STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M DURGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(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(l)(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 Al, G. Venkateswarlu; A2, M. Durga Prasad; A3, T. Hanumantha Rao; A4, M. Chakrapani; A6, K. Pulla Reddy and A8 P. Siva Rama Prasad preferred separate appeals. All the appeals were heard together and by a common judgment dated 14th August, 2003 M DURGA PRASAD, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, SYNDICATE BANK vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2004 CrLJ 242 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 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.l 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.l, 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/-.