Mere Authority to Forward Applications Not Proof of Criminal Conspiracy: Andhra Pradesh HC

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has shielded public officials from arbitrary prosecution, ruling that the mere performance of official duties like forwarding applications does not equate to criminal conspiracy without evidence of an illegal agreement. This decision reinforces the principle that professional proximity to a crime cannot substitute for a prima facie case of individual involvement in a fraudulent scheme.

In a criminal petition seeking the quashment of proceedings, a bench of Justice Sunitha Gandham examined whether a Revenue Officer could be held liable for criminal conspiracy in a loan subsidy scam solely because he processed the initial applications. The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 8, challenged his prosecution under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Requirement of Prima Facie Evidence

The Court analyzed the investigation material and found a total absence of specific allegations against the petitioner. While the prosecution alleged a wider conspiracy involving bank managers and private individuals who cheated the bank and beneficiaries, the petitioner’s role was limited to a specific administrative function.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The mere fact that the petitioner was authorised to forward applications does not, by itself, establish that he participated in a criminal conspiracy. The material must disclose, at least prima facie, his involvement in an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means."

Addressing the reliance on co-accused confessions, the Court followed the legal standard set in Dipakbhai Jagadish Chandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and another ( "(2019) 16 SCC 547": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 3174), noting that a court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused but must first find independent quality evidence to form an opinion of guilt.

Criteria for Quashing Proceedings

Invoking the landmark guidelines from State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, the Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) should be used to prevent the abuse of the process of law. The Court found that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute an offence against the petitioner.

The Court has the following directions:

"In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.8 alone in C.C. No.978 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC."

Background

The case arose from a report by a de facto complainant alleging that several accused persons had obtained identity particulars of beneficiaries under the pretext of government subsidy schemes. It was alleged that the accused, in collusion with bank officials, obtained loans of Rs. 15,00,000 in the names of these beneficiaries but paid them only nominal amounts, thereby cheating both the beneficiaries and the bank. The petitioner, a Revenue Officer, was not named in the initial FIR but was later arrayed in the charge sheet for his role in forwarding the applications.

The petitioner argued that his duty was confined to forwarding applications based on applicable rules and that the final sanctioning power rested with the District Collector. The High Court agreed that continuing the prosecution against him would be an abuse of process and allowed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4036/2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:46462
Case Title: N. Vijaya Bhaskara Rao V. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor (Ap), Chilukuri Karthik (Legal Aid)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 19882