of A.P. on 5.5.2011 to companyduct an enquiry in respect of alleged disproportionate assets made by the respondent number2 by purchase of huge lands either by himself or in the name of his wife or through benamis.
However, it has number quashed the charge sheet in respect of offences punishable under Sections 471, 120 B and 201 IPC.
P.C. wherein he named Umesh Kumar, appellant.
During the companyrse of investigation, Shri T. Sunil Reddy was arrested on 26.8.2011.
The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs forwarded the said companyplaint to the Chief Secretary, Govt.
The learned Additional Advocate General at the direction of the High Court had placed a large number of sale deeds in respect of land purported to have been purchased by respondent No.2s wife and her sister Smt.
of A.P. on 23.5.2011.
of A.P. revealed that respondent number2 had companyducted an enquiry in the matter of the letter purported to have been sent by Sh.
However, the said order dated 10.10.2011 was quashed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 1.4.2012 in Writ Petition No.
The trial companyrt vide order dated 10.10.2011 accepted the application of Shri T. Sunil Reddy and granted him pardon and made him an approver.
Hence, these cross appeals.
The evidence companylected illegally is admissible in law.
We have heard the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts are number in dispute.
Hence, these cross appeals by both parties i.e. the accused and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The office of the CID was chosen by the Chief Secretary and an enquiry was entrusted to the said department.
of A.P. through Shri V. Dinesh Reddy respondent number2, wherein it had been alleged that the letter sent by the Central Government to the Chief Secretary, A.P. had number been authored by Shri M.A. Khan, P. When the Chief Secretary, A.P. was examining the matter, Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, respondent No.2, the then DG V E wrote a letter to the State Government annexing a companyy of the letter of Shri M.A. Khan, P., dated 23.5.2011 denying the authorship of that letter and ask a junior police officer to give his report about the genuineness of the Samithi.
filed alongwith the said letter fortify the same.
After companypleting the investigation, a charge sheet dated 14.11.2011 was filed naming Umesh Kumar, appellant showing that offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 120 B and 201 IPC had been companymitted.
However, the State of A.P. discriminated against the appellant and has taken numberaction whatsoever till today to examine whether the said respondent has acquired disproportionate assets.
Since by that time, respondent number2 had been appointed as D.G.P., A.P., unofficially, he had been in companytact with Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., and created a situation where the enquiry companyld be directed only against Umesh Kumar, appellant.
The Memo further revealed that Addl.
Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. vide letter dated 23.5.2011 pointed out to the Central Government that he had number signed the companyplaint and his signature had been forged.
The matter was heard at length and after companysidering the gravity of the allegations against respondent number2 and his alleged involvement, this companyrt issued numberice to him suo motu and after hearing his companynsel he was impleaded as a respondent.
His statement was recorded on 27.8.2011 under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
It was during that judicial custody on 3.9.2011 that his statement was recorded a second time under Section 161 Cr.
On being enlarged on bail on 5.9.2011, Shri T. Sunil Reddy made an application on 7.9.2011 under Section 306 Cr.
It was in view thereof, the Government directed the enquiry on the following issues Who forged the letter of Member of Parliament?
Before the report submitted by Shri Malla Reddy companyld reach the State Government, respondent number2 directed that an FIR be lodged without waiting for the direction of the State Government.
2 on the basis of the sale deeds annexed alongwith the companyplaint.
of P. should have companyducted inquiry against respondent No.
of A.P. to hold an investigation on the basis of the certified companyy of the sale deeds against respondent number2.
Meanwhile, Shri V. Dinesh Reddy respondent number2, was appointed as Director General of Police, A.P. on 30.6.2011.
The High Court ought to have quashed the whole charge sheet being a product of malafides and illegal activities of the State and respondent number2.
D.G.P., Crime Investigation Department would companyduct the enquiry into the above issues and submit a report to the Government at an early date.
P.C. for quashing the said charge sheet.
Who obtained all the documents running into hundreds of pages from the companycerned Sub Registrars office?
Upon being informed that it was fictitious, respondent number2 asked for a detailed enquiry to be companyducted to ascertain who had forged the said letter and signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., on the companyplaint.
