Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 459 (AP)

R. Ravi Tejasri v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-15

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioners / A-9 & A-10 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.03/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, A.P. Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) & (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 8, 9, 13 (1)(a) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution and the relevant portion of the complaint against the petitioners is that the Government of India enacted the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 for extending Primary, Secondary and Super Specially Health Care Services to the employees, who are earning less than Rs.21,000/- who are covered under ESI scheme are entitled for medical facilities for self and dependents. The employees of State Insurance Scheme are being monitored by the Department of Medical Services and it comes under the control of Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories. The Director, IMS (DIMS) is the head of the Department to implement ESI scheme. Two Joint Directors (Vijayawada and Kadapa) are working under the Director, IMS to look after the supervision of ESI Dispensaries and Panel Clinics. It has come to the notice of the Government that the Directors and Staff of Insurance Medical Services (IMS), AP, Vijayawada during the period 2014-2019 procured drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, furniture etc., and also purchased bio-metric machines at higher rates by violating the established procedure. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that K.Dhanalakshmi, who worked as Pharmacist during 2016-2019 registered a firm under the name and style of M/s Jercon Enterprises in the name of her daughter-in-law (1st petitioner herein) and issued purchase order to that firm for supply of medicines and surgical items worth Rs.8.00 crores by making fabricated quotations on blank letter heads which were obtained from various firms. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that the 1st petitioner/A-9 who is the Proprietor and competent person of M/s Jercon Enterprises, D.No.76-1-FF-55, H.R.T. Sai Nirman, H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada admitted in her statement that on 27.11.2017 she had received order for supply of medicines worth Rs.1.03 crores to Sullurpet Dispensary. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that the 1st petitioner/A-9 who is the Proprietor and competent person of M/s Jercon Enterprises, D.No.76-1-FF-55, H.R.T. Sai Nirman, H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada admitted in her statement that on 27.11.2017 she had received order for supply of medicines worth Rs.1.03 crores to Sullurpet Dispensary. When she approached and requested the Director, IMS, he directed her to submit quotation for medicines. She submitted quotations for those medicines. She also submitted quotations on behalf of M/s Kanaka Durga Enterprises, M/s Status Pharma, M/s Rishitha Enterprises and M/s Life Care Pharma as if those firms had submitted those quotations. Similarly, she also gave blank letter heads to other firms to submit their quotations for supply of drugs vide file Nos.1) RFDD/NR/2016-17 dt.01.03.2017, 2) RFDD/NR/2016-17 dt.09.02.2017, 3) RFDD/NR/2016-17 dt.22.03.2017, 4) RFDD/NR/2016-17 dt.16.06.2017, 5) 15/CDS/NR/2018-19 dt.17.08.2018 and 6) 15/CDS/NR/2018-19 dt.13.11.2018. 5. It is further case of the prosecution that the 2nd petitioner/A-10 Proprietor and competent person of M/s Jercon Enterprises at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada in his statement admitted that he had approached the then Director of ESI for orders and as per oral instructions of the then Director, he submitted one quotation belonging to his firm and two quotations of two other firms by mentioning his firm's quotation for the lowest price as informed by DIMS staff. He paid 10% of order amount to the A-11 (son of the then Minister Pithani Satyanarayana), 10% of order amount to A-1 and A-2 (Directors of ESI), 5% of order amount to A-8 (Joint Director, ESI, Kadapa) and 5% of order amount to A-6 and A-7 (employees of ESI) towards bribe for issuing purchase orders. 6. Heard Sri Vikas Joshi, learned counsel represented by learned Senior Counsel Sri Vinodh Kumar Deshpande for the petitioners and Sri S.M.Subhani, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint and in fact the petitioners supplied material worth Rs.8.00 crores and till now only an amount of Rs.2.5 crores was paid to them and withheld the balance amount of Rs.5.5 crores under the guise of pending vigilance enquiry. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint and in fact the petitioners supplied material worth Rs.8.00 crores and till now only an amount of Rs.2.5 crores was paid to them and withheld the balance amount of Rs.5.5 crores under the guise of pending vigilance enquiry. He further submits that in the complaint and in the remand report of other accused, it was stated that they have admitted in their statements that they had approached and requested the then Director, ESI to issue purchase order, but in fact they have not given any statements before the Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU, A.P. Vijayawada and the investigating officer himself prepared the statements and asked the petitioners to sign on it and in the compelling circumstances, the petitioners have to sign the same. 8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that 2nd petitioner / A-10 is B.Tech graduate and gained pharmacy experience by working with Pharma agencies and in the year 2014 he started his own firm in the name of M/s Sri Datta Enterprises and obtained valid licence and he procured many orders from IMS of Telangana State. The 2nd petitioner married 1st petitioner /A-9 in the year 2015 and in the year 2016 they opened another firm in the name of M/s Jercon Enterprises and obtained valid licence from Government of Andhra Pradesh, Drugs Control