Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 777 (AP)

Siripurapu Raju v. State of A. P.

2022-08-22

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed, by the A5 in C.C.No.554 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vizianagaram, to quash the proceedings against him in the said case, which was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC by the learned Magistrate. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, laid charge sheet against A1 to A8 for the offences punishable under Ss. 419, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.21 of 2019 of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station with the following averments. One Sri Gattimi Janaki Ram (L.W.1), a Ship Designer at Vizag gave report on 29/1/2019 that the accused persons have cheated him by offering an antique coin said to be worth of crores of rupees and collected Rs.2, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs) during the month of December, 2018 and that on 25/1/2019 he was called to Vizianagaram and then he went there along with his friend by name Vadupu Tulasiram Anand Kumar (L.W.2) who also brought cash of Rs.11, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) accompanied by Sri Chinabaligari Ramesh (L.W.3) and that they were taken to a Mango tope near Gotlam Railway Station and they were shown with a coin and stated that it costs about Rs.30.00 crores in the open market and collected Rs.11, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) from them and in the meanwhile, one person in police uniform came there and on seeing him the A1 to A4, A6 to A8 have escaped with cash and also with the coin. Thereafter the person who came in police uniform also left the place. By registering the said report, investigation was taken up by the police. In the course of investigation, A1, A2 and A3, A4 were arrested on 31/1/2019 at about 10.40 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., respectively and that the petitioner/A5 has surrendered himself before the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle (L.W.12) and so similarly on 15/7/2019 the A6 and A8 were arrested when they have surrendered themselves and that A7 who obtained conditional bail also appeared before the same Inspector of Police (L.W.12) on 11/8/2019. On recording the confessional statements of all the accused and seizure of some cash from each one of them, which was collected from the de facto complainant and his friend (L.Ws 1 and 2 respectively) and other material objects and after conducting test identification parade for A4 and A5, the charge sheet was laid alleging that A5 who was working at then as Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS, Vizianagaram had shared common intention with the other accused and as per preplan he entered the scene of offence when the other accused have already collected money from the victims and after the accused all left the scene of offence, he went away from there. Thus, all the accused including the A5 the petitioner herein have committed the offences in pursuance of conspiracy as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same allegations leveled in the charge sheet, enquiry has been conducted by the departmental authorities and the petitioner was exonerated in that departmental enquiry and when once the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges, the question of initiating Criminal Proceedings against him would not arise. Apart from the said ground, he also contended that except the confessional statements of co-accused, there is no other material connecting the petitioner/A5 with the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent fairly conceded that there is no grievance against the petitioner/A5 and that the entire accusation made is only against the other accused. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed to allow the petition, accepted that the A5/petitioner herein was exonerated from the charges in the departmental enquiry. 6. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the entire record. 7. It is alleged that all the accused dishonesty cheated the complainant/2nd respondent and his friend by name V.T. Anand by exhibiting false copper coin and made them to believe that it is an antique coin, which has supernatural power and the value of the said coin is nearly Rs.30.00 Crores in the international market and demanded Rs.30.00 Lakhs and also made false promise that they would dispose of the same coin with huge profits, thereby deceived them by receiving an amount of Rs.12, 00, 000.00 from them. Later basing on the complaint of 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.21 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 419, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC against all the accused. Later basing on the complaint of 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.21 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 419, 420 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC against all the accused. 7. The department through the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam Range, has conducted enquiry vide C.No.77/PR/Genl/2019-2020, dtd. 15/12/2020 against the A5/petitioner with regard to this case. During the enquiry, the officer has examined as many as fourteen (14) witnesses and recorded their statements and after considering the same, the officer came to conclusion that there is no truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, CBI and others, LAWS (SC) 2020 948 held "31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case." After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as follows:- "38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Sec. 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases." It finally concluded: "39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court." From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated. 8. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dtd. 22/12/2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code." 9. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when once the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority on merits but not on technicality, the prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority. In this case, the petitioner/A5 is exonerated from the charges in the enquiry, not on technicality. On this ground, this Court feels that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of Court. 10. The other ground relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that confession made by co-accused is not admissible in evidence. Apparently, on the face of record, except the confession statement of co-accused, there is no material available against the petitioner. 10. The other ground relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that confession made by co-accused is not admissible in evidence. Apparently, on the face of record, except the confession statement of co-accused, there is no material available against the petitioner. On this ground also this Court feels that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of Court. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.554 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vizianagaram insofar as the petitioner/A5 is concerned are quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.