Y. VENKAIAH versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009) 3 S.C.R. 915 
Y. VENKAIAH 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1279 of 2004) 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA, ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y AND R.M. 
LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 120-8 and 420, 468, 477-A rlw s.34 /PC, ss.5(1)(d), 
and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act rlw s.34 /PC -
Accused withdrawing scholarship money in fictitious names 
of students - Conviction by trial court - Affirmed by High Court 
A 
B 
c 
- Held: High Court has closely analysed the evidence of 0 
witnesses and recorded a finding that prosecution has been 
able to prove its case - There is no perversity in the finding 
nor any wrong conclusion has been reached by it- Conviction 
and sentences upheld - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 
- s.5(1)(d) rlw s.5(2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
E 
136. 
s. 34 - Common intention - Five accused prosecuted for 
commission of offences punishable ulss 120-8 and 420, 
468,477-A /PC and s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2) of Prevention of 
Corruption Act with the aid of s.34 /PC - One of them acquitted 
F 
- HELD: Even if one of the co-accused is acquitted, that does 
not by itself absolve other co-accused of their conjoint liability 
of the crime - On facts, common intention of convicts and 
their prior concert is amply proved. 
The appellants (Accused 1 to 4) in Crl. Appeal Nos. 
• 
1280/2004, 1282/2004 and 1283/2004 were prosecuted for 
commission of offences punishable u/s 120-B, ss. 
420,468,477-A r/w s.34 IPC ss.5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the 
915 
G 
H 
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 r/w s.34 IPC, on the 
allegations that they withdrew scholarship amounts from 
various educational institutions in fictitious names of 
students and thus cheated the Government and 
misappropriated the government funds. The trial court 
B found the accusations proved against A-1, A-3 and A-4 
in respect of all the transactions and against A-2 in 
respect of one transaction as he was stated to have been 
• 
on leave when the other transactions took place. It 
accordingly convicted A-1 to A-4 of the charges and 
c sentenced A-1, A-3 and A-4 to rigorous imprisonment for 
three years and A-2 to rigorous imprisonment for one and 
half years. Accused A-1 to A-5 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 1279/ 
2004 and 1281/2004 were prosecuted for similar offences 
for withdrawing scholarship amounts in fictitious names 
D of stud-ents of a Junior College for Girls. The trial court 
found the accusations proved against A-2 to A-5 and 
convicted and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment 
for two years, but acquitted A-2 of all the charges. The 
High Court having dismissed appeals of all the convicts, 
E 
they filed the appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On an analysis of evidence of the 
witnesses made by the High Court, it transpires that the 
F prosecution has been able to prove its case of conspiracy 
amongst the accused persons in withdrawing the money 
on the basis of fictitious names; thus, there has been 
cheating and misappropriation of Government funds. The 
High Court has very closely analysed the evidence of the 
G witnesses before coming to a finding that the prosecution 
has been able to prove its case. [Para 18 and 21] [921-G-
H; 922-A-B; 924-H; 925-A] 
2.1. In a case where s.34 IPC is applied, the liability 
of the accused must be considered through the prism of 
H that section if the charge of common intent against the 
Y. VENKAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. 
917 
,J 
.. 
accused stands proved. In the instant case, the charge 
A 
of common intent among the accused persons has been 
clearly made out from the evidence which has been 
discussed in detail by both the trial court and the High 
Court. [Para 23] [925-C-D] 
B 
Mohan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1963 
SC 174; Suresh and Another Vs. State of U.P. (2001) 3 SCC 
673; Lal/an Rai and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 
268; Saravanan and Anr. Vs. State of Pondicherry (2004) 13 
SCC 238 and Rotash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 12 SCC c 
64, relied on. 
"The Queen Vs. Gorachand Gope and others" Bengal 
Law Reports, Supplemental Volume, 443; Barendra Kumar 
Ghosh Vs. King Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1 and Emperor V. 
· Nirmal Kanta Roy, ILR 1914 (Volume 41) Cal. 1072, referred 
D 
to. 
2.2. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme 
Court to the incriminating facts and circumstances of the 
instant case concurrently noted and discussed by the 
E 
trial Court and the High Court, the conclusion is 
inescapable
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.