Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pamidikalva Madhusudhan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 June, 2025
1
APHC010275932025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5701/2025
Between:
Pendyala Sita Rama Anjaneyulu Ips ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. S NAGESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
APHC010277962025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5748/2025
2
Between:
Pamidikalva Madhusudhan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. UMESH CHANDRA P V G
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) r/w. 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023,
to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with Crime No.56 of 2025, Suryaraopeta Police Station, NTR
District.
2. Though separate applications have been filed for grant of bail by
both the accused, A-1 & A-2, this Court having regard to the fact that the issue
involved is common, deems it appropriate to dispose of both the criminal
petitions by way of a common order.
3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused, A-1 & A-2 in FIR No.56
of 2025.
4. The brief facts of the case are that based on a complaint made by
Sri P. Raja Babu, IAS against the petitioner and A-2, the subject crime was
3
registered. The allegations are that the petitioner A-1, in Crl.P. No.5701 of
2025, while functioning as Secretary of the A.P. Public Service Commission
(for short APPSC), during the relevant period, entrusted evaluation of the
Answer Scripts to a private entity, represented by A-2. Thus an investigation
was sought into the issue as to what exactly M/s. Camsign Media Private
Limited, under the instructions of A-1.
5. It is contended that APPSC in 2018 issued a notification for
Group-I to fill up 169 vacancies. The preliminary examination was conducted
on 26-05-2019. On 01-11-2019, preliminary examination results were
announced, and 9679 candidates qualified for the main examination. The
main examination was conducted from 14-12-2020 and 20-12-2020. Upon
conclusion of the main Examination the APPSC proposed for digital evaluation
of answer scripts, based on the same, results were announced. Unsuccessful
candidates challenging digital valuation approached this Court by way of a
Writ Petition in W.P.No.10805 of 2021. The Writ Petition was allowed, setting
aside the digital evaluation directing for conducting of manual evaluation.
6. In furtherance of the same, the petitioner A-1 (Crl.P. No.5701 of
2025, A-1) acting in his capacity as Secretary of the Commission, has taken a
decision to shift all the answer scripts to a private building located within the
premises of Haailand Resorts, Mangalgiri. And entrusted manual evaluation of
the answer scripts to a private entity viz., Camsign Media Private Limited, (for
short „M/s.Camsign‟) represented by the Accused No. 2 in the subject crime.
The said entity submitted its quotation. approving the quote offered by
4
Camsign, the APPSC issued work order to Camsign. In pursuance thereof the
answer scripts were shifted to Haailand in December 2021, they were kept at
the same place till February, 2022. It is further alleged that A-1 has issued a
press statements stating that manual evaluation of answer scripts is in the
final stages and the results would be released in February-2022. M/s.Camsign
was paid a sum of Rs.1,14,32,312/- for the services said to have been
rendered by it.
7. Thereafter, upon posting of a regular incumbent as Secretary of
the APPSC, the answer scripts were got back from Haailand and were kept at
the APPSC office. And evaluation was conducted at the said premises, R&B
building(s) and at the government colleges buildings after printing OMR
Sheets afresh, under CCTV surveillance. Results were accordingly declared,
and after conducting interviews, postings were also issued.
8. The present Secretary of the Commission vide his letter dated
22-04-2025 to the Principal Secretary, Government (Ser.&.HRM) (FAC), GAD,
complained that an in-depth investigation is required into the affairs of the
M/s. Camsign, at Haailand Resorts Pvt. Ltd., under the work order issued in its
favour. The said letter had led to registering the subject crime against the
petitioner herein and A-2 on 25-04-2025. Investigation was conducted into the
issue and A-2 was arrested on 07-05-2025 and PT warrant was issued
against the petitioner A-1, he was produced before the Court on
08-05-2025 and was remanded to judicial custody.
5
9. Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1 in
Crl.P.No.5701 of 2025 contends that there has been a huge delay in
registering the F.I.R., in as much as the alleged incident had taken place in
December-2022, whereas the F.I.R. was registered in 2025. Further that the
subject issue of availing the services of M/s.Camsign, is a collective decision
of APPSC, and the same was in the course of discharging his official duties of
Secretary of APPSC. Due to Covid Pandemic, such a decision has been taken
for keeping the answer sheet at the premises of M/s. Haailand Resorts. He
further argues none of the ingredients to constitute criminal breach of trust is
attracted in the case and further relies on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors1., wherein it is observed as under:-
“42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins
upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of
the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or
criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the
averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully
apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated,
genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a
case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police – to
thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the
informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal
breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for
the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register
an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and
cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without
any proper application of mind.
