Telangana High Court Acquits Six In 20-Yr-Old Case Involving Misappropriation Of Funds At Osmania University

“Not a single bank witness is examined to show that at any point of time, self-cheques or the cheques of others were encashed in the bank by any of these appellants. The prosecution ought to have produced witnesses from the Bank to prove that cheques signed by A1 were withdrawn by the 36 appellants herein. In the absence of any such proof, the question of these appellants abetting A1 in committing alleged misappropriation of the funds entrusted to A1 would not arise…The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused,” observed Justice K. Surender.

The development comes in a batch of appeals filed by the staff of the Osmania University, against the order of conviction order passed by the lower Court under Sections 13(1)(c ) r/w 13(2) Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 409 r/w 120-B IPC and Section 477A r/w Section 120-B IPC.

The dispute centered around allegations that the Osmania University staff members conspired with another individual, A1( the main accused), to misappropriate university funds. A1, the former Director of the University, against whom separate proceedings are pending is alleged to have orchestrated the crime, being the only one have the power to draw and sign cheques on behalf of the University. The other accused are alleged to have facilitated this crime.

The prosecution relied on statements prepared based on departmental inquiry to establish their case. However, the defence countered by challenging the legitimacy of these documents and arguing that the prosecution never established a critical element of misappropriation

The defence contended that despite the University having submitted a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Director of Treasuries (of the university) was directed to conduct a departmental inquiry against the accused and the findings in the inquiry report were made without examining the witnesses or records.

Further, it was contended that by merely annexing overtime bills, cash books, and bank statements, and getting them marked, a crime is not established against the accused and the prosecution ought to exhibit before the Court as to how the misappropriation took place.

The prosecution while explaining the documents contended that the accused failed to maintain any record/register or give any explanation regarding the funds that were not accounted for, which itself shows the fraud played. It was also pointed out that no prior sanctions from the University were taken before disbursing funds.

The High Court concurred with the defence's arguments and observed that the prosecution's case heavily relied on circumstantial evidence that contained significant gaps. The Court noted that there were two almirahs filled with documents, however, nowhere is it stated that the inquiry officers were experts in analyzing the documents and then summarizing them.

“There were admittedly two almirahs filled with documents which were examined and the gist prepared under Exs.P1 and P35. P.Ws.1 to 3 have not stated that they have any expertise in preparation of such statements.”

It was also noted that the accused had denied the documents and the prosecution failed to prove whether the documents were prepared by the accused or not.

As such, the convictions were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Case no.: CrlA 727 of 2007 & Batch

Counsel for petitioners: A.Dattanand, S.Someshwar Rao, L.N.Bhadri Raju, C.Sharan Reddy

Counsel for respondents: Sridhar Chikyala, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB