Hyderabad: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside the proceedings of the chief conservator of forests (CCF), removing a forest range officer from service. V. Srinivasa Rao, in his writ petition, challenged the proceedings issued in May 2023 as arbitrary and illegal. He was charged with allegations of misappropriation of government money and temporary embezzlement of Rs 43,53,580. The petitioner said he had opened a bank account in a private bank, not in the petitioner’s name but on his designation as a forest range officer, only with the intention to get the high interest rate for the government, but not to embezzle or misappropriate the money. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority corresponded with the government, which is the appellate authority. The government passed a non-speaking order. In her verdict, Justice Nanda said that the government had provisionally decided to impose a penalty of “removal from service” without conducting a proper enquiry as per law and as per procedure, since it is the specific case of the petitioner that the findings had been given by the inquiry officer without examining the persons who are authors of the documents. The procedure adopted by the government and the CCF in conducting an inquiry against the petitioner was in clear violation of principles of natural justice as observed by the apex court, she added. Justice Nanda accordingly set aside the removal order and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with continuity of service without any break and with consequential attendant benefits. It was open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, but the same shall be in accordance with law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice and in strict adherence with the rules, the judge clarified.
Accepting additional documents causes no prejudice: HC
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court held that accepting additional documents in a criminal trial would not prejudice the accused since the accused can always cross-examine the witnesses, and the burden of proving the document lies on the person marking the same. The judge accordingly dismissed a bunch of criminal petitions filed by E. Raju Yadav. The complainant Sankarshan Rao moved the XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to receive certain true copies of cheques and statement of account of Kotak Mahindra Bank and related documents. The Trial Court allowed the petition to bring on record the additional documents. Counsel for the accused unsuccessfully canvassed that the trial court mechanically allowed the application without giving any cogent reasoning and also submitted that any order without reasoning was unsustainable in law. The argument of the complainant was that the petitioner was disputing that he had received the amount and also questioning that the complainant had not mentioned the amount given to the petitioner in the income-tax statement and also no documents were filed to prove that the complainant gave the amount. Justice Sujana held that mere receiving of documents does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and the burden lies on the complainant to prove the contents of the said documents. The trial court had rightly allowed the petitions, and there are no merits in the criminal petitions to set aside its orders, she added. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
HC quashes 24-yr-old food adulteration case
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a groundnut oil supplier accused of adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, citing inordinate delay in launching prosecution. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Garre Satyanarayana seeking to quash proceedings pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. The case arose from a prosecution initiated by a food inspector alleging that “AS Brand” double-filtered groundnut oil supplied by the petitioner to a retailer and manufactured by another accused was found adulterated based on a sample collected in May 2001. While the analyst’s report was submitted in June 2001, the complaint was lodged in 2003, and notice under the Act was issued the same year — well beyond the product’s six-month shelf-life. The petitioner argued that due to this delay, the sample would have decomposed, rendering it unfit for re-analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and causing irreparable prejudice to his defence. It was also pointed out that the other accused were discharged in 2004 on similar grounds. The judge observed: “No useful purpose would be served in forwarding the second sample for analysis after a lapse of more than two years from the expiry of its shelf life.” The judge noted that the petitioner was only a supplier selling sealed packets as received from the manufacturer and that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