43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are
imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine
distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach
of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two
offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts.
They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC1
AIR 2024 SC 4531
6(now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without
each other.”
He further relies on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Ors2., in support of his contention, that there is no criminal breach of trust.
10. He argues that the allegation made in the complaint does not
point out any ingredients of an offence(s) as alleged. He further urges placing
reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940)
Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., that the offence of
cheating and offence of criminal breach of Trust cannot coexists together. He
further argues that the petitioner being a government servant “breach of trust”
cannot be invoked against him, without any preliminary investigation and
without obtaining sanction under Section.197 Cr.P.C.
11. He further urges that in order to attract liability under Section 409
of I.P.C., there should be an entrustment of the property to the petitioner
whatever the amounts that were paid to the A-2 were towards his services
rendered to the APPSC. He further draws the attention of the Court to counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the APPSC, argues that the APPSC has admitted
that the entire process of evaluation was done transparently, efficiently and in
a verifiable manner.
12. He further contends since the entire issue is seized of by High
Court in W.A. No.248 of 2024, initiating criminal proceedings against the
2
AIR 1999 SC 2979
7
petitioner are not maintainable. He argues that except the offence under
Section 409, all other offences are below seven years. He submits that the
petitioner being a government servant who has been suspended from service
and is ordinarily resident of Hyderabad question of interfering with
investigation process initiated would not arise. He further submits the it‟s been
30 days since the F.I.R. was registered and the police have also sought for
police custody, the same was granted by the learned trial Judge for two days.
The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been facing severe
cardiac issues and the medical report suggests for angioplasty. Thus prays for
enlargement of petitioner on subject to imposition of any conditions.
13. Sri P.V.G. Umesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/A-2 in Crl. P.No.5748 of 2025, would contend that the petitioner was
only responsible for execution of work in terms of the work order issued in
his/its favour and he has nothing to do with any of the alleged crime(s). He
argues that the decision as regards the evaluation of the papers is not within
the domain of the petitioner, it is for the concerned authorities of the APPSC.
And in that process, nothing can be attributed to the petitioner, since he is a
private individual and not privy to any of the decisions of the APPSC. And no
overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner (A-2).
14. Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of learned Public Prosecutor submits that as many as 26 witnesses
were examined. He further submits that A-1 has proposed for manual
evaluation of answer scripts at private premises and he further points out that
8
from the investigation, it has come to light that for the purpose of evaluation of
answer scripts of Group-I main examination, school teachers, who are not
qualified for evaluating a Group-I main paper, were engaged and further
investigation into the complaint lodged is pending and both the A-1 & A-2 are
not cooperating with the enquiry and are giving evasive replies. He further
submits that the sanction as contemplated under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is not
relevant at this stage as the case is still under investigation. Thus he submits
that since the investigation is at threshold and enlargement of the A-1 & A-2 at
this stage would hamper the investigation in as much as there is every
likelihood that they may tamper with the evidences(s) / influence the
witnesses.
15. Considered the rival submissions.
16. The case of the prosecution is that the A-1, had issued a press
statement that the Manual evaluation of answer scripts of the Group-I, main
examination is on the verge of completion by February, 2022, and in
connection with the same, certain expenditure was incurred by the APPSC.
The petitioner in his capacity as Secretary of the APPSC had hired the
services of M/s. Camsign‟s logistical support to be rendered at Haailand
Resorts and issued cheque for a sum of Rs.1,14,32,312/-, on behalf of
APPSC. Later the successor in-officer of the petitioner has again ordered for
evaluation of the answer scripts by shifting them to the premises of the
Commission and other departments. After completion of the said evaluation,
results were announced.
9
17. The unsuccessful candidates in the said manual evaluation have
approached this Court by way of Writ Petition, contending that manual
evaluation as per the directions of this Court was initially commenced at
Haailand Resorts and the Commission has also incurred substantial
expenditure in connection with the same, coupled with the press statement of
the Petitioner herein (A-2), the APPSC ought not to have resorted to manual
evaluation for the second time. The results declared pursuant to the 2nd
manual evaluation were set aside by this Court vide order dated 13-03-2024.
However, the successful candidates who were given posting orders are
continuing pursuant to the orders passed in W.A.No.248 of 2024 and batch of
cases.
18. In connection thereto, the subject complaint has been lodged to
enquire into issue to find out as to what exactly was the service rendered by
M/s. Camsign at the premises of M/s. Haailand Resorts under the instructions
and supervision of the petitioner herein.