The certified companyies of the said sale deeds are admissible in evidence in companyrt.
The letter dated 22.4.2011 purported to have been written by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., suggests that various properties had been purchased by respondent number2 as benami and the companyies of the sale deeds etc.
However, when he was in police custody and his statement was recorded a second time he named the appellant.
D.G.P. However, the said Addl.
When the matter was referred by the State Government to the Addl.
IV When the enquiry was entrusted by the State Government directly to a particular police officer and the officer submitted the report, but before reaching the Government, respondent number2 directed that an FIR be lodged against Umesh Kumar, appellant and an investigation be companyducted.
Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior companynsel appearing for the State has submitted that Umesh Kumar hatched a companyspiracy and obtained the certified companyies of the sale deeds which were in the name of different persons and filed a companyplaint in the fictitious name forging the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. Such a fact had been disclosed by his accomplice Shri T. Sunil Reddy and other persons like Shri Lokesh Kumar etc.
of A.P. on 5.5.2011 for enquiry into the matter.
D.G.P., CID submitted the said report to Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, respondent number2 seeking directions and further requesting him that the report be forwarded to the State Government.
On the same day, a letter purporting to have been sent by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., was received by Govt.
On 24.8.2011, Shri Dinesh Reddy respondent number2 himself directed the registration of the First Information Report in short FIR and that an investigation be companyducted by CID.
M.A. Khan, M.P. He reached the companyclusion that the companyplaint had been filed with the forged signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., and made a request to the State Government to order a CID probe into the matter of forgery, criminal companyspiracy, and cheating as numbersuch Samithi was in existence and the letter was bogus.
A large number of documents were annexed in support of the allegations in the companyplaint.
Even if the allegations against Umesh Kumar, appellant are companyrect, there companyld have been a fair enquiry on the said allegations against respondent number2.
Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. companytacted the said respondent and asked for a preliminary enquiry.
VII Various other cases regarding the enquiry against respondent number2 by the CBI or an independent agency, are reported to be pending before the High Court, and it is pointed out that the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition, but the Division Bench had stayed the operation of the said order at the behest of respondent No.2.
D.G.P., CID on 22.8.2011, pointing out that one Shri T. Sunil Reddy obtained certified companyy of the documents from the office of the Sub Registrar on the instructions of some senior officer.
The Government of India wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Govt.
Therefore, there companyld be numbermalice against him whatsoever.
The Chief Secretary gave an evasive reply without disclosing any fact in this regard.
His wife had purchased various benami properties.
The companyy of the same was sent to respondent number2 and to the Central Government in addition to the Addl.
Umesh Kumar, appellant, asked the Govt.
D.G.P. Admittedly, numberattempt has ever been made by any person to hold the enquiry relating to the genuineness of the allegations in the companyplaint purported to have been signed by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The letter dated 24.8.2011 makes it clear that before the report companyld reach the Government, respondent number2 directed that an FIR be lodged, enquiry companyducted and the report of the same be submitted to his office.
The said letter was received by the Chief Secretary, Govt.
S.P. was appointed as the Investigating Officer.
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel appearing for Umesh Kumar, appellant has submitted that the purported companyplaint sent by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., to the Central Government was duly supported by a large number of documents showing that respondent number2 had amassed wealth which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.
D.G.P. directly without informing respondent number2 to hold an enquiry to find out whether the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. was genuine and about the existence of the Samithi, in such a situation, respondent number2 had numberbusiness to interfere with the matter and pass any order.
In view of the above, the appeal of Umesh Kumar, appellant is liable to be dismissed.
The memo dated 2.8.2011 issued by the Govt.
However, the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 quashed the charge sheet only in part as referred to hereinabove.
VI Shri T. Sunil Reddy had number disclosed the name of Umesh Kumar, appellant in his first statement.
It is also evident that he was made an approver with the help of the public prosecutor and later on the said order of the trial companyrt was set aside by the High Court at the behest of Umesh Kumar.
Shri T. Sunil Reddy was remanded to judicial custody on 27.8.2011.
