Supreme Court acquits appellants due to lack of evidence

C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Conspiracy and misappropriation of funds.
2. Violation of codal provisions and administrative lapses.
3. Evidence and admissibility of technical reports.
4. Departmental inquiry and reinstatement of appellants.

Summary:

1. Conspiracy and Misappropriation of Funds:
The appellants, comprising engineers and contractors from Nellore North Division, Nellore South Division, and Gandipalem Project Division, were accused of conspiring to misappropriate government funds by falsely representing jungle clearance work and making fraudulent payments. The prosecution alleged that no actual work was done, and payments were made based on fabricated documents. However, the Supreme Court found no direct evidence connecting the appellants to the alleged crimes. The evidence was circumstantial, and the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that no work was done. The Court noted that some work was indeed carried out, as evidenced by signs of jungle clearance observed during site inspections.

2. Violation of Codal Provisions and Administrative Lapses:
The appellants were found to have violated codal provisions and departmental instructions in the allotment of work on a nomination basis, preparation of estimates, and making payments. The Court acknowledged these administrative lapses but emphasized that such violations did not necessarily imply criminal intent. The prosecution's reliance on technical reports prepared during the investigation was deemed inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C. The Court held that these administrative irregularities could have warranted departmental action but did not establish criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Evidence and Admissibility of Technical Reports:
The Court scrutinized the evidence, including the technical reports prepared by departmental officials during the investigation. It was found that these reports were inadmissible as they were part of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's case hinged on these inadmissible reports and conjectures rather than concrete evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, which was not met in this case.

4. Departmental Inquiry and Reinstatement of Appellants:
Given the acquittal of the appellants, the Court considered the issue of their reinstatement in service. While acknowledging the administrative lapses, the Court decided against initiating a fresh departmental inquiry. Instead, it directed that the appellants be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages or other monetary benefits for the period they were out of service. The suspension allowance received by them would not be recovered. For those who had reached superannuation, pensionary benefits would be calculated based on continuous service but payable from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, directing the refund of fines paid. It also provided a balanced remedy by reinstating the appellants without back wages, thus addressing both the administrative lapses and the need for justice.