Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 520 (TS)

Cheruku Prabhakar v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. Heard Sri Gaddam Sethu Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. 2. The present criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner/ accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in Crl.MP No.270 of 2022 in CC No.61 of 2021 wherein the prayer of the petitioner/accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge from CC No.61 of 2021 was rejected by the trial Court. 3. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Government of Telangana State, Hyderabad, the Station House Officer Town-1, Godavarikhani, Peddapally District registered Crime No.16 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 403, 405, 415, 417, 418 and 420 of IPC alleging that the accused/Ch.Prabhakar, retired lecturer in Mathematics, Government Degree College, Mahabubabad, while working at Government Degree College, Godavarikhani, Peddapally District has misutilized the Government funds at the time of NAAC Programme during the year 2006-2007, did financial fraud for an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- which amounts to dereliction of duties and causing inconvenience to the college. 4. Basing on the registration of the said crime, the investigating officer commenced investigation and laid charge-sheet before the Court of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Godavarikhani alleging that during the year 2006-2007, while the accused was acting as FAC Principal in Government Degree College, Godavarikhani the State Government has sanctioned an amount of Rs.36,44,657/- to the said college for its development works and subsequently, the accused, upon conducting a meeting with the lecturers, allotted the said amounts as works-wise to various departments. Further, the accused, out of the amounts allotted to be spend under his control i.e. Rs.5,61,131/-, spent amounts by establishing cycle stand, laying drainage pipe line, canteen, to meet the expenditure for photos, stationary, lab equipment, chemistry equipments, duel desk transport charges and uden rifles without calling for tenders and gave works to his relatives and accordingly, he misused the said funds without following the Government procedure. Further, the NAAC team conducted enquiry and found procedural lapses in withdrawal of the amounts. On 28.08.2020 the accused gave a written letter agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- from and out of his retirement benefits. Further, the NAAC team conducted enquiry and found procedural lapses in withdrawal of the amounts. On 28.08.2020 the accused gave a written letter agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- from and out of his retirement benefits. It was also found that the accused and other lecturers have done the works with the students under NCC and withdrew the coolie amount from their allotted budget and against such act, the students did a protest programme. The trial Court took cognizance of the same and assigned CC No.61 of 2021 and proceeded further. 5. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioner/ accused filed Crl.MP No.270 of 2022 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from CC No.61 of 2021 contending that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case, no sanction, as mandated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., was obtained, inordinate delay of around 15 years occurred in filing a criminal complaint against him and his implication in the present case is nothing but abuse of process of law, initiated with oblique motive of harassing a retired Government servant. Since no recovery steps were initiated by the Department in pursuance of agreement of the accused to repay an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- or finalization of his retirement benefits are not settled, initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused is not justified. The accused, due to frustration of not getting retirement benefits and frightened by the threats of his superiors, in a fit of emotion gave letter dated 28.08.2020 but subsequently, realizing the said mistake, he withdrew the said letter under his second letter dated 05.09.2020 and the said fact is suppressed by his higher authorities. The petitioner filed WP No.19933 of 2020 seeking release of his retirement benefits wherein, this Court as per interim directions dated 31.12.2020 directed the authorities to release his provisional pension and unable to digest filing of writ petition Sri Naveen Mittal, CCE, Hyderabad resorted to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused. The petitioner filed WP No.19933 of 2020 seeking release of his retirement benefits wherein, this Court as per interim directions dated 31.12.2020 directed the authorities to release his provisional pension and unable to digest filing of writ petition Sri Naveen Mittal, CCE, Hyderabad resorted to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused. He did the works allotted to him without giving scope for any suspicion or doubt and that proper accounting of funds is the responsibility of the principal and other staff and that the petitioner assisted the principal in creating the facilities as per the directions of principal and hence, the petitioner, in no way, is responsible for the accounts and finalization of the bills and hence, he cannot be found fault with. 6. The trial Court, while relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Matajog Dobey Vs.H.C.Bhari , 1956 AIR 44 observing that sanction can be taken at any stage of proceedings before the Court even prior to pronouncement of judgment and the question of sanction may arise at any stage of the proceedings, the complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction and that whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage and the necessity may reveal itself in the course of progress of case and other aspects including delay have to be decided upon full-fledged trial and while dealing with a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the contents of the charge-sheet and documents appended are to be looked into and that the facts collected during investigation revealed a prima-facie case against the accused, dismissed the said application. 