Andhra Pradesh High Court orders CID probe into theft of offerings at Tirumala temple

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered that a Director General of Police(DGP)-rank officer in the Crime Investigation Department (CID) shall investigate the theft of offerings at the Tirumala temple in 2023 [M Sreenivasulu v The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others].

In the order dated October 27, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna found that there was a “complete compromise” by the investigating officer and officers of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) in the matter. 

“This Court, prima-facie, noticed that the statutory provisions, statutory procedures and several other administrative procedures have been given a complete go-bye to ensure that a heavy-lid is placed on the criminal proceeding with a view to give a quietus as expeditiously as possible for the reasons best known to several persons/authorities involved in the entire process. Whether these events have taken place out of gross negligence and non-application of mind of the authorities or due to active connivance and foul-play is a thing which requires very serious investigation in the opinion of this Court,” it observed.

In April 2023, a complaint had been registered by an official of the TTD regarding the alleged theft of foreign currency at the temple.

The police later filed a chargesheet under Section 379 (theft) and 381 (theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against one CV Ravi Kumar, who was working as a supervisor in Parakamani.

However, the matter was later compounded before a Lok Adalat. On a plea seeking a probe into the ‘Parakamani’ scam, the High Court in September suspended the Lok Adalat order and ordered seizure of the records of the entire case. 

Considering its findings, the High Court in the latest order asked the CID to look into all the aspects of the matter, including the role of TTD Board and its officers, as well as the investigating officer and the complainant.

The DGP has been asked to submit a report in a sealed cover and recommended action on the basis of the investigation.

The Court noted that though Kumar was a ‘public servant’, the police had failed to invoke Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of IPC against him. It also said that the trial judge had failed to properly apply his mind at the stage of taking cognizance of the matter. 

“Right at the stage of commencing the investigation itself, it is elementary on the part of the Investigating Officer and that it is incumbent on the part of the Judicial Officer at the stage of taking cognizance to ensure that the accused shall be charged under Section 409 of IPC. In this regard, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that there is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer as well as the Presiding Officer. In the opinion of this Court, this omission is a serious lapse,” the single-judge said.

It opined that the charges of lesser consequence were invoked perhaps to facilitate the compromise which took place later. The Court has now referred the issue related to the legality of Lok Adalat decision to a Division Bench for appropriate consideration.

The Court also found that the accused was not arrested and even his assets were not probed by the police. On the recording of compromise after receiving of stolen money, the Court said,

“Charge under Section 409 of IPC is non-compoundable. Even in respect of the inadequate charges framed against the accused under Sections 379 & 381 of IPC, the competent person to compound/compromise is the ‘owner of the property’. The defacto complainant, by any stretch of imagination, can never be regarded, in the eye of law, as the owner of the property. Admittedly, the Dollar bills were offered/gifted to the Lord Venkateswara Swamy by the devotees as an offering. The moment the devotees make offerings to the Deity, it is the Deity who becomes the owner of the property and the T.T.D through its Management Board, that acts and decides on behalf of the Deity would be required to consider and pass a Resolution. However, it is doubtful whether the T.T.D Board of Management can even pass a Resolution to compound/compromise an offence of this nature inasmuch as the offence committed by the accused is a ‘public offence’ and the T.T.D, which is a Public Institution, could have compounded or compromised or not.”

Acceptance of gift deeds from accused

The Court also took note of the fact that the accused and his family had offered certain properties worth ₹14.5 crores to the TTD. It found that officers accepted the properties without paper publication after seeking exemption from the TTD Board.

Further, the Court flagged the lack of police investigation with regard to Kumar and his family’s assets. 

Thus, it directed that an officer of the rank of DGP in Anti Corruption Bureau shall investigate the assets.

“The possession/acquisition of the assets shall be investigated from the point of view of the ‘known sources of income of Sri C.V. Ravi Kumar and his family.’ The Report which shall also include the proposed action based on the Investigation Report shall be submitted to the Court through the Registrar (Judicial) before the next date of listing,” it directed. 

The Court also directed that a copy of the present order be placed in the Annual Confidential Report of the Presiding Officer of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, who was officiating during the relevant period.

“For the purpose of maintaining integrity and transparency on administrative side, this Court is of the opinion that the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupati shall be divested from all Protocol duties with immediate effect. Registrar (Judicial) shall submit a copy of this Order before the concerned Administrative Committee for effective compliance,” it ordered.

The matter will be heard next on December 2.

Advocate Srinivasulu Kurru represented the petitioner M Sreenivasulu 

Special Public Prosecutor Lakshmi Narayana appeared for the CID. Advocate C Srinivasa Baba appeared for TTD. 

Senior Advocate C Nageswara Rao with advocate Amarendra and advocate Uday Kumar Vampugadavala appeared for other respondents.

[Read Order]