Telangana High Court Overturns 15-Year Corruption Case Against Military Professor
The Telangana High Court has made a significant ruling by quashing a corruption case that had been pending for fifteen years against a professor at the Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering (MCEME) in Secunderabad. The court found that the investigation was conducted without proper legal authority and violated essential procedural safeguards.
Court Details Procedural Failures in Investigation
Justice E V Venugopal delivered the judgment on December 9, 2025, allowing a criminal revision petition. The court set aside an order from January 2022 by the IIIrd Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases. This decision led to the discharge of the petitioner, Huliyurudurga Nanjappa Suresh.
Suresh, a Group ‘A’ Professor at MCEME, faced allegations of demanding an illegal bribe of Rs 2 lakh from a student officer. The accusation stated he requested this amount to ensure the officer passed a subject called Mechanical Vibration. The student officer filed a complaint with the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering.
Following an inquiry, authorities recovered Rs 45,000 from a second accused person. This money was allegedly received on behalf of the professor. The Head of Department then forwarded an Occurrence Report to the Superintendent of Police at the CBI.
Charges were filed against the professor under sections 120-B along with Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His arrest occurred in March 2010, and he was later released on bail.
Justice Venugopal Highlights Unauthorized Army Involvement
After reviewing submissions from both sides and examining records, Justice Venugopal identified multiple procedural lapses. The court emphasized that Army officers initiated the inquiry without proper authorization.
"Army officials, regardless of their rank, cannot conduct criminal investigations or trap operations unless they are duly notified or acting under the supervision of a competent investigative agency," the court stated clearly.
The judgment explained that traps under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be carried out only by competent authorities. These include the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). They must be 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," the court noted. It added that without legal sanction, any trap or evidence obtained becomes invalid. Subsequent proceedings by the CBI cannot fix this fundamental illegality.
Prosecution Fails to Prove Key Allegations
The court also pointed out that the prosecution failed to establish any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the professor. Recovery of money occurred from a co-accused who had no connection to the petitioner.
Justice Venugopal observed that the trial court made a serious error by accepting the charge sheet despite numerous procedural irregularities. These included:
- Unauthorized trap and investigation conducted by Army personnel
- Failure to register an FIR before executing the trap
- Absence of prior sanction for the investigation
- Recovery of tainted currency from a co-accused instead of the professor
- Lack of evidence supporting the alleged demand for bribery
Investigation Lacked Lawful Authority
Justice Venugopal ruled definitively that the investigation proceeded without lawful authority. This action violated the Prevention of Corruption Act, the DSPE Act, and established judicial precedent.
"Initiated solely by unauthorized Army officers without sanction or coordination with competent investigative agencies, the inquiry and resultant evidence are fundamentally tainted," he stated firmly.
In conclusion, the court found that the absence of credible evidence and disregard for mandatory procedural safeguards undermined the CBI's jurisdiction. This made the entire proceedings legally unsustainable.
"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," the judgment declared.
Consequently, the criminal revision case was allowed. The court set aside the impugned order dated January 12, 2022. The petitioner was discharged from all charges, bringing an end to this lengthy legal battle.
