Deity Is The Owner Of Offerings Made By Devotees: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders CID Probe In Tirumala Theft Case
Holding that stolen offerings belong to the Deity and not to private individuals, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that a theft of sacred offerings cannot be compromised by a de facto complainant and ordered a fresh investigation by senior officers of the CID and ACB.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while ordering a CID probe in the Tirumala Temple offerings theft case, has held that a theft of offerings to the Deity in a temple cannot be compounded through a compromise with a de facto complainant, since the property belongs to the Deity.
The High Court was hearing a petition alleging serious procedural irregularities in the manner a criminal case relating to the theft of currency from the Parakamani was registered, investigated, compromised and closed, including acceptance of immovable properties from the accused without following the statutory process.
A Bench comprising Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, while ordering a CID probe into the matter, observed that “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 Bench clarified that “the defacto complainant, by any stretch of imagination, can never be regarded, in the eye of law, as the owner of the property”, explaining that the gifts were offered to the Lord Venkateswara Swamy by the devotees as an offering, and that “the moment the devotees make offerings to the Deity, it is the Deity who becomes the owner of the property.”
Advocate Srinivasulu Kurra represented the appellant, while Advocate C. Srinivasa Baba appeared on behalf of the appellants.
Background
A case was registered for theft of foreign currency offered at the Parakamani. The accused, who was working in the temple administration, was charged only under Sections 379 and 381 IPC. He was not arrested and was served only with a notice.
Within a short period, a charge sheet was filed, and cognisance was taken. A joint compromise memo was filed, and within a few days, the matter was sent to Lok Adalat, which acquitted the accused under Section 320(8) CrPC.
During this period, immovable properties worth several crores were offered to the administration by the accused and his family. The Court recorded that mandatory statutory procedures for accepting gifts were bypassed, and no Board Resolution existed.
Court’s Observation
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, upon examining the records, held that since the accused was a public servant entrusted with the offerings of the Deity, investigation ought to have commenced with Section 409 IPC, a non-compoundable offence.
The Court, however, observed that only lesser, compoundable offences were invoked. “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”, the Bench remarked.
While noting that the Officers at various levels, including the Joint Executive Officer and the Executive Officer, had ‘digitally signed’ in favour of acceptance of the Gift without paper publication and had recommended/referred the issue to the T.T.D Board seeking exemption from publication, rushing into a compromise, the Bench found that “there is not even a whisper about the initiation of criminal proceedings against accused for the offence of theft in the capacity of a public servant.”
Furthermore, while taking note that the Presiding Officer had recorded a compromise at the behest of the de facto complainant, the Court held that the de facto complainant had no right to compromise the offence. It observed: “The de facto complainant, by any stretch of imagination, can never be regarded, in the eye of law, as the owner of the property.” The Bench explained that once offerings are made, the Deity becomes the owner, and any decision to compromise must be taken only by the statutory Board.
The Court also recorded concerns regarding the role of the investigating agency, the Magistrate, and the temple administration. Serious questions were raised about whether statutory powers were misused to hurriedly close criminal proceedings. The Bench further highlighted that the entire criminal proceedings were brought to a compromise/conclusion speedily and that the recording of the compromise before the ‘Lok Adalat’ was just a ‘residual formality’.
Conclusion
Consequently, the Court ordered a DG rank officer of the CID to investigate all issues, including the role of officials, and submit a sealed report. The Anti-Corruption Bureau was also directed to conduct a parallel investigation. The Magistrate who recorded the compromise was directed not to be assigned protocol duties.
Holding the compromise illegal and that the investigation and closure required independent scrutiny, the petition was accordingly disposed of.
The matter was ordered to be listed again after the submission of reports.
Cause Title: M. Sreenivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: APHC010014262025)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Srinivasulu Kurra
Respondents: Advocates C. Srinivasa Baba, C. Nageswara Rao, Amarendra, Uday Kumar, and M. Lakshmi Narayana
