, but the same were not intentional t 36 KI, J Cd RC. No.693 of2022 and that the word'captive mining' could not have been inserted by the State Govemment in the aforesaid G.O.Ms.Nos.15 1 and I 52 for the reason that such wording was inserted only belween the years 2015 to 2021 and not before or after. Therefore, the question ofnot inserting 'captive mining' in the said G.Os. does not at all arise' The said contentions of the petitioncr are defenccs which she has to take before the triat Court and it is for the trial Courl to consider the same, but in a petition filed under Section - 239 of Cr.P.C. or by this Court in the present revision.

42. As discussed supra, the scope of revision is very limited' Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that mere suspicion is not sufficient to frame the charge against her. the suspicion shoutd be based on firm material, in the absence of specific allegations, accused is entitled to discharge; the ingredients of Section - 409 ofIPC and the twin requirements of demand and acceptance in terms of Section - 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act are lacking in the charge sheets and, therefore the petitioner is entitled for discharge cannot be considered in a discharge petition/revision. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied to the present case. 37 KL, J Crl R.C No691of2022

43. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner are defences which she has to take before the triar court and it is for the trial court to consider the same. The revisionar court cannot re-weigh evidence or substitute its opinion unless there is a patent error or miscarriage ofjustice.

44. The present Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed confirming the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Crl.M.p. No.47 of 2021 in C.C. No.l of 2012 by leamed principal Special Judge lor CBI Cases at Hyderabad. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. P.GOWRI SHANKAR, UTY REGISTRAR I { SECTION OFFICER To, VH

1. The Court of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri P V Venkata Ravi Sankar, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Srinivas Kapatia (SPCL PP for CBt) [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 25107 t2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.693 of 2022 1HE S14r€ r 1 AU6 2025 * PA'I o * 6d -, DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C