Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1581 (TS)

P. Mohanan v. State CBI/ACB/

2025-11-20

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Revision Cases are one and the same, the Criminal Revision Cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.10 challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.528 of 2023 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 3. Crl.R.C.No.498 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2022 in C.C.No.2 of 2017 by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Hyderabad, into the large-scale irregularities in procurement of cotton under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) Scheme by the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) during different cotton seasons in Telangana. This Court, while disposing W.P.No.22056 of 2008, had directed the CBI to enquire into allegations that officers of the CCI and officials of the Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) had permitted purchases of cotton from private traders and commission agents in the names of fictitious or non-existent farmers. Pursuant to the said directions, the CBI registered several cases including RC.23(A)/2014 and RC.22(A)/2015, relating to procurement at centres in Karimnagar, Vemulawada, Gangadhara, Choppadandi, and Jammikunta. The petitioner, who was then working as Senior Cotton Purchase Officer of the CCI, Warangal Branch, and had acted as Centre In-charge at the above procurement centres during the relevant cotton seasons, was shown as an accused in both the charge-sheets i.e., accused No.10 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 and accused No.1 in C.C.No.2 of 2017. The CBI alleged that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with private traders and others, accepted false and fabricated check memos and takpatties as genuine, and purchased cotton from non-farmers in violation of the CCI circulars, thereby causing wrongful loss to the CCI and corresponding wrongful gain to himself and other accused persons. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.528 of 2023 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2022 in C.C.No.2 of 2017 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge, contending that he had been falsely implicated and that the allegations were baseless. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.528 of 2023 in C.C.No.7 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2022 in C.C.No.2 of 2017 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge, contending that he had been falsely implicated and that the allegations were baseless. He stated that the duty of identifying and verifying the genuineness of the farmers lay solely with the officials of the Agricultural Market Committees and the revenue authorities, who were required to scrutinize the pattadar passbooks and issue verification memos before the CCI could purchase the produce. The petitioner submitted that he, as a Centre In- charge, had acted only upon such verifications and instructions issued by the CCI and Government authorities, and had no authority to question the genuineness of farmers or check memos once certified by the AMC officials and that the CBI itself had admitted in para 32 of the charge-sheet that no specific guidelines had been issued by the CCI restricting purchases only from farmers during the 2004-05 season, and therefore, the allegation of violation of circulars was misconceived. The petitioner also relied upon the closure report filed by the CBI in another case, RC 03(A)/2018/CBI- ACB/HYD, which was accepted by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, where similar allegations were found to be only procedural lapses without any criminal intent or loss to the CCI. 6. After hearing both sides examining the material on record the trial Court dismissed the petitioners holding that there existed sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. The trial Court observed that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., it was not permissible to evaluate the probative value of the evidence or to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits or demerits of the case. It was only required to determine whether the allegations and materials produced by the prosecution disclosed a strong suspicion that the accused had committed the offences alleged. The trial Court noted that the charge- sheet contained detailed allegations supported by documents showing that the petitioner, while working as Centre In- charge, had permitted purchase of cotton from traders in the guise of farmers, contrary to circulars, and that the takpatties and check memos bearing his initials indicated his knowledge and participation in the transactions. The trial Court noted that the charge- sheet contained detailed allegations supported by documents showing that the petitioner, while working as Centre In- charge, had permitted purchase of cotton from traders in the guise of farmers, contrary to circulars, and that the takpatties and check memos bearing his initials indicated his knowledge and participation in the transactions. The plea of departmental responsibility and the reliance on the closure report in another case were found to be irrelevant, as each case depended on its own facts and evidence and that there was a strong prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and abuse of official position punishable under Sections 120- B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Heard Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial Court was contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the trial Court ought to have allowed the discharge petition by considering the closure report filed by the CBI in RC.3(A)/2018-CBI/ACB/Hyderabad, which had been accepted by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, as the petitioner was similarly situated and performed identical duties in the same department. He further submitted that the Court erred in holding that once a charge sheet was filed showing a prima facie case, the final report in another case could not be considered, ignoring the fact that the duties of the purchase officers were uniform. He contended that no loss was caused to the Cotton Corporation of India and that the petitioner was not responsible for identifying the farmers, as such responsibility squarely lay with the Agricultural Market Committee officials. He further contended that the trial Court wrongly concluded that the petitioner failed to bring to notice the repeated sales by other accused and overlooked the circulars and guidelines clearly fixing the duty of farmer verification on the AMC officials. