Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Smt. Mylam Kalpana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 August, 2025
APHC010475912021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7000 OF 2021
Between:
1. SMT. MYLAM KALPANA,, W/O. SOBHAN BABU, 42 YEARS,
OCC. JR. STENO. R/O.H.NO. 19-12-151, BAIURAGIPATTEDA,
TIRUPATI, A.P.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHDRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATHI
2. KALLA JANARDHANA NAIDU, S/O. K.DORASWAMY NAIDU,
AGED 53 YRS, OCC. DSP, ACB, TIRUPATHI R/O.D.NO. 8-98/4,
4TH CROSS ROYAL NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT, A.P.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtplease to quash all further
proceedings in C.C.No. 459/2021 on the file of the III Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense
with the filing of the certified copy of the C.C.No. 459/2021 on the file of
the III addl. judicial magistrate of first class, tirupati and to pass.
//2//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
IA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all
further proceedings in C.C.No. 459/2021 on the file of III Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of first class, Tirupati pending disposal of this this criminal
petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. KANDA SRINIVASU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. S M SUBHANI (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP)
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
//3//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7000 of 2021
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.459 of 2021 on the file
of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati for the
alleged offence under Section 409, 477-A and 420 of IPC. The
petitioner is the sole accused.
2. Sri.L.Veera Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations in the charge
sheet are taken to be true, the offence under Section 409 IPC
cannot be made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner while working as a Stenographer in the Anti Corruption
Bureau Office at Tirupati is alleged to have misappropriated an
amount of Rs.6,65,000/- from the secret service account.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner
had used cheque leaves from the cheque book bearing serial
Nos.963251 to 963350 and cheque book bearing serial
Nos.797416 to 797515. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2 nd
respondent after returning from Covid-19 Bundobust he noticed
the discrepancies in the amounts mentioned in the counter foils
and that he secured photocopies of cheque leaves bearing
Nos.963321, 963336 and 963349 and on verification it was found
//4//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
that the petitioner withdrew an amount of Rs.7,14,600/- as against
Rs.49,600/- thereby misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,65,000/-.
4. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is
working in the cadre of Stenographer and that she is not the
custodian of the cheque books nor is she the drawing authority for
withdrawing the amounts from the bank.
5. It is submitted that there is no consistency in the stand of the
prosecution in alleging that the petitioner committed criminal
breach of trust to a tune of Rs.7,84,600/- as is mentioned at para
No.5 of the charge sheet and at the concluding paragraph of the
charge sheet it is stated that the petitioner misappropriated an
amount of Rs.14,95,850/-. In the complaint it is alleged that the
petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,65,000/-.
6. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that the
respondent/authorities failed to obtain sanction for prosecution as
is mandatory under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., It is submitted that the
petitioner was discharging her duty as a Stenographer and was
assisting the Officers in other office works as and when called
upon by the Superior Officers. It is submitted that the bank work
was entrusted to the petitioner and on the instructions of the
senior officers the petitioner was assisting the officers as per their
narrations. It is submitted that the alleged misappropriation is
//5//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
unfounded as no evidence is collected from the banker and the
police in their investigation have not recorded the statement of the
banker. It is submitted that out of the 17 witnesses statements
were recorded by the police, 14 listed witnesses are working in the
ACB and two witnesses are from the Revenue Department in
whose presence the alleged confession statement of the accused
was recorded. Apart from, the investigating officer of the case.
7. When the allegation of misappropriation by resorting to fabrication
of cheques is made against the petitioner, the case cannot sustain
the scrutiny of trial in absence of the statements of the banking
officials who passed those cheques which were allegedly
manipulated by the petitioner.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner is reinstated and is working as a
Stenographer at Tirupati in the same department without any
blemish. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been victimized
being the lowest cadre employee in the office and has been made
a scapegoat by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the
petitioner is framed in the false case with no evidence to
substantiate the allegations.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Kopisetty
//6//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
Nagaraju Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others1. The
mandatory requirement of sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C.,
was upheld by the Court and as no sanction was obtained before
filing the complaint, the case was quashed by this Court. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on Amal
Kumar Jha Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr2, Rakesh Kumar
Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors3, G.C.Manjunath & Others
Vs. Seetaram4 in all these judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had held that when an Officer acts under the purported exercise of
official powers, they are entitled to protection under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C., It was also observed that Section 197 of Cr.P.C., does
not explicitly mention the requirement of good faith, such a
condition is implied and is expressly included in several other
statutes that offer protection to public servants from civil and
criminal liability.
10. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C., cannot be
extended to the petitioner as the petitioner had resorted to
misappropriation of office funds and her role as a Stenographer
1 CRLP.No.750 of 2019, decided on 18.02.2025
2 AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 2082
3 AIR 2006 SUPEME COURT 820
4 Criminal Appeal No.1759 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025
//7//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
would not entitle the petitioner to commit offences under Section
11. It is submitted that misappropriation cannot be considered as an
act which was bound to be committed by the petitioner during the
course of her employment. At the same time, it is fairly conceded
by the learned standing counsel that no sanction was obtained
before filing the complaint.