7. 7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner/accused preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that sanction under  Section 197 Cr.P.C., for prosecuting a public servant is missing in the present proceedings, the misdeed attributed to the petitioner was alleged to be pertaining to the period when he was discharging his official duties and a protection under Section 197 of Cr.PC in the form of sanction safeguards the public servants from the acts did by them while performing their official duties but the trial Court had erroneously observed that the sanction can be obtained at any stage of proceedings. The said findings is contrary to the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and for that matter only the present criminal revision case is entitled to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court. In support of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions rendered in JSB Chandel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C.No.14484 of 2012 of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Matajog Dobey Vs. HC Bhari (1 st cited supra) and Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others , AIR 2006 Supreme Court 820 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal petition mainly contending that the grounds urged by the petitioner through this petition do not have any force warranting interference of this Court with a well considered findings of the trial Court and hence, the present criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the above rival contentions this Court sits to evaluate the findings of the trial Court in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. Firstly, so far as the sanction is concerned, the law is settled that it is not required to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, if the public servant is no longer in service at the time the Court takes cognizance of the offence, but is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C., even where the public servant is no longer in service at the time the Court takes cognizance of the offence. 10. 10. The first and foremost contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without obtaining sanction to prosecute the petitioner, who was a public servant, the prosecution was initiated against him and hence, the same cannot stand for legal scrutiny. The proposition of law is very clear, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including the cases of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa , (2011) 7 SCC 167 and State of Punjab Vs. Labh Singh , Crl.A.No.2168 of 2010 (HC) that in case a public servant had retired, there was no necessity to seek prior sanction for prosecuting him, accordingly, the said contention cannot hold water. The legal position, therefore, is that an accused facing prosecution for offences cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of the said offences. In the case of K.Kalimuthu v. State , (2005) 4 SCC 512 , the Hon’ble Apex court held that the question as to whether a sanction is necessary to prosecute the accused officer, a retired public servant, is a question which can be examined during the course of the trial. 11. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that the petitioner while working as lecturer in Government Degree College, Godavarikhani, Peddapally District has misutilized the Government funds at the time of NAAC Programme during the year 2006-2007, did financial fraud for an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- which amounts to dereliction of duties and causing inconvenience to the college. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge- sheet are that while the accused was acting as FAC Principal in Government Degree College, Godavarikhani the State Government has sanctioned an amount of Rs.36,44,657/- to the said college for its development works and subsequently, the accused, upon conducting a meeting with the lecturers, allotted the said amounts as works-wise to various departments and out of the amounts allotted to be spend under his control i.e. Rs.5,61,131/-, spent amounts by establishing cycle stand, laying drainage pipe line, canteen, to meet the expenditure for photos, stationary, lab equipment, chemistry equipments, duel desk transport charges and uden rifles without calling for tenders and gave works to his relatives and accordingly, he misused the said funds without following the Government procedure. Further, the NAAC team conducted enquiry and found procedural lapses in withdrawal of the amounts. It was also alleged that the accused and other lecturers have done the works with the students under NCC and withdrew the coolie amount from their allotted budget and against such act, the students did a protest programme. 12. The record further goes to show that on 28.08.2020 the accused gave a written letter agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.5,61,131/- from and out of his retirement benefits. However, subsequently, he resiled from the same stating that due to pressure exerted on him, out of fear and threat he addressed the said letter. When the above facts are taken into consideration, the petitioner is changing his versions from time to time making the same unbelievable. When the above facts and circumstances and the proposition of law laid down in the above referred decisions are taken into consideration, the findings of the trial Court appears to be convincing and there is nothing found fault with the same. Inconsistency in the versions put-forth by the petitioner with regard to his admission of misappropriation of funds makes his contentions unbelievable. Further, he has not initiated any steps against the persons who exerted pressure and offered threats for making such admission of misappropriation. Further, there is no apparent error on the said findings warranting interference of this Court. The grounds urged herein are already answered by the trial Court and hence, they cannot warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the present criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merits. 13. In the result, the present criminal revision case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.