Singireddy Girija, vs The State of Telangana,

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15500 of 2026


Between :

Singireddy Girija W/o S.P.Srinivas Reddy, occ:
Retired Bill Collector O/o. DeputyCommissioner,
GHMC, Malkajgiri, Circle No.17, Hyderabad, R/o.
H.No.7-1-119/2, Reddy Enclave, Temple Alwal,
Alwal, Ranga Reddy District.

….Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS

The State of Telangana represented by its Special
Public Prosecutor for SPE & ACB Cases, High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
… Respondent

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.10.2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?

Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No


_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15500 of 2026

% Dated 07.10.2026

Singireddy Girija W/o S.P.Srinivas Reddy,
#
occ: Retired Bill Collector O/o.
DeputyCommissioner, GHMC, Malkajgiri,
Circle No.17, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.7-1-
119/2, Reddy Enclave, Temple Alwal,
Alwal, Ranga Reddy District.

….Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana represented by its
Special Public Prosecutor for SPE & ACB
Cases, High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad.

… Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.C.Sharan Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. T.Bala Mohan Reddy,
learned Spl.P.P. for ACB for
respondent No.1

< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 1957 CRILJ 188
2. 1962(1) Andh WR 256
3. 1973 CRILJ 931

3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Criminal Petition No.15500 of 2026
(CNR No. HBHC010649492026)
Date: 07.10.2026
Reserved on: 28.09.2026 Pronounced on: 07.10.2026
Uploaded on : .10.2026

Between:
Singireddy Girija
...Petitioner/Accused
And

The State of Telangana
...Respondent/Complainant


: O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the learned
Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad,
(hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’) in Crl.M.P. No.157 of 2026
in C.C.No.93 of 2024, where under the petition filed by the petitioner
seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to file the Scrutiny
Report/Source Report was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this criminal petition briefly
stated are that the petitioner is sole accused in C.C.No.93 of 2024
pending before the trial Court and he is facing prosecution for the
offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

4
Corruption of Act, 1988 (for short, “the P.C. Act”). Before the trial
Court, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 46 were examined and the
Investigating Officer was examined as PW.47 and when the matter
was posted for his cross-examination, the petitioner filed
Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2026 invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to direct PW.47 to produce the
Scrutiny Report/Source Report which was submitted to the Director
General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. The said petition was
dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.
3. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr.K.Rajashekar, learned counsel, representing Mr.T.Bala Mohan
Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing on behalf
of respondent, through video conference.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner :
4.1 Learned counsel submitted that PW.47 in his chief-examination
deposed that after scrutiny of the documents, which were seized from
the petitioner, he submitted a report to the Director General, ACB,
through proper channel and obtained permission for registration of
the case. Accordingly, he registered a case in Crime No.5/ACB-CIU-
HYD/2011. The Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47
is a material document and the said document is necessary for the
purpose of his cross-examination. The learned trial Court without

5
properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner
erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that the
communication made by PW.47 to the public officer in official
confidence and by virtue of the provisions of Section 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, (for short, “the Act”) the petitioner is not entitled
to seek production of the said document.
4.2 He further submitted that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report is
the conclusion drawn by PW.47 with respect to the results of the
search conducted in the petitioner’s premises and other preliminary
enquiries and the prosecution has not stated as to how the public
interest would be affected if the document is produced. In spite of the
same, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition and the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law.
4.3 In support of his contention, he relied upon the order dated
20.09.1956 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Brijnath
1
Kedarnath vs. State .
5. Submissions of the learned counsel for respondent:
5.1 Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the Source Report is
an official communication made by PW.47 to the Director General,
ACB, Hyderabad, seeking permission for registration of the case and
the same is a privileged communication. As per the provisions of

