/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7297 OF 2022 Between: Sri. Gaddela Bhasker, S/o. G. Naganna, 36 years, Techinival Supervisior (Outsourcing) O/o. A.P. Sarvashiksha Abhiyan, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Inspector of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and SPE cases. 2. Sankepalle Venkatarama Chenna Reddy, S/o. Chenna Reddy, aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.28-761-B1, NGOs Colony, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. (R2 is impleaded as per Court order dated 27.09.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in CRL.P.No.7297 of 2022.) ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the ■f^ir accused in C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases, Kurnool. I-A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases, Kurnool pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. I-A. NO: 3 OF 2022 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Inspector of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and SPE cases. ...Vacate Petitioner/Respondent -1 AND 1. Sri. Gaddela Bhasker, S/o. G. Naganna, 36 years, Techinival Supervisor (Outsourcing) O/o. A.P. Sarvashiksha Abhiyan, Kurnool District. ...Accused/Respondent 2. Sankepalle Venkatarama Chenna Reddy, S/o. Chenna Reddy, aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.28-761-B1, NGOs Colony, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. (R2 is impleaded as per Court order dated 27.09.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in CRL.P.No.7297 of 2022.) .. .Respondent/Respondent 1% Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed dated 14.11.2022 by this Hon'ble Court in CRLP.No.7297 of 2022. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. S M Subhani (SC for ACB AND SPL PP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: APHC010485782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3396] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7297/2022 Between: 1.SRI. GADDELA BHASKER, S/O. G. NAGANNA, 36Y, TECHINIVAL SUPERVISIOR(OUTSOURCING) ABHIYAN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 0/0. A.P. SARVASHIKSHA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR ACB AND SPE CASES. 2.SANKEPALLE VENKATARAMA CHENNA REDDY, S/O. CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/0. H.N0.28-761-B1, NGOS COLONY, NANDYAL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 27.09.2022 IN I.A.N0.2 OF 2022 IN CRL.P.N0.7297 OF 2022. R2 IS ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.AISHWARYANAGULA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SMSUBHANI (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Court of 1 for short ‘Cn.E.C’ Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention 1988^. 2. Heard Ms.Aishwarya Nagula, learned S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel Prosecutor. Kurnool for the offence under of Corruption Act, counsel for the Petitioner and Sri for ACB-cum-Special Public 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is an outsourcing Technical Supervisor through a third party agency. Learned counsel would further submit that the Project Officer of APSSA, Kurnool terminated the w.e.f 23.04.2016, whereas, the alleged trap took such, by the date of alleged offence. Outsourcing Technical Supervisor, that, there is no iota of evidence to show that the for the service of Technical Supervisor, charged for the alleged offences. Learned any public servant cannot be prosecuted without case, no sanction was given to prosecute the Petitioner. per the proceedings dated 22.04.2016, services of the Petitioner place on 22.08.2016. As the Petitioner ceased to be as an Learned counsel would further submit Petitioner was re-engaged Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be counsel would further submit that. sanction and in the present Learned counsel would finally submit that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present and there are no tenable grounds to continue the case proceedings against the proceedings against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashment of the Petitioner. 2 for short ‘PC Act’ 4. Learned Standing Counsel for ACB vehemently opposed the petition. He would submit that there are disputed questions of fact about the date of termination of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offence and the same have to be proved during trial. As such, the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for determination 5. Now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool? Determination by the Court 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. secure powers reasons 7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to pre vent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any pre cise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide lines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and cepted in their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cog nizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers un der Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Mag istrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out against the accused. ac- a case (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no inves tigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. ^ AIR 1992 SC 604 IK 5 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so ab surd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no pru dent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffi cient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the pro visions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a crimi nal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) The present case has been registered against the Petitioner for the 8, offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act alleging that being a Technical Supervisor/Outsourcing A.P.Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Kurnool District, he forcibly obtained an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards bribe and also demanded further amount of Rs.66,000/- towards bribe from Respondent No.2 for the sanction of his bills for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- pertaining to the construction of additional classrooms and toilets and to get the approval of the superior officers. 9. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, by the date of alleged incident the Petitioner was terminated from vide proceedings dated 22.04.2016, the Project Officer of APSSA, Kurnool had terminated the services of the Petitioner w.e.f 23.04.2016, whereas, the alleged trap had taken place on 22.08.2016. As such, he was falsely implicated in the present case. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for ACB services by way of filing counter affidavit, that it is the general practice to discontinue the services of all employees working on Contract / Outsourcing basis in the month of April every year for a period of one week and their services will be reengaged for the succeeding year after obtaining permission from the District Collector. In order to continue the ongoing works without any interruption, the terminated site engineers are allowed to continue in their duties pending approval of the District Collector & Chairman reengagement from 1®* May every year. The name of the Petitioner herein was not considered for reengagement only on account of his involvement in the trap case on 22.08.2016. APSS, Kurnool for In view of the above rival contentions, this Court is of the view that, there is a cloud over the date of termination of the Petitioner from the services, which is a factual aspect to be decided during trial. The other contention that, sanction under Section 19 of P.C Act is necessary to launch prosecution against any employee, is also the subject matter of trial to be decided before the trial Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged 10. 7 offence and there is verifiable material against him, which has to be decided after full-fledged trial before the trial Court. The Court cannot throttle the proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions and the criminal proceedings against him cannot be quashed since the ingredients of the offence alleged against the Petitioner are prima facie made out. As such, the matter requires trial at full length to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. The case does not fall under any of the guidelines in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 11. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases, Kurnool. 2. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range Kurnool. 3. One CC to Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. S M Subhani (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP) [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies PR sree HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7297 of 2022 8=> 11 MAR ais ft €o; ^ . Curreni dticuon ^ y DISMISSING THE CRLP