IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.8278 OF 2008 Between: Bharath Bhushan Dutt …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.8278 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.1140 of 2008 in C.C.No.34 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner/ A-4 under Section 239 Cr.P.C for discharge, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent/ACB. Perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (SES), Hyderabad, conducted enquiry after obtaining orders from the Director General, ACB and in pursuance thereof registered a case in Cr.No.1/ACB-CIU/2001 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against A-1 to A-3 and another and after investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Special Judge in C.C.No.34 of 2005. It is alleged in the charge sheet that during the crushing season of sugar factory, the factory engaged private transport contractors for transport of sugarcane to the factory and income tax at 2% was deducted from the bills of the contractors before clearing the bills and the said amount must be credited to the accounts of income tax department in Form 16-A and TDS forms are given to the contractors to enable them to claim the income tax refund amount, if any. A.O.1 was a Senior Manager and A.O.2 was a Deputy Manager of Nizam Sugar Factory, Zaheerabad. A.O.3 was the Advocate and Tax Consultant at Zaheerabad. A.O.4 was the Deputy Manager, State Bank o f Hyderabad, Zaheerabad Branch and A.O.5 is the Sugarcane Transport Contractor of Zaheerabad. It is alleged that the Accounts Manager did not send TDS forms to the contractor and handed over the same to A.O.1 for three years and A.Os.1 and 2 conspired with A.Os.3 to 5 and in consultation with A.Os.3 and .5 prepared income tax returns of 15 contractors for 1998-99 and forged their signatures on the forms and A.O.3 filled and filed the same in the Income Tax Office at Sanga Reddy and obtained the account payee refund orders of the 15 contractors and A.O.3 handed over the said refund orders to A.O.2, who in turn took them to SBH, Zaheerabad and converted them into banker’s cheques with the help of A.O.4 and credited the same to the account of A.O.5, who was a close follower of A.O.2. The discharged amount thus withdrawn is stated to be Rs.69,714/- and the same is said to have been misappropriated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner was only Manager of the bank and he had nothing to do with the alleged fraud or misappropriation by the other accused. It can be seen from the charge sheet that specific allegation has been made against petitioner /A-4 also to the effect that he conspired along with other accused and the further specific allegation is made that the petitioner/A.O.4, being the Branch Manager, has converted the refund orders into banker’s cheques in collusion with the other accused. 5. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner/A-4 to the effect that he has been in collusion with the other accused and conspired with them in the alleged fraud and misappropriation, based on the forged documents, it is considered not a fit case where the plea of petitioner/A-4 for discharge can be considered. It is well settled that if on the basis of the material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it is sufficient to frame a charge. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations and whether the prosecution could establish the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, are matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. For the purpose of framing the charge, it is sufficient there is incriminating material which is considered to be sufficient to proceed further. 6. In the circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged and in view of the specific allegations contained in the charge sheet, it is considered that there are no valid or sufficient grounds to discharge the petitioner/A-4. The impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitoner/A-4 for discharge, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd December, 2011 Lrkm