STATE OF A.P. Vs M. DURGA PRASAD .
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000199-000199 / 2006
Diary number: 13221 / 2004
Advocates: P. PARMESWARAN Vs
D. MAHESH BABU
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