Administration, Vijayawada to provide medical services, which itself shows that the petitioners are having vast experience in the medical field. The allegation that the entire transactions were made at the instance of A-3, who is Pharmacist is far from truth as the role of the Pharmacist is very limited. It was urged that the 1st petitioner is a lady having two kids and she is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. In the complaint it was stated that 2nd petitioner is a Proprietor and competent person of M/s. Jercon Enterprises whereas the petitioner has nothing to do with the company and pleaded to enlarge on bail. 9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB vehemently opposed the bail application. In the complaint it was stated that 2nd petitioner is a Proprietor and competent person of M/s. Jercon Enterprises whereas the petitioner has nothing to do with the company and pleaded to enlarge on bail. 9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB vehemently opposed the bail application. He submits that it is a case of criminal conspiracy with the aid of public servants wherein the public servants had taken undue advantage, performed public duty improperly and dishonestly indulged in criminal misconduct causing huge loss to the government exchequer. He further submits that the then Directors of DIMS and office staff abused their official position demanded and received bribes from various distributors in the State for issuance of purchase orders in their favour in gross violation of established procedure. As per the instructions of the Government vide memo dated 10.06.2020, the Principal Secretary, Labour Department filed written complaint before the Director General, ACB, A.P, Vijayawada and basing on the complaint, the present crime is registered. He further submits that it came to the knowledge of the Government that during the period of 2014 and 2019 the staff of Insurance Medical Services procured drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, furniture etc., and also purchased bio-metric machines at higher rates by violating the established procedure. 10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB further submits that a perusal of purchase order it was observed that most of the firms formed into a ring to avoid competitive bidding and thereby indulged in cartelization in collusion with the Directors and staff of Insurance Medical Services and caused huge loss to the Government exchequer and corresponding personal gain. 11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB further submits that there are clear allegations against the petitioners and this being socio-economic offence and the investigation being at the initial stage, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail there is every possibility that they may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses by obstructing the investigation. 12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Mitra Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation in C.R.M.No.6575 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015, wherein it was observed that "the possibility of the applicant wielding influence on investigation, the witnesses, on the judicial process cannot be ruled out". 12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Mitra Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation in C.R.M.No.6575 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015, wherein it was observed that "the possibility of the applicant wielding influence on investigation, the witnesses, on the judicial process cannot be ruled out". He also relied on the judgment of this Court in R.Veeraiah Vs. State of A.P., (2013) 2 ALD(Cri) 707 wherein it was held that: "Where in a case it appears that granting of anticipatory bail may hamper the further investigation, the Court normally should not grant the relief of anticipatory bail. It is most unfortunate that in many cases, the influential powerful accused are escaping arrest by taking advantage of the relief available under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that there is no hard and fast rule in considering anticipatory bail applications. Each case has to be considered in its own facts and circumstances separately." 13. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of both the parties. As urged by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB it is no doubt true that socio-economic offences not only affect the economic structure of the nation but also peoples' faith in the system. While considering the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the Court necessarily has to balance the personal liberty of an individual with the social interest adhering to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases observed that while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the Public/State. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioners who are the suppliers gave statements during the course of investigation before the authorities stating that they have given money to the Directors and staff of DIMS and apparently there is huge misappropriation of money involved in this case. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioners who are the suppliers gave statements during the course of investigation before the authorities stating that they have given money to the Directors and staff of DIMS and apparently there is huge misappropriation of money involved in this case. Admittedly both the petitioners are related to the Pharmacist who is also an accused and on whom serious allegations are raised. The investigation as per the instructions of the learned Public Prosecutor is at the threshold and several witnesses have to be examined. The apprehension of the respondent that the petitioners may influence the witnesses and interdict with investigation process cannot be completely ruled out. Taking into consideration the magnitude of the offence, specific overt acts made against the petitioners and investigation being at the threshold, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.