Sudhakar, DSP, CIU, ACB, Hyderabad and five more investigating officers companyducted the investigations and prepared the final report.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned companynsel for the State submitted that the Accused Officer joined as Sub Inspector on 19 th September, 1985 and was promoted as Inspector on 4 th April, 1997.
Sudhakar, DSP to register a case against the Accused Officer under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 e of the Act and inspect any premises, bankers books of the Accused Officer or of any other person companycerned with the affairs of the Accused Officer and take or cause to be taken certified companyies of the relevant entries therefrom for the purpose of investigation.
28/ACB CIU HYD/2011 1 for short, Code dated 9th November, 2011.
The High Court partly allowed the petition filed by the Accused Officer under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 qua the proceedings arising out of Crime No.
He worked as SI at Rayadurgam, Hayathnagar, Malkajigiri, as Circle Inspector at Huzurnagar of Nalgonda District Narsingi, Uppal, Rajendranagar of Cyberabad Commissionerate, R. District as ACP.,
Thus, the A.O. is in possession of assets worth Rs.3,18,61,500/ which are disproportionate 2 for short, DSP to the known sources of his income for which he cannot satisfactorily account for and thereby companymitted the offence punishable U s 13 2 r w 13 1 e of P.C. Act 1988.
Such FIR was registered on the basis of the statement given by Ch.
The probable income of the A.O. and his family members from all their known sources of income when calculated roughly would be Rs.60,00,000/ .
It was on 9 th November, 2011, the Joint Director, CIU SES, Anti Corruption Bureau authorized Ch.
In pursuance of the FIR filed, a draft final report was prepared on 30 th April, 2015 but the same was submitted on 9th October, 2017 after the Accused Officer retired on 31st May, 2017.
The S.O. joined Govt.
Mahaboobnagar District.
The FIR reads as under On receipt of credible information that Sri.
401, Venkatadri Apartments, Behind HPCL Petrol Pump, Gachibowli, Hyderabad is a native of Chilkatonipally V Veltoor Post , Wanaparthy Tq.,
The total worth of the property against his savings of Rs.37 lakhs was found to be approximately Rs.3,55,61,500/ .
As against the likely savings of Rs.37,00,000/ the Accused Officer has acquired assets approximately worth Rs.3,55,61,500/ .
Sudhakar, Deputy Superintendent of Police 2 at about 10 am.
A Police officer number below the rank of Inspector, authorized by the State Government by general or special order, may also investigate any such offence.
Such order of re employment was renewed on 5 th March, 2009 13th May, 2010 and on 30th May, 2011, each extending the term of re employment by one year.
service on 19 09 1985 as Sub Inspector of Police and promoted as Inspector of Police on 04 04 1995 and Dy.
Managipet Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy S o. Late Narsimha Reddy, Age 51 years, Occ OSD, Rang Reddy District, Vikarabad R o Flat No.
of Police, in the year 2007.
He was further promoted as DSP in the year 2007.
Rajendranagar for about 4 years and presently working as OSD, Ranga Reddy District, Vikarabad.
Hence, the FIR.
During the period of his service he acquired Six Multistoried Buildings, One Multistoried companymercial companyplex, 27 plots and 26 Acres of land at Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Mahboobnagar Districts and one Scorpio car, one Hyundai Verna car and Maruti Car, all worth Rs.3,55,61,500/ .
As per the Report, the Accused Officer was said to be in possession of assets worth Rs.3,18,61,500/ alleged to be disproportionate to his known sources of income.
60,00,000 minus the probable expenditure of Rs.23,00,000/ .
Permission has been obtained from the companypetent authority to register a case against the above official U s 13 2 r w 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
During the investigations, as many as 114 witnesses were examined.
Supdt.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The order dated 24th December, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals, one by the State and the other by the Accused Officer.
The State is aggrieved against the said two findings whereas, the Accused Officer has challenged the findings of the High Court number accepting the grounds pressed by him in seeking the quashing of the charge sheet that there is numberpreliminary inquiry before the registration of the crime that there is numbersanction and that there is a delay in the companypletion of the investigation which has prejudiced the rights of the Accused Officer.