1
1957 CRILJ 188

6
Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to seek production
of such communication and the same would affect the public interest.
The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition and there is
no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the
learned trial Court.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner is
sole accused in C.C.No.93 of 2024 pending before the trial Court and
he is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. The record further reveals that on behalf of
prosecution, PWs.1 to 46 were examined and PW.47/Investigating
Officer was examined in chief and the matter was posted for his cross-
examination. At that stage, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.157 of
2026 on 15.04.2026 invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the
Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to file Scrutiny
Report/Source Report on the ground that PW.47 in his chief-
examination deposed that he analyzed the seized material, prepared
source information report and submitted the same to the Director
General, ACB, Hyderabad, through proper channel and obtained
permission for registration of the case. Accordingly, he registered a
case in Crime No.5/ACB-CIU-HYD/2011. Hence, the Scrutiny

7
Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47 to the Director General,
ACB, Hyderabad, is required for the purpose of his cross-examination.
7. The record further reveals that, in the said case, the
respondent/prosecution filed a counter wherein it was specifically
stated that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report is an official
communication made by PW.47 to the Director General, ACB,
Hyderabad, seeking permission to register the case, and that the said
communication made between them in official confidence. As per the
provisions of Section 124 of the Act, no public officer shall be
compelled to disclose communications made to him in official
confidence, especially the public interest would suffer by virtue of
disclosure of such privileged communication.
8. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the
averments made in the affidavit as well as the counter filed by the
prosecution and after hearing the respective parties, dismissed the
petition holding that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by
PW.47 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, seeking permission
to register the case against the petitioner and the said communication
between them in official confidence and as per the provisions of
Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner cannot compel the prosecution
for production of the said report.

8
9. It is relevant to extract Section 124 of the Act, which reads as
under:
“124. Official communications:- No public officer
shall be compelled to disclose communications made to
him in official confidence, when he considers that the
public interests would suffer by the disclosure.”

10. The record discloses that the specific case of the prosecution is
that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47 to the
Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, is a privileged communication and
by virtue of Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner cannot compel
PW.47 for production of such privileged communication and would
detriment to the public interest as the petitioner is facing prosecution
for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Even
PW.47 in his chief-examination stated that he analyzed the seized
material and prepared the Source Information Report and submitted
the same to the Director General, ACB for the purpose of obtaining
permission to register the present crime. The communication made
by one public officer, i.e., PW.47, to another public officer i.e., Director
General, ACB, Hyderabad, in the discharge of their official duties and
the same is a privileged communication. Hence, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for
production of the Scrutiny Report/Source Report, by virtue of the
privilege under Section 124 of the Act and the learned trial Court has
rightly dismissed the petition.

9
11. The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in Brijnath Kedarnath ( supra ), is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case on the ground that PW.47
submitted source information report to the Director General, ACB,
Hyderabad, seeking permission for registration of the case and the
said communication between one public officer to another public
officer in the discharge of their official duties.

12. It is relevant to mention that, in The State of A.P. v. Badapu
2
Appanna and others , the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that the privilege
under Section 124 of the Act has been given not for the benefit of the
person making the communication but for the protection of public
interest, and the said provision specifically envisages to prevent
disclosures which may be detrimental to public interest. The words
“official confidence” indicates that the Section applies to
communications made by one public officer to another public officer
in the discharge of their official duties, and the protection is founded
upon the confidential character of such official communications. The
said principle also reiterated by the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in The Public
3
Prosecutor v. Picky Syed Ismail and Another .


2
1962(1) Andh WR 256
3
1973 CRILJ 931

10
13. In the case on hand also, PW.47 communicated the information
to the other officer namely Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, and
sought permission for registration of crime. The communication
between PW.47 and Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, was made in
the course of discharging their official duties and was, therefore,
treated as a communication made in official confidence. In view of
privilege claimed on the ground of public interest and also in view of
Section 124 of the Act, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed
the petition. The principle laid down in Badapu Appanna ( supra ) and
Picky Syed Ismail ( supra ) is squarely applicable to the present case.

14. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions,
this Court does not find any illegality or legal infirmity in the
impugned order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the learned trial Court in
Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2026 in C.C.No.93 of 2024, to exercise the powers
conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 07.10.2026

Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
b/o
pgp