12. The learned standing counsel for the respondent places reliance
on N.Bhargavan Pillai (Dead) By LRs and another Vs. State of
Kerala5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that sanction under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is not a condition precedent for an offence
under Section 409 IPC. D.T.Virupakshappa Vs. C.Subash6, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that sanction could be obtained
before commencement of trial. Inspector of Police and another
Vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another 7, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on the facts of that case indulgence of the officers
in cheating, fabrication of records of misappropriation cannot be
said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not
the fabricating the records or permit evasion of payment of duty
and cause loss of revenue.
5 (2004) 13 SCC 217
6 (2015) 12 SCC 231
7 (2015) 13 SCC 87
//8//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
13. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the state. Perused
the material on record.
14. The petitioner is facing offence under Section 409, 477-A and
Section 420 of IPC for making Section 409 of IPC applicable to
the petitioner, she ought to have been entrusted with property in
her capacity of a public servant and she must have committed
criminal breach of trust in respect of that property. On the facts of
this case, the petitioner was employed as a Stenographer and
even as on the date of filing of the complaint against the petitioner,
she was working as a Stenographer.
15. It is evident from the material on record, that the petitioner is not
the custodian of the cheques. It is also not the case of the
prosecution that the petitioner is the authorized signatory for
operating the bank account and to draw the cheques. The 2 nd
respondent is the authorized signatory who could have operated
the account. In such circumstances, there is no entrustment of the
cheques to the custody of the petitioner for coming to a conclusion
that the petitioner misused those entrusted cheques and resorted
to commission of offences under Section 409 IPC.
16. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent is exactly as stated in the
charge sheet. The entire counter also does not indicate initiation
//9//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
of or pending of any departmental enquiry/action against the
petitioner. The counter also reiterates the contents of the
complaint. The counter is filed by LW.1 who is the complainant
and in absence of any corroborating evidence and in absence of
seizure of the cheque leaves as material objects for the purpose
of trial, mere statements of the witnesses belonging to the same
department cannot be relied upon on the face of it.
17. Of the 17 listed witnesses, LWs.1 to 14 are officers were working
in ACB and LWs.15 and 16 are the panchayatdars, LW.17 is the
investigating officer. It is surprising to note that LW.6 states that
he worked as D.S.P., ACB, Tirupati from 16.01.2019 to19.07.2019
and that he issued certain cheques and that he knew the cheating
of accused. LW.7 states that he worked as DSP., ACB, Tirupati
from 27.01.2018 to 01.08.2018 and as Additional Superintendent
of Police till 30.06.2019 and that he knew the cheating of accused.
LW.8 states that he worked as D.S.P., ACB, Tirupati from
29.08.2018 to 25.11.2018 and that he issued certain cheques and
that he knew the cheating of accused. LW.9 states that he worked
in ACB, Tirupati from 21.10.2015 to 22.10.2019 and that he issued
certain cheques and that he knew the cheating of accused. LW.10
states that he worked as FAC/D.S.P., ACB, Tirupati from
20.07.2019 to December, 2019 and that he issued certain
//10//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
cheques and that he knew the cheating of accused. LW.11 states
that he worked as D.S.P., ACB, Tirupati from February, 2014 to
28.01.2018 and that he issued certain cheques and that he knew
the cheating of accused. LW.12 states that he worked as D.S.P.,
ACB, Tirupati from the year 2010 till the year 2012 and that he
issued certain cheques and that he knew the cheating of accused.
18. It is equally surprising to note that none of the listed witnesses
who worked in the ACB from various periods from 2010 to 2019
having stated that they knew the cheating of the accused, none
have ever filed any complaint against the petitioner from the year
2010 onwards. As such, the statements of LWs.1 to 14 would
have to be considered as the statements of interested witnesses
belonging to the same department and of those officers who
earlier worked in the same office.
19. The investigating officer has neither recorded the statement of
bank official nor has collected the fabricated cheques as material
objects, which were allegedly misused by the accused for
encashment. There is no evidence on record available to
substantiate the claim of the prosecution that the petitioner had
misappropriated the amounts by fabricating the cheques. In
absence of either a statement from the banker or the cheques as
presented and as allegedly en-cashed by the petitioner, the
//11//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
allegation of offences under Section 409, 477-A and 420 of IPC
cannot be made out against the petitioner.
20. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the custodian of the cheques
nor was she the authorized signatory of cheques. The allegation
of misappropriation by a Stenographer who is alleged to have
acted on the instructions of her Superiors. Sanction under Seciton
197 Cr.P.C., ought to have been obtained prior to filing of the
complaint.
21. That apart, for satisfying the ingredients under Section 409 of
IPC there is no entrustment of the property to the petitioner, which
is allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner. Mere allegations
and statements of about 14 officers of ACB cannot drive in the
needle of suspicion beyond all reasonable doubt against the
petitioner.
22. Except for the mediators before whom the confession
panchanama was drafted there are no other independent
witnesses. It is surprising to note that the investigating officer did
not feel it necessary to record the statement(s) of the banker or
thought it prudent to summon the original cheques which were
allegedly presented by the petitioner for misappropriating the
funds of the secret service account.
//12//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
23. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been
implicated in the case without there being any admissible piece of
evidence for substantiating the allegations against the petitioner.
Relegating this matter for trial would only extend the ordial of
suffering and the stigma of the pendency of a criminal case
against the Government employee.
24. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and CC.No.459 of
2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Tirupati is hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 05.08.2025
KGM
//13//
CRLP.No.7000 of 2021
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7000 of 2021
Dated 05.08.2025
KGM