STATE OF A P Vs. RODDA VASUDEVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Case is directed against the order dated 12-12-2002 passed in Crl M.P.No.19 of 2002 in C.C.No. 16 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam, whereby and where under the learned Judge allowed the application of A-3- Rodda Vasudeva Reddy filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and accordingly discharged A-3 Rodda Vasudeva Reddy from the charges levelled against him.

(2.) The facts of he case in brief leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Case are:- A-1 Smt Venna Gayathri Naga Kumari is Secretary of Cripples Paradise, Kankipadu, Krishna District. The Ministry of Social Justice, New Delhi, Government of India in order to implement the educational policy to disabled person, physically handicapped and mentally retarded through voluntary non-governmental organization rendered financial assistance under the scheme. The financial assistance in the shape of grant-in-aid would be given to the eligible voluntary organization/institution fulfilling eligibility conditions of the scheme for setting up special school and for up gradation of the existing special schools for the usually handicapped, speech and hearing handicapped and mentally handicapped, children. A-1 applied for grant-in-aid under the scheme for construction of school building estimated at the cost of Rs. 45,00,000/- maximum amount permissible under the scheme was Rs. 5,00,000/- It is alleged that A-3-Rodda Vasudeva Reddy issued a certificate certifying the cost of the proposed construction of a building at Rs. 5,00,000/- and value of stage of the construction of the building including materials at Rs, 2,00,000/- Basing on the certificate issued by him, L.W. 53- Riyaz Ahmed Khan, Chartered Accountant issued utilization certificate. The said certificate was annexed to the application submitted by A-1 for release of the funds. Basing on the utilization certificate issued by L.W.53 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- came to be released, which A-1 withdrew through State Bank of India, Labbipet Branch Vijayawada, During the course of investigation by C.B.I it came to light A-1 to A-3 laid a conspiracy to misappropriate the funds granted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and in pursuance of the conspiracy A-3 issued a false certificate, which A-1 made use of it and withdraw the funds. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted before the Special Judge for C.B.I, cases, Visakhapatnam. The learned Special Judge took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.16 of 2001. Thereupon A-3 entered appearance and filed Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2002 in C.C. No.16 of 2001 seeking discharge. The learned Special Judge, on considering the material on record and on hearing A-3 and the prosecution allowed the application filed by A-3 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and discharged him from the charges for the offences under Sections 120-B, 471 I.P.C. land Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 by order dated 12-12-2002 Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Petitioner- complainant submits that the trial Judge went beyond the enquiry contemplated under Section 239 Cr. P.C. and virtually conducted roving enquiry on the material place on record and proceeded to record a finding that certificate issued by A-3 does not relate to the construction of the school building, for which grant had been obtained by A-1. He took me to the relevant portions in the impugned order. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Sup dt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affair, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar, State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and State of M.P. v. B. Johari. In the 1st cited decision, the Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing the charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Magistrate has therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating Police Officer. The standard, test, proof and judgment which is to be applied, finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of S.227 of 228. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. In the 2nd cited decision, the Supreme Court held that for a charge under Section 120-B I.P.C. there does not be direct evidence, but the same is required to be inferred from indirect or circumstantial evidence. Para 11 of he judgment needs to be noted and it is thus.