IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1971 of 2010 Between: G.Lakshmi Naidu …Petitioner AND The Inspector of Police, ACB, Vizianagaram Range, Vizianagaram And others …Respondents The Court made the following: ' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1971 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is ﬁled by the petitioner praying this Court to direct the ﬁrst respondent to take agricultural income of the petitioner and his wife in Makkuva Mandal as determined by the Agricultural Oﬃcer, Makkuva Mandal) and other incomes and to revise the draft charge-sheet ﬁled in Crime No.1/RCA-ACB/VZM/2008 for the oﬀences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 09.03.2010. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned standing counsel for ACB representing the respondents. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the speciﬁc grounds raised in this criminal petition ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that as the agricultural income of both the petitioner and his wife had not been taken into consideration by the respondents while ﬁling the draft charge-sheet, the petitioner is seriously prejudiced. Per contra, Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned standing counsel representing the respondents would submit that liberty may be given to the petitioner to raise all these grounds at appropriate stage and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a ﬁt matter to be interfered with by this Court, especially while dealing with petitions ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ultimately prays this Court to dismiss the criminal petition. Learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the apex Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Avadh Kishore Gupta[1]. Heard the learned counsel on record, perused the material available, grounds raised in this petition and also the contents of the draft charge-sheet along with the annexures placed before this Court. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner comes from a wealthy agricultural family having substantial agricultural properties; that he joined Government service on 14.11.1983 as Junior Assistant in Irrigation Department and was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2005; that the ﬁrst respondent has registered a false case in Crime No.1/RCA- ACB/VZM/2008 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 14.02.2008 alleging that petitioner was in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.20,08,300/-; that the ﬁrst respondent appears to have investigated the case and ﬁled a draft charge sheet on 24.09.2009 on the ﬁle of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge – cum – Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam alleging that the petitioner is in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.16,65,327/-; that the said allegation is based upon Annexure-I of the charge- sheet; that Annexure – II gives abstract of income; that item No.5 deals with the agricultural income which is shown as Rs.4,52,758/-; that for this, the ﬁrst respondent has depended upon income statement furnished by the Agricultural Oﬃcer, Salur; that the Agricultural Oﬃcer, Salur has taken into account the agricultural income in respect of Mavudi Village of Salur Mandal that too to an extent of Acres 5.61 only, whereas the actual land cultivated by the petitioner is to an extent of Acres 16.86; that the Tahsildar, Salur vide his letter No.84/2008/A, dated 16.04.2008 addressed to the ﬁrst respondent has categorically stated that his enquiry has revealed that petitioner has been cultivating the land of his cousins admeasuring 11.24 acres and the income from the said land has not been taken into account; that in the said land of 11.24 acres, Banana Crop is being raised and if the income from this crop is taken into account on par with that of income assessed by Agricultural Oﬃcer, it would come to about Rs.8,40,000/-; and that this income has not been taken into account. It is also stated that the ﬁrst respondent has mentioned that he has obtained the agricultural income of the petitioner in respect of the agricultural lands situated at Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram District; that in the abstract of agricultural income nothing is mentioned about the income from the agricultural land of the petitioner in Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram District; that in the year 1999, petitioner’s father had advanced a loan to one Smt Malladi Annapurna W/o Ammi Reddy and obtained a mortgage on agricultural land admeasuring Acres 4.84; that after the demise of his father the said Malladi Annapurna has executed a sale deed on 11.06.2007 and the recitals of the said sale deed clearly states that the sale deed is being executed in favour of the petitioner duly recording the mortgage and receipt of the money from his father; that since 1999, petitioner and his father are cultivating this land and after the demise of his father, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner; and that the total extent of land is Acres 4.84 for which, registration and stamp duty also has been paid by Smt Malladi Annapurna. It is also stated that the petitioner has ancestral property in Sambara and S.Pedavalasa Villages of Makkuva Mandal; that the total extent of land in two villages is Acres19.23 and the land was being cultivated by his brother G.Kasi Naidu; that this fact was duly intimated to the petitioner’s appointing authority in the year 1996 itself; that from the said land the minimum income would be a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs as petitioner’s share; that the petitioner also has ancestral property Acres 3.71 of land situated at Peetlavalasa Village, Makkuva Mandal and the minimum income would be Rs.1,38,000/-; and that the income from mortgage and subsequently sold agricultural land admeasuring Acres 4.89 situated at S.Pedavalasa, Makkuva Mandal has not been taken into account and this income would be about Rs.2.30 lakhs. It is further stated that the petitioner also has agricultural land in Pedapadam village admeasuring Acres 5.69; that however, the ﬁrst respondent has shown the extent of land as Acres 2.12 and the income as Rs.32.542/-; and that if full extent of income from the land is shown, it would be a sum of Rs.1,22,80/- and thus the ﬁrst respondent has shown Rs.0.89 Lakhs as less income. It is also stated that the petitioner’s wife Smt Pushpalatha also hails from a wealthy agricultural family and she has been given Acres 6.00 of land situated at Busaivalasa and Mucherlavalasa villages which is under occupation ever since the year 1987 and her father has left behind registered Will dated 09.11.1987 and the income from the same since 1987 would be a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs; that the petitioner’s wife also has been given 1/3rd share in the Rice, Flour, Oil Mill, one house at Busaivalasa