PUTTI SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.6/CR-RJY of 1995 dated 14-9-1995 on the file of the ACB Police Station, Rajahmundry, which it is now revealed that has led to filing of charge-sheet against the petitioner-accused and was taken cognizance as calendar case, on the ground that the complainant in this case was the investigating officer.

(3.) The facts leading to this petition may be stated briefly as follows: The petitioner has been working as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Revision) in the office of the Deputy Commercial Taxes No.11 Division, Vijayawada at the relevant time. According to the petitioner, he had an unblemished record and won commendation certificate for his outstanding performance. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Kakinada, Rajahmundry Range, Sri Sarveswara Rao made a complaint on 14-9-1995 against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the petitioner was in possession of assets either in his name or in the name of his family members or close relatives disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is stated that Sri K. Sarveswara Rao, Inspector of Police himself investigated the case. On 21-9-1995, the said Inspector searched the house of the petitioner at Rajahmundry and made an inventory and seized certain documents. The complainant Inspector of Police also raided the house at Kakinada and made an inventory of property and seized the same. The said Inspector, thus, investigated the case from 14-9-1995 to September, 1996 till he was transferred and thereafter another Inspector C. Ramarao continued the investigation. It is stated that on 31-7-1997, the Inspector of Police, ACB issued a notice to the petitioner stating that investigation revealed that during the check period from 15-5-1970 to 22-9-1995, he was in possession of the properties worth Rs.30,15,107/- disproportionate to his known sources of income and asked the petitioner to submit the explanation within 15 days. He submitted his explanation on 29-9-1997 denying the allegations of possessing the assets. It is stated that the petitioner is not aware of what happened thereafter. But, he came to know that the ACB is contemplating to file the charge- sheet, (by the time of hearing arguments, it is stated that charge-sheet has already been filed).