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing these criminal revision cases. 9. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing these criminal revision cases. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent– CBI submitted that the petition was devoid of merit and that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the discharge petition after finding a clear prima facie case against the petitioner. He further submitted that the CBI had registered the case pursuant to the directions of this Court and, after detailed investigation, filed a charge sheet showing the active involvement of the petitioner in conniving with other accused persons to purchase cotton from traders in the guise of farmers, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Cotton Corporation of India and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused. He contended that the closure report relied upon by the petitioner in another case was unrelated and had no bearing on the present matter, as each case was based on distinct facts and evidence. He further contended that the petitioner, being the Centre In-charge, was duty bound to verify the genuineness of farmers and report repeated transactions, but instead had intentionally facilitated fraudulent purchases. He further contended that the petitioner was facing a separate case for possession of disproportionate assets. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal revision cases. 10. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not responsible for identifying the genuineness of the farmers from whom cotton was procured and that such responsibility exclusively lay with the Agricultural Market Committee officials and the revenue authorities. The petitioner relied upon the circular issued by the Office of the Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 05.12.2006, to contend that the verification of farmers was mandated to be done by the Market Committee staff and not by the officers of the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI). However, the said contention, on a careful examination, does not merit acceptance. The circular dated 31.10.2005 vide CCI/HO/PUR/MSP/A.P./2005-06, which governed the procurement process during the relevant cotton seasons, clearly stipulates that the Purchase Officer/Centre In-charge of the CCI is duty bound to verify and ensure that the cotton is purchased only from genuine farmers, and that purchases from traders or commission agents are strictly prohibited. The circular dated 31.10.2005 vide CCI/HO/PUR/MSP/A.P./2005-06, which governed the procurement process during the relevant cotton seasons, clearly stipulates that the Purchase Officer/Centre In-charge of the CCI is duty bound to verify and ensure that the cotton is purchased only from genuine farmers, and that purchases from traders or commission agents are strictly prohibited. The subsequent circular relied upon by the petitioner pertains only to farmers who did not possess Pattadar Passbooks, enabling them to establish their identity through verification by AMC officials or the Village Secretary. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from such subsequent circular, as the present case is not one where farmers were unable to produce passbooks. The allegation in the charge-sheet is that the purchases were made from traders falsely showing themselves as farmers, and that the check memos and takpatties bearing the petitioner’s signatures/initials reflected his knowledge and participation. 11. Further, it is specifically alleged in the charge-sheet that the same individual sold cotton at multiple centres under different names during the period when the petitioner functioned as Centre In-charge at four procurement centres. Whether such repeated sales were within the knowledge of the petitioner and whether he had facilitated the same, are matters requiring evidence and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of considering a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., where the Court is only required to determine whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists to proceed against the accused. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a subsequent case i.e., RC 03(A)/2018/CBI-ACB, Hyderabad, a closure report had been filed and accepted by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, is also misconceived. The investigation in that case revealed that farmers themselves engaged traders for selling their cotton due to bank loan issues, and that no criminal misconduct by the Centre In-charges was found. Such factual finding is case-specific and cannot automatically be applied to the present case, especially when the charge-sheet herein does not contain any material to show that farmers engaged traders voluntarily or that the petitioner acted bona fide. It is well settled that each criminal case must stand on its own facts and the acceptance of a closure report in another matter cannot dilute or override the material collected in the present case. 13. It is well settled that each criminal case must stand on its own facts and the acceptance of a closure report in another matter cannot dilute or override the material collected in the present case. 13. Further, at the stage of framing charge, the trial Court is required to consider only the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the materials annexed thereto, and cannot evaluate the defence documents or the probative value of evidence. The trial Court has rightly held that the allegations in the charge-sheets, coupled with the documentary material, disclose a strong prima facie case of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In a revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., this Court is primarily concerned with the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order impugned. On a careful consideration, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the finding of the trial Court that there exists sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Cases and the same are liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.