IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.199 OF 2006

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  

1

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  

2

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  

3

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  

4

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.

5

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.

6

7