of Rambhadrapuram Mandal and the income from this business has also been given to the petitioner’s wife by her father; that the petitioner’s wife had made some ﬁxed deposits in Andhra bank, Belgaon Branch in the year 1998 and 1999 for the purpose of education of petitioner’s son which were matured in the year 2003 and 2004 and the same were re-deposited in the name of the petitioner and his wife and the amount of such deposits is Rs.2,79,802/-. It is also stated that the ﬁrst respondent has grossly erred in not taking the full income of the agricultural land situated in Mavudi Village of Salur Mandal and no income was shown from the agricultural land situated in Makkuva Mandal; that the income of the petitioner’s wife from her agricultural land and her family business also has not been taken into account; that the minimum income from these lands will be as follows: i) Agricultural income from Mavudi and Pedapadam villages, Salur Mandal (16.86 + 5.69 = 22.55 acres Rs.92.7 lakhs ii) Agricultural income from Sambara S.Peddavalasa villages, Makkuva Mandal (Joint family income of my share (19.23 acres) Rs.9.00 lakhs iii) Agricultural income from S.Peddavalasa Makkuva Mandal (4.89 acres) Rs.2.29 lakhs iv) Agricultural income from Peetlavalasa of Kaviripalli village Revenue, Makkuva Mandal (3.71 acres) Rs.1.39 lakhs Total Rs.21.95 lakhs that this agricultural income has not been taken into account though the ﬁrst respondent stated in his charge sheet that the L.W.19 - Agricultural Oﬃcer, Makkuva Mandal has furnished the income from out of these lands; and that the ﬁrst respondent is duty bound to take into account the above agricultural income of the petitioner. It is further stated that the agricultural income of the petitioner’s wife from her parental home by way of agricultural income is Rs.8,00,000/-; that the agricultural income is not taken into account by the ﬁrst respondent; that the allegation that petitioner has assets disproportionate to the known sources of income is Rs.16,65,327/-; that if the above incomes is taken into account, there would be no assets which are disproportionate to the known source of income; that despite the above being the true facts which was brought to the notice of the ﬁrst respondent on 26.08.2000, the ﬁrst respondent has proceeded to ﬁle the charge sheet without taking the same into account; that even the admitted income by the ﬁrst respondent himself though L.W.19 in respect of land situated in Makkuva Mandal does not ﬁnd a place in the income shown by ﬁrst respondent and if that is taken into account, income of the petitioner exceeds the assets owned by him; that hence there would be no case at all under Prevention of Corruption Act; and that however, for the reasons best known to the ﬁrst respondent he had proceeded to file a charge sheet. It is further stated that in addition to the above, following amounts of income have not been taken into account by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities though they are genuine and actuals: a) Amount received from GMR Foundation, Rajam by his son G.Vasu Rs.25,000/- by cheque b) Financial Assistance taken from Sri G.Kasi N a id u (Brother of petitoner) by his son G.Vasu vide cheque No.0717858 and 0717860 for Rs.3,79,620/- vide his letter dated 28.08.2008 c) Financial Assistance received from Sri Madaka Rama Rao (Brother-in-law of the petitioner) by his son G.Vasu for Rs.1,50,000/- vide his letter dated 22.05.2007 d) Financial Assistance given by Sri Ganta T irupathi Rao, Ex-Samithi President, Salur (Co-brother of petitioner) for Rs.3,00,000/- vide his letter dated 28.08.2008 e) Educational Expenditure incurred by petitioner for the studies of his son G.Vasu is Rs.3,77,250/-. T he said expenditure was borne by his blood relatives as already explained by the respondent No.1 through Notary. T his expenditure is to be deleted from the account of the petitioner. f) T he Expenditure towards registration of sale deeds for the acquisition of assets is to be deleted against the account of petitioner since the said expenditure was paid by the Vendor of the petitioner is Rs.49,890/-. It is also stated that all the movable and immovable property statements are submitted to the appointing authority i.e. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Bobbili; that the petitioner has obtained permissions from the appointing authority for immovable properties acquired by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Bobbili vide Lr.No.13 C/AB/EC-II, dated 18.03.2008. It is further stated that all the properties of the petitioner are under seizure by the ﬁrst respondent and as such, the petitioner is not able to send his only son abroad for higher studies since he has to furnish the ﬁnancial status before VISA authorities; that if the income is rightly calculated and if the income is properly accounted, there will be no case against petitioner and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to take the agricultural income in Makkuva Mandal as determined by L.W.19 in the draft charge sheet and the agricultural income of his wife situated at Busaivalasa, Mucherlavasala of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal and based upon the same, further action be taken; and that despite several representations by the petitioner to the to the ﬁrst respondent authority, petitioner’s request has not been considered and he is being persecuted. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to take the agricultural income of the petitioner and his wife as determined by L.W.19 – the Agricultural Oﬃcer, Makkuva Mandal and other incomes and to ﬁle a draft charge-sheet in Crime No.1/RCA-ACB/VZM/2008 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of ACB, Vizianagaram Range, Vizianagaram. Strong reliance was placed on Avadh Kishore Gupta supra, wherein, the aspects of source of income in the light of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the powers to be exercised under Section 482 of the Code had been discussed. There cannot be any quarrel relating to the propositions laid down by the apex Court in the decision speciﬁed supra. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and other details which had been furnished before this Court and further on a careful analysis of the allegations made in the draft charge-sheet, this Court is of considered opinion that the ﬁrst respondent be directed to carefully examine the agricultural income of the petitioner and his wife and the other incomes furnished, while drafting the charge-sheet and ﬁle appropriate revised draft charge-sheet in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to carefully examine the agricultural income of the petitioner and his wife and other incomes furnished while drafting the charge sheet and to ﬁle appropriate revised draft charge sheet, in accordance with law. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 26, 2010 Bvv [1] 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 690 (SC)