Why Telangana High Court set aside 15-year-old corruption case against Military College professor in Hyderabad

The HoD forwarded the Occurrence Report to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, and the petitioner was charged under sections 120-B read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. He was arrested in March 2010 and later released on bail.

Court finds procedural lapses

After considering the submissions by both parties and examining the record, the bench found several procedural lapses. Justice Venugopal noted that the inquiry was initiated by unauthorised Army officers without the necessary coordination with competent investigative bodies or the mandatory prior sanction. “Army officials, irrespective of rank, cannot conduct criminal investigations or trap operations unless duly notified or acting under the supervision of a competent investigative agency,” the court said.

The court held that traps under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be conducted only by competent authorities, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), duly empowered under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act.

“The active participation of Army officers in the investigative process, beyond mere reporting or assistance, constitutes an unlawful exercise of investigative power. In the absence of legal sanction, any trap or evidence thereby obtained stands vitiated and subsequent proceedings by the CBI cannot cure this foundational illegality.”

The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner and that recovery was made from a co-accused unconnected to the petitioner. The court observed that the trial court committed a grave error in accepting the charge sheet despite multiple procedural irregularities, namely, the unauthorised trap and investigation by Army personnel, failure to register an FIR before the trap, absence of prior sanction, recovery of tainted currency from a co-accused rather than the petitioner, and the lack of evidence substantiating the alleged demand.

Investigation was conducted without lawful authority

Justice Venugopal ruled that the investigation was conducted without lawful authority, in violation of the PC Act, DSPE Act, and settled judicial precedent. “Initiated solely by unauthorised Army officers without sanction or coordination with competent investigative agencies, the inquiry and resultant evidence are fundamentally tainted,” he stated.

In conclusion, the court observed that the absence of credible evidence and disregard for mandatory procedural safeguards vitiate the CBI’s jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings legally untenable. “Accordingly, the cognizance and trial based on such defective proceedings cannot be sustained. The investigation and charge sheet, being devoid of legal foundation, are liable to be quashed.”

Consequently, the criminal revision case was allowed, the impugned order dated January 12, 2022, was set aside, and the petitioner was discharged from all charges.