Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs K. Janardhan, And 34 Others, on 21 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the Judgment
passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in
C.C.No.74 of 1995 dated 20.12.2004, whereunder acquitted
respondent Nos.1 to 35 who are the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with 120-B IPC.
2. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor and Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing respondent Nos.9 to 29, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned
Counsel representing Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.7.
3. Mr. Akkam Eswar, learned Counsel submits that during the
pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.33 viz.,. Mr. D. Buchaiah died.
In view of the same, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed against the
said respondent as abated.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor basing upon the
instructions received from the concerned officers submits that during
the pendency of this Appeal, respondent No.9 viz., Md.Nasarullah
Khan, respondent No.10 viz., Madduri Siva Kumar Reddy, respondent
No.17 viz., M.Ramaiah, respondent No.19 viz., Koduvari Prasada Rao,
respondent No.34 viz., C.D.Harikishan and respondent No.35 viz.,
2
Bayali Himavantu were died and filed memo before the Registry by
enclosing the death extracts of the said respondents. In view of the
same, the Appeal is dismissed against the above said respondents as
abated.
5. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as under:
“APPSC conducts departmental tests for Sale
Government Employees twice in a year for their benefits and
promotions, etc. A2 to A35 are the Government servants
working in different departments who appeared for
departmental examinations conducted by APPSC several times,
but they failed. During the year 1989-90, A2 to A34
approached A1, who is working as Senior Assistant in APPSC
and paid huge amounts from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/- for
getting their candidature passed in the departmental tests.
After making promise to A2 to A35, A1 prepared a fake
memorandum of marks that the said candidates have passed
departmental tests, by forging the signature of P.W.34-
P.Ibrahim Khan, P.W.38-K.B.Lingam, P.W.41-Gulam Ali Khan
and M.S.C (L.W.70) officials of APPSC and delivered to the
accused persons purported to have been issued from APPSC,
Hyderabad. A1 prepared fake and false supplementary
notification declaring that A2 to A35 passed the departmental
tests. The said notification and the said letters related were
allegedly got typed in Ushodaya Typewriting Institute,
Hyderabad by A1, and sent them to government Printing Press,
Chanchallaguda by P.W.39-MNarasinga Rao and P.W.40-
V.Lingam who were the attenders in APPSC for printing.
Further the case of the prosecution is that after
receiving the same, B.Shanker Rao (L.W.9) and V.S.R.Sastry
(L.W.11) belongs to Government Printing Press, Chenchalaguda
returned the said notification with some remarks and objection
by seeking some clarifications After came to know about the
return of the said notification. A1 prepared a fake Gazette
copies to A2 to A35. After collecting the said fake gazette
copies, A2 to A35 submitted them to their concerned
3
departments, got entries in the service registers, as if they have
passed the departmental examinations to claim their future
benefits. Therefore it is further case of the prosecution that A1
committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and
420 read with 120(B) IPC, and A2 to A35 committed offences
punishable under Sections 471, 420 read with 120(B) IPC.”
6. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, P.Ws.1 to
P.W.48 were examined and Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-130 were marked and
Exs.D-1 to Ex.D-16 were marked for defence of respondents/accused.
The trial Court after taking into consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties,
acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 35 (except A-3, A-12, A-
20 and A-25) for the offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and
420 read with 120-B IPC. The record further reveals that during the
pendency of the C.C. No.74 of 1995, accused Nos.3, 12, 20 and 25
were died and the C.C is dismissed as abated against the above said
accused concerned.
7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the
Court below passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the
respondents/accused only on the ground that Ex.P-3 complaint dated
25.05.1993 was lodged after lapse of one (1) year two (2) months from
the date of alleged offence and the same was hit by Section 162
Cr.P.C, and the same is contrary to law.
8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial
Court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
acquitted the respondents/accused by giving cogent findings. There
4
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by
the trial Court. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.7 also reiterated the very same submissions.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the defacto-complainant lodged the complaint on 25.05.1993
which was marked as Ex.P-3, basing on the same, a crime was
registered for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with
120-B of IPC, the Inspector of Police, CID, Hyderabad after conducting
investigation filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under
Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC against
accused No.1 and for the offences under Sections 471 and 420 read
with Section 120-B of IPC against the accused Nos.2 to 35 on the file
of IX Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance and
issued summons to the accused in C.C. No.74 of 1995.
10. After perusal of the said impugned judgment, it reveals that on
behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws-1 to 48 were examined and Exs.P-1 to
P-130 were marked and Exs.D-1 to D-16 were marked for defence of
accused. The trial Court taking into consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, passed
the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2004 and acquitted the
respondent Nos.1 to 35 (except 3, 12, 20 and 25)/accused for the
offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with 120-B of IPC. The
trial Court in the impugned judgment specifically held that Ex.P-3
5
complaint was filed after lapse of one year two months from alleged
offence.
11. It is relevant to extract para 13 of the impugned judgment
which reads as under:
“In this case, basing on the 1st reference letter of APPSC
dated 31.03.1992, the CID police did not issue any FIR
knowingly that it is a cognizable offence, and the same must be
treed as FIR investigation would have conducted on that basis.
But crime was registered only after Ex.P-3 complaint was
addressed to the CID police. Therefore, Ex.P-3 is hit by Section
162 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the very complaint Ex.P-3 itself is not
maintainable in law. It suffers from legal infirmity. The matter
was informed to the CID police vide letter dated 31.03.1992,
whereas Ex.P-3 is lodged on 25.05.1993 and received in CID
office on 31.05.1993. There is a gap of about ‘1’ year and ‘2’
months between the first complaint and Ex.P-3 and the
witnesses were examined during the said period, but their
statements were not recorded, and a report was also filed to
that effect. On the basis of the said report only Ex.P-3
complaint was again submitted. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that Ex.P-3 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.”
12. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment passed by the Court below dated 20.12.2004 in
exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Section 378(3) of
Cr.P.C.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
6
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 21.08.2025
Note: Issue C.C. in one week.
B/o
MRKR/SZT