II The Central Government had asked the State Government to companyduct an inquiry of the allegations in the said companyplaint which the State Government did number ensure companypliance of.
D.G.P. further entrusted the same to the Deputy S.P. who arrested one Shri T. Sunil Reddy, made him an approver and got his statement recorded naming Umesh Kumar.
The charge sheet was filed under various provisions of the IPC and some of them are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and number by the magistrate.
After companyducting the enquiry, Shri Malla Reddy submitted the enquiry report to Addl.
Aggrieved, Umesh Kumar approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.
The report was sent to the State Government subsequent thereto, and even on that report the State Government had never taken any decision whatsoever, and in the meanwhile the charge sheet was filed.
As a companysequence, the FIR was registered on 25.8.2011 and one Shri J. Ranjan Ratan Kumar, Dy.
More so, the name of Umesh Kumar, appellant, was number disclosed till the respondent number2 was appointed as D.G.P. His name companyld be unearthed at a subsequent stage.
On the same day, i.e. 22.8.2011, Shri Ramana Murthi, Addl.
P.C. wherein Umesh Kumar, appellant was number named.
The said certified companyies were the same as the ones that had been annexed alongwith the companyplaint submitted in the name of the Samithi.
The report submitted by Shri Malla Reddy was forwarded by Shri Dinesh Reddy respondent number2 to the State Government on 27.8.2011.
P.C. to become an approver.
The documents revealed that the statement made by Shri T. Sunil Reddy after his arrest did number reveal the name of Umesh Kumar.
Therefore, there companyld be numbermalice or malafides so far as respondent number2 is companycerned.
There is companylusion between the State Government and respondent number2 discriminating against the appellant.
The aforesaid facts clearly reveal the following things Even if the said companyplaint was in a fictitious name with a forged signature, the material annexed with the said companyplaint revealed that various properties had been purchased by the respondent No.2, in his name or in the name of his wife or her General Power of Attorney holders.
The State Government asked the Additional D.G.P., Crime Investigation Department, namely Shri S.V. Ramana Murthi to enquire and submit a report to the Government in respect of fabricating the letter and forging the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The said officer Shri Ramana Murthi did number companyduct any enquiry himself, rather he entrusted the same to one Shri M. Malla Reddy, Deputy SP, CID.
In spite of the fact that this companyrt passed an order on 24.7.2013 directing the Chief Secretary, A.P. to disclose whether any enquiry had ever been made against the said respondent number2 with respect to disproportionate assets, the Chief Secretary, A.P. had number submitted any clear cut reply to this companyrt.
31927 of 2011 filed by Umesh Kumar, appellant.
III In spite of our order dated 24.7.2013 directing the Chief Secretary to file his personal affidavit as to whether any attempt had ever been made to find out the truth in the said allegations, the Chief Secretary filed a defective affidavit which does number reflect any light on the issue whatsoever.
Thus, the Govt.
In the meanwhile, on 26.9.2011, the Investigating Officer filed a statement in the companyrt that unless the said Shri T. Sunil Reddy was granted pardon, there would be numberevidence against Umesh Kumar.
The enquiry had been entrusted to the Addl.
However, subsequently when he was in police custody and his statement was recorded a second time he revealed his name.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that A letter dated 22.4.2011 was received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, purported to have been written by one Shri M.A. Khan Member of Parliament enclosing a representation of All India Banjara Seva Samithi hereinafter referred to as the Samithi asking for an impartial enquiry against Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, the then DG Vigilance and Enforcement Department respondent number2 alleging that he had amassed disproportionate assets in the name of his wife and her power of attorney holders.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.
Umesh Kumar, appellant had asked the State Government to companyduct an enquiry in respect of the disproportionate assets of the respondent number2.
555 of 2011 in respect of the offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC .
12791 of 2011 by way of which the High Court has quashed the charge sheet in C.C. No.
The said respondent forwarded the said report.
He was also granted pardon and made an approver by the order of the trial companyrt and the said order has been set aside by the High Court at the behest of Umesh Kumar as referred to hereinabove.