19. Chapter XVII of I.P.C. deals with offences against property
Section 405 dealing with criminal breach of trust, which is defined as follows:
“Section 405: Criminal breach of trust:-
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property,
or with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of
any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is
to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied,
which he has made touching the discharge of such
trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to
do, commits “criminal breach of trust.”
10
20. Section 409 of I.P.C. deals with criminal breach of trust by public
servant, or by bank, merchant or agent, which provides as under:
“Section 409: Criminal breach of trust by public servant,
or by banker, merchant or agent:
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property,
or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant,
factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of
trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
21. The allegation against A-1 is that in his capacity as a Secretary of
APPSC at the relevant point of time in the absence of a regular Chairman, has
taken a decision to keep the answer scripts of Group-I main examinations for
safe custody and evaluation of the same at the premises of M/s. Haailand
Resorts. In connection with the same, for carrying out the exercise of
evaluation of answers scripts, he has availed the services of M/s. Camsign
represented by A-2 and has also issued cheque for an amount of
Rs.1,14,32,312/-. The allegations leveled against the petitioner calls for
investigation which is at threshold stage.
22. With regard to sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is
concerned, the reliance made by the petitioner on a decision of Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of D.T. Veerupakshappa Vs. C. Subash, 3 which arose out
of quash proceedings under 482 of Cr.P.C., wherein it is observed as under:
3
AIR 2015 SC 2022
11“9. In Om Prakash (supra), this Court after referring to
various decisions, particularly pertaining to the police excess,
summed-up the guidelines at paragraph-32, which reads as
follows:
32. The true test as to whether a public servant
was acting or purporting to act in discharge of
his duties would be whether the act complained
of was directily connected with his official duties
or it was done in the discharge of his official
duties or it was so integrally connected with or
attached to his office as to be inseparable from it
(K. Satwant Singh). “The protection given under
197 of the Code has certain limits and is
available only when the alleged act done by the
public servant is reasonably connected with the
discharge of his official duty and is not merely a
cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing
his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty
but there is a reasonable connection between
the act and the performance of the official duty,
the excess will not be a sufficient ground to
deprive the public servant of the
protection.(Ganesh Chandra Jew). If the above
tests are applied to the facts of the present case,
the police must get protection given under
Section 197 of the Code because the acts
complained of are so integrally connected with or
attached to their office as to be inseparable from
it. It is not possible for us to come to a
conclusion that the protection granted under
Section 197 of the Code is used by the police
personnel in this case as a cloak for killing the
deceased in cold blood.
(Emphasis applied)
10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the
case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is
evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in
connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said
offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance
of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned
Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without
the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court
missed this crucial point in the impugned order.”
23. From the above principle, it can be said that unless it is
established that the alleged act was in excess of discharge of his official
duties, and there is a reasonable connection between the act and the
performance of official duty, the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.,
12
would not arise. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the
investigation is at the threshold, the protection as envisaged under Section
197 of Cr.P.C., would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner A-1.
24. It is an admitted legal position that in cases relating to grant of
bail, the Court has to bear in mind the nature of allegations made against the
accused, the punishment if convicted, and the character of the accused
whether the presence of the Accused would be secured during the course of
trial and is there a reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered.
25. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the
petitioners and since the investigation is at threshold stage, this Court does
not deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners i.e., A-1 & A-2 in Cr. No.469
of 2024 on bail.
26. However, having regard to the medical condition of the A-1 as
pointed out by the learned counsel and discharge summary card issued
Government General Hospital, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, a
perusal of which reflects that the patient requires hospital stay on account of
accelerated HTN, the petitioner A-1 was however appears to have been
discharged against medical advice since he was reluctant.
27. Having regard to the same, this Court grants liberty to the
petitioner in Crl.P. No.5701 of 2025, A-1 to move an application before I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, seeking grant of
medical bail for a limited period of two (2) weeks. Upon filing of such an
13
application, the learned Judge, after calling for report afresh on the medical
condition of the petitioner, from the GGH, Vijayawada, is directed to dispose of
the same as expeditiously as possible, not later than two (2) weeks, from the
date of filing of the same, on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and
proper.
28. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition No.5701 of
2025 is disposed of and Criminal Petition No.5748 of 2025 is dismissed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Dt.09.06.2025
MVK
14
1
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Crl.P.Nos.5701 & 5748 of 2025
Date: 09.06.2025
MVK
[ad_1]
Source link