Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Separate CID and ACB Probes Into Alleged Irregularities and Theft of Offerings at Tirumala Temple
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad has directed comprehensive investigations by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) into the alleged theft of offerings made to the Tirumala Temple, citing serious lapses in the earlier probe. The Court instructed a police officer of Director General rank in the CID to examine the roles of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) Board, its officials, the investigating officer, and the defacto complainant, and to submit a sealed report detailing the findings and proposed actions. A parallel inquiry by the ACB was ordered into the assets of the accused and his family.
The writ petition was filed by a reporter employed at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), alleging irregularities in the investigation of a theft case concerning the offerings made to the Lord Venkateswara Temple at Tirumala. The case originated from a report filed on 29 April 2023 by an Assistant Vigilance and Security Officer against a Supervisor in the Parakamani section, leading to registration of Crime No. 19 of 2023 under Sections 379 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused, a public servant of TTD for about 38 years, was alleged to have committed theft of dollar bills offered by devotees.
Also Read: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Class IV Employees Of UP Judiciary Terminated 17 Years Ago
The Investigating Officer, however, did not invoke Section 409 IPC, though it applied to offences involving public servants. Instead, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 379 and 381 IPC and cognizance was taken by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, on 31 May 2023. On 1 June 2023, a compromise was recorded between the accused and the de facto complainant, who was not the owner of the stolen property. Subsequently, the TTD accepted immovable properties worth Rs.14.5 crores from the accused and his wife without the mandatory 30-day public notice under Rule 159 of the TTD Rules.
Sixteen sealed bundles containing investigation materials and related proceedings were submitted to the Court. The documents revealed that the criminal proceedings were concluded rapidly and the case was compounded without proper authorization or adherence to statutory procedure. The Court examined the role of the investigating agency, the judicial officer who took cognizance, and TTD authorities who approved the gifts.
The Court observed that “the Investigating Officer ought to have commenced his investigation by laying a charge under Section 409 of IPC that relates to entrustment of property to a public servant.” It stated that the omission of this charge “is a serious lapse” and noted that both the Investigating Officer and the Presiding Officer failed to exercise the required application of mind at crucial stages of the proceedings.
The Court recorded that “the accused was not arrested” and “no investigation, either by the Crime Branch or by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, had been undertaken” regarding the movable and immovable assets of the accused and his family. It noted that “the entire criminal proceedings were brought to compromise/conclusion by 01.06.2023 and the recording of compromise before the ‘Lok Adalat’ on 09.09.2023 was just a ‘residual formality.’”
The Court further observed that the defacto complainant “can never be regarded, in the eye of law, as the owner of the property,” since “the moment the devotees make offerings to the Deity, it is the Deity who becomes the owner of the property.” It stated that it was doubtful “whether the TTD Board of Management can even pass a Resolution to compound/compromise an offence of this nature.”
The Court recorded that “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.” It further noted that “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 observed that “the compromise/compounding of offences under Sections 379 & 381 of IPC, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is per se illegal,” since “the defacto complainant had no authority to agree for a compromise.” It stated that charging the accused only under compoundable sections “was perhaps intended to facilitate recording of compromise by leaving-out the charge under Section 409 of IPC.”
However, the Court recorded that it “is not competent to set aside the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat” and directed that “this limited issue be referred to the Hon’ble Division Bench for appropriate consideration.”
The Court issued multiple directions to ensure an independent investigation into the alleged lapses surrounding the Tirumala Temple theft case and related administrative actions.
“A Police Officer who is of the rank of Director General of Police in C.I.D shall investigate into all issues and aspects indicated in this Order including the role of the Board and Officers of the T.T.D, the role of the Investigating Officer and the defacto complainant and submit a Report in a sealed cover to this Court, which shall also include the proposed action based on the Investigation Report.”
“A Police Officer who is of the rank of Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) shall investigate into the assets (movable and immovable including bank accounts) possessed/acquired by 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.”
“The Registry shall place a copy of this Order before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for allocation of the issue regarding the legality of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat on 09.09.2023 for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench.”
“Registrar (Vigilance) shall place a copy of this Order in the Annual Confidential Report of the Presiding Officer of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati officiating during the relevant period” and “the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupati shall be divested from all Protocol duties with immediate effect.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, Counsel for the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams; Sri C. Nageswara Rao, Senior Counsel; Sri Uday Kumar, Advocate; and Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, Special Public Prosecutor
Case Title: M. Sreenivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010014262025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1294 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
