State Of A.P vs M. Durga Prasad & Ors

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT

THROUGH CBI

VERSUS

M. DURGA PRASAD & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Altogether eight persons were put on trial for

commission of the offences punishable under Section 120B

and 465 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read

with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Special

Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation cases by its judgment

dated 19th January, 1998 passed in C.C. No.8 of 1995 acquitted

accused No.5, M. Laila Kumari and accused No.7, A.

Nageshwara Rao while holding other accused persons guilty of

the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by their conviction

A1, G. Venkateswarlu; A2, M. Durga Prasad; A3, T.

Hanumantha Rao; A4, M. Chakrapani; A6, K. Pulla Reddy and

2

A8 P. Siva Rama Prasad preferred separate appeals. All the

appeals were heard together and by a common judgment dated

14th August, 2003 the Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted

them of all the charges.

2. Aggrieved by their acquittal the appellant has preferred

this appeal with the leave of the Court.

3. According to the prosecution accused No.3, T.

Hanumantha Rao- respondent No.6 herein was a contractor

doing civil contracts. He entered into a conspiracy with E.

Subhash and Sheik Bhasha, who later on were declared as

approver and examined as PW.1 and PW.2, to cheat the Income

Tax Department and in furtherance of their plan in collusion

with accused No.1, G. Venkateswarlu-respondent No.5 herein

who was working as Income Tax Officer, filed bogus Income Tax

Returns in the names of fictitious persons and claimed Income

Tax refunds. Case of the prosecution further is that accused

No.6, K. Pulla Reddy and accused No.8, P. Siva Rama Prasad

that is respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 herein

respectively introduced accused No.3, T. Hanumantha Rao to

3

open Savings Bank Accounts with Syndicate Bank, Union Bank

of India, State Bank of India and Vysya Bank and thus

facilitated accused No.3 to impersonate these fictitious persons

to encash the refund orders. Further case of the prosecution is

that accused No.2, M. Durga Prasad and accused No.4, M.

Chakrapani - respondent No.1 and respondent 4 herein

respectively dishonestly helped accused No.3 in getting credited

the amounts in the names of the different fictitious persons and

thus facilitated him to withdraw the funds on various dates

from the Syndicate Bank. Prosecution has further alleged that

accused No.1, G. Venkateswarlu who was working as Income

Tax Officer knowing fully well that the Income Tax Returns were

filed in the names of the fictitious persons, dishonestly and

fraudulently processed and sanctioned the refund to a tune of

Rs.3,92,552/-.

4. It is relevant here to state that accused No.1, G.

Venkateswarlu - respondent No.5, the Income Tax Officer who

had sanctioned refund of the amount had died during the

pendency of the appeal and as such this appeal so far as it

4

concerns him had abated. The trial court on appreciation of

evidence convicted the respondents as above but on appeal the

High Court had acquitted all the accused persons.

5. While acquitting accused No.2, M. Durga Prasad the High

Court observed that only evidence against him is that the

specimen signature card of one Grunja Venkateswarlu was filed

by him and excepting that there is no other evidence to

establish the complicity of this accused and only on the ground

that he signed the introductory application he cannot be held

guilty.

6. So far as accused No.3, T. Hanumantha Rao is concerned,

the trial court had convicted him relying on the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2 who were his accomplice and later on turned

approvers. On appreciation of the evidence of the aforesaid

witnesses the High Court found that they are not worthy of

reliance and accordingly acquitted him of the charge.

7. So far as accused No.4, M. Chakrapani is concerned the

High Court observed that he being a clerk in the Syndicate

5

Bank the act done by him in assisting the accounts holders to

fill up the forms does not lead to the conclusion that he

conspired to commit the crime and accordingly he was

acquitted.

8. So far as accused No.6, K. Pulla Reddy and accused No.8,

P. Siva Rama Reddy are concerned, the High Court observed

that according to the prosecution itself they assisted in the

opening of the accounts in the year 1986 whereas the offence

has been committed in the year 1989. Such a remote act in the

absence of any further material brought by the prosecution it

led the High Court to observe that these two accused persons

cannot be held to have conspired in commission of the crime

and accordingly acquitted them.

9. Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Counsel appears on

behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, whereas

respondents have been represented by Mr. A.T.M.

Rangaramanujam, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Roy Abraham,

Mr. Chandan Kumar and Mr. R. Santhana Krishnan, learned

Counsel.

6 10. It is well settled that this Court interferes with an order of

acquittal only when it comes to the conclusion that the view

taken by the High Court while acquitting the accused is not a

possible view. The reasons for acquittal of the respondents

given by the High Court have been incorporated in the

preceding paragraphs of this judgment and on perusal thereof it

cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court is not a

possible view. Mr. Mariarputham, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant has not been able to point out any reason from

which it can be inferred that the view taken by the High Court

is in any way perverse. Once it is held so the order of acquittal

does not need any interference at our hands.

11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it

is dismissed accordingly.

................................................J.

( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

................................................J.

( CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD )

NEW DELHI,

FEBRUARY 03, 2011.

7