C. CHENGA REDDY AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 12-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

C. CHENGA REDDY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
JULY 12, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 120-B, 420/34 and 477-A. 
Prevention of Co1111ption Act, 1947: Sections 5(2) and (J)(d). 
c 
State of Andhra Pradesh--Governnzent Engineers and Contrac-
ton-Prosecution for e1iminal conspirac;-Clieating and falsification of ac-
counts-Allegation of committing large scale illegalities, i1regularities and 
fraud in jungle clearance work-{;ase against all the accused rested on 
circun1stantial evidenc~But circunistantial evidence not ]Jroving guilt of 
accused beyond doubt--Conviction of accused and sentence iniposed set D 
aside. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Circunistantial evidence--Conviction based UJJon--Validity of-Extent 
of proof required in circunzstantial evidence. 
E 
Section 45-E.xpert-Who is. 
C!iminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
F 
Sections 161 and 162-Applicability of-Statements made dwing inves-
tigation-Pennissibility of us~Alleged offences against Govemmenl offi-
cials-Investigation of-Depart111ental official assisting the lnve.\u·gurion 
Office1--Report by Depmtmelllal official prepared dwing investigation and 
submitted after lodging of FIR-Said Officer examined by Investigation Of-
ficer-Submission of report-His repo11 fanned part of his statement recorded 
u11der section 161-Held his report was hit by the bar co11tained in section G 
162 and hence inadmissible in evidence-Held he was not expe11 within the 
memzing of section 45 of Evidence Act. 
C!iminal Trial-Establislunent of guilt of acrnsed-&tent of proof 
required-Proof must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt-Suspicion 
however strong ca1111ot take the place of proof. 
H 
479 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
B 
A1ticle 136--Appeal by special leavi~Reappreciation of evidence by 
Supreme Cowt-Numwl/y it would not da-But it would reappreciate 
evidence lvhere conclusion of Colats below is based on conjectures and or 
sunnises. 
Anicle 142-Power of Supreme Court to do complete justice between 
the parties--Govemment employees-Clwrge of forge1y and corrup-
tion-Violation of P. WD Code and circulm~ established-But no dishonest 
intention-(;onviction by Courts below-Acquittal by Supreme Co1111-Instead 
C of re111itting the n1aller Cozat itself bnposing punislunent for doing conzplete 
justice between the pmties-Direction that officials would be entitled to 
reinstalen1ent lvith pensiona1y benefits but not to back wages. 
D 
Service Laiv-Misconduct-Punislunent-Propo1tionate to the gravity of 
offence. 
Govemment officials-Violation of code and circulars-Dishonest in-
tention not proved-Held 111ere violation cannot be const1ued as incriniinating 
circzanstance to fasten c1i1ninal liability. 
'rhe appellants working as Executive Engineers, De11uty Executive 
E Engineers and Section Otlicers in the Irrigation Circle, Nellore, State of 
Andhra Pradesh, along\\'ith some contractors, were prosecuted under sec~ 
tions 120-B, 420/34 and 477N34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 
section 5(2) and S(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were 
alleged to have committed large scale fraud, irregularities and illegalities 
F 
in the execution of jungle clearance work in respect of Gandipalem Project 
Division, Nellore South Division and Nellore North Division during 1978-
1981. 
The Deputy Engineer-in-Chief, PW-7, who conducted the preliminary 
inquiry and the Chief Engineer, PW-1, who conducted the departmental 
G enquiry highlighted the irregularities and illegalities noticed by them in 
their respective reports. Simultaneously investigation was also entrusted 
to the Anti- Corruption Bureau which conducted an inquiry. Some serving 
Otlicers of the Engineering Department were deputed to assist the otlicers 
of the Anti-Corruption Bureau for purposes of collecting technical data 
H during investigation. 
C.CHENGAREDDY v. STATE 
481 . 
After completion of investigation, charge-sheets were filed against A 
the appellants. There \\'as no direct evidence available on record connect~ 
ing any of the appellants with the Commission of the crime alleged against 
them. The entire case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence. 
Gandipalem Project Division 
The prosecution case in these appeals against five ollicials viz. Two 
• 
Executive Engineers, Two Deputy Executive Engineers and a Section 01'-
ficer, along uith a Contractor, resting entirely on circums
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.