Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes Case Against Ex-ADGP Accused Of Misusing Office While Upgrading Surveillance Systems, Calls It His "Bounden Duty"
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed charges against A.B.Venkateswara Rao, former Additional Director General of Police for the intelligence department, accused of misusing his office by benefiting a third party, allegedly managed by his son, and causing loss to the government exchequer.He was initially accused of committing offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed charges against A.B.Venkateswara Rao, former Additional Director General of Police for the intelligence department, accused of misusing his office by benefiting a third party, allegedly managed by his son, and causing loss to the government exchequer.
He was initially accused of committing offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 7(a)(c) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and Sections 409, 420, 120-B and read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Highlighting the role of the intelligence department and the duty of the petitioner, as the Head of the Intelligence Department, to adapt to the evolving needs of surveillance, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N, held,
“Maintenance of Law and Order would largely depend on the inputs of the Intelligence Department. The intelligence inputs of the Intelligence Department plays a crucial role in crime prevention, Law Enforcement, National Security, Internal security, Counter Terrorism, Public Order apart from a host of other challenges faced on a day to day basis in maintaining Law and Order. The petitioner as the then Head of the Intelligence Department had the bounden duty to adopt the changing technology and attempted to upgrade the surveillance system of the state police. In the said process he had proposed for procuring the surveillance equipment from a supplier whose equipment would meet the requirements of the state police.”
Facts:
The High Court was dealing with a criminal petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the file of Anti Corruption Bureau, CIU, AP, Vijayawada Police Station, against the petitioner.
It was the case of the State that the petitioner had misused his official position by resorting to deliberate deviations of the prescribed procedures to benefit a 3rd party in the process of procurement of Aerostat and UAV (Security and Surveillance Equipment) through the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) for surveillance on the extremists movements and for other security operations. Specifically, the petitioner was alleged to have facilitated the incorporation of Akasham Advanced Systems Limited, through his son, and further caused it to be appointed as the Indian representative of an Israeli company. He was later accused of depositing Rs.35,00,000/- in the company. Further, the petitioner was alleged to have dealt with bias in a bidding process in qualifying RT inflatables (Israel) and was also accused of playing an influential role in disqualifying others. Additionally, the petitioner was alleged to have corresponded with the DGP for utilisation of the leftover budget from the intelligence department for purchase of security related equipment, which was later cancelled, leading to a loss of Rs.10,00,000/- in the State exchequer.
It was the case of the petitioner that offences under Section 409, 420, and 120B were not made out against him, nor could the allegations draw the attention of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Additionally, it was submitted that the petitioner played no role in appointing the technical experts and the bidding process was undertaken in accordance with the e-governance rules circulated by the Government. Even the charge sheet was alleged to be a replica of the complaint against him.
Contrary to this, the respondent submitted that there were several irregularities resorted to by the petitioner for pushing the procurement of the equipment. Since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet was filed, the case would not be quashed against the petitioner.
Court's Findings:
With respect to the allegation that the petitioner had aided his son in getting an advantage from the bidding process, the Court held,
“The allegation that the petitioner's son is a CEO of Aakasham Advance System Private Limited and that the said company is a authorized representative of RT LTA Systems Limited had addressed a letter dated 18.03.2020 to the Deputy Director, CIU, Anti Corruption Bureau categorically informing that Aakasham Advance System Private Limited is promoting the products of RT LTA Systems Limited in India except in the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. It is also categorically stated that no payment was ever made by RT to Aakasham under the agreement and that as on 18.03.2020 the appointment letter is no longer in force. Setting up of a company by the son of the petitioner cannot constitute any offence, at any rate the said company is not the authorised representative of the Israel company for the State of A.P. thus no malafides can be attributed to the said company or the petitioner.In this scenario the assumption on part of the state that undue benefit would accrue to Aakasham Advance System Private Limited if the procurement by the State was completed and that the same would be projected before other organisations and secure the purchase orders is a fictional imagination of the Investigating Officer. The investigation officer has failed to connect the dots to link the petitioner with any of the offences alleged.”
In this regard, the Court added,
“The Charge sheet is filed on the presumption that the petitioner would be benefited by taking advantage of the purchase order issued by the State by showcasing it to other organizations of various states in India and obtained purchase orders. It would indicate that the other states and other organizations might simply nominate Aakasham Advance System Private Limited and place purchase orders worth crores of rupees placing reliance on the purchase order(s) of the state. Presumption of undue benefit to the petitioner cannot form basis for implicating the petitioner in a false case.”
Concerning the charges regarding Section 120-B of IPC, the Court observed that the petitioner was the only accused named, thereby, leaving no scope of applicability of Section 120-B. Additionally, a perusal of the chargesheet by Court also highlighted that Section 409 and 420 read with 511 of IPC could not be made applicable to the case. Similarly, the case under Section 13(1)(a), Section 13(1)(c) & (d) and 15 and Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also could not be made out as there was no evidence to prima facie point a finger of suspicion towards the petitioner that he had dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a Public Servant or allowed any other person to do so.
Noting that the charge sheet was a continuation of the complaint, the Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the charges against the petitioner.
Case Details:
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4675 of 2022
Case Title: A.B.Venkateswara Rao, IPS v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Date: Date: 07.05.2025