proof of demand is a s['rle-qZJCl-71On even.tO Prove the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. As the very conviction and sentence is impugned in both these Appeals, this Court has every power to re-appraise the evidence to clecide as to whether the evidence on record would establish the demand which is a s{'neqzJCl-rtO71 tO Prove the dffenCe under Section I 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Hence, this Court would like to differ with the filndingS Of the learned Spe-cial Judge that the prosecution did not prove the allegations of demand. Having given such a finding, t.he learned Special lJudge bent upon to convict the Accused Officers under Section 13(1)(d)R/w. Section '13(2) of the 2024:APHC:1907 AVRB,I Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007 32 PC Act. As the very conviction and sentence is under challenge, , now this Court on re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record with regard to Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is of the considered view that the evidence of pw.1 proved the allegations demand against AO-1 and AO-2 on the date of trap t'.e., 12.O6.2OOO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 857 and 858 OF 20O7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 857 of 2007

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of the Ill Additional

Distrl-ct and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam,

in CC.No. 29 of 2001 dated 21st day of June 2007

Betwee n :

Sri B.Apparao,(A-2), S/o. Butchaiah, aged about 50 years, Sr.Assistant, O/o.

C.T.O., Suryabaugh, Visakhapatnam

...AppeIIanUAccused No.2

AND

State -rep by Inspector of police , ACB, Visakhapatnam.

.uRespondent

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri D Purnachandra Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Smt A Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel for

ACB cum Special Public Prosecutor

_CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 858 OF 2QQZ

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of the Ill

Additional Dist & Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for ACB Case,

Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No. 29 of 2001, dt. 21-06-2007.

Betwee n :

1. Sri M. Appalaraju (Died), (A-1)

2. M. Kanaka Ratnam, W/o. Late M. Appala Raju, Aged about 60 years, Occ.

Housewife, R/o. H.No.4-5-8, Relli Street, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District,

Narslpatnam, A.P -531116.

Appellant No.2 is brought on record as legal representative of

Appellant/'Accused No.1, Since Appellant/Accused No.1 is died as per the

COurt Order dated 19.06.2O23 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.858 of 2007.

...LR of the Accused No.1/Appellant

2024:APHC:1907

AND

State ofA.P, Rep By Inspector Of Police, ACB, Visaknapatnam

...RespondentlComplainant

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel for

ACB cum Special Public Prosecutor

The Court made the following:

2024:APHC:1907

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

I

CRIMINAL APPEAL Mos.857 AND 858 OF 2OO7

JUDGMENT:

Challenge in the Criminal Appeal Nos.857 and 858 of 2OO7

is to the judgment, dated 21.O6.20O7, in Calender Case No.29 of

2OO1, on the file of the Court of Ill Additional District arid Sessions

Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACE Cases, Visakhapatnam (for

short, tthe learned Special Judge) by the Accused 'OfflCer No.2

(AO-2) and Accused Officer No.1 (AO-1) respectively.

2. The parties to these criminal Appeals will hereinafter be

I

referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake o-I

convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as setout in the charge

sheet filed by the by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption

Bureau (ACE), Visakhapatnam pertaining to crime No.7/RCwLR/20OO of ACE, Visakhapatnam for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention Of the

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, tthe PC Act') and Sections 12O-B

and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, tthe IPC'), is

that the Accused Officer No.1 (AO-1) by name M. Appalaraju

worked as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO), Suryabagh,

.-

2024:APHC:1907

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

Visakhapatrlam from 16.O7.1998 till he was Placed under

suspension on 26.O7.2OOO as such he is a tfL,bZ{c Seruarl€' within

the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Accused Officer No.2 by

name B. Apparao' worked as Senior Assistant in the office of

Commercial Tax Officer, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam from I

14.O7.1999 till he wa.s placed under suspension on 26.O7.2OOO as

such he is a <fLtb!t'c SerL,Clnf' Within the meaning of Section 2(c) of

S

the PC Act.

(i) LW.1 -Thyaveedu Baburaj is the Manager of Qu;ens

Bakery and Sweets Shop situated in Shop No.21, RTC Complex,

Visakhapatnam and he has been doing business on behalf of LW.2

-M. Tarakeswari, who issued authorization, dated 18.O9.1996, in

his favour appointing him as Manager of the said shop to look

after the business affairs on her behalf as she could not maintain

the business personally. Thus, LW.1 has been looking after the

business and other matters such as filing of commercial tax

returns etc! The stocks in the shop are being purchased from

authorized registered dealers on genuine bills and being sold ttJ

public and nothing is being manufactured in his shop. There is no

need to pay, any Sales Tax to the Commercial Tax Department in

this regard. On 3O.O5.2OOO, he filed returns in respect of his shop

for the year 1999-2OOO before AO-1, but the assessment order was

2024:APHC:1907

3

AVRB,I

Cr'.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

I

riot given to him. On O9.O6.2OOO, AO-1 demanded him to pay

bribe of Rs.2,OOO/-, when he approached AO-1 in his office tO

I I enquire about his assessment. AO-1 instructed him to pay the

said bribe amount on 12.O6.2OOO to make th'e assessment and

return assessment order. When LW.1 expressed his inability to

I:,ay that much Of amount, Since his business iS a little one, AO-1

threatened him that unless the demanded bribe amount is paid,

he would object the assessment in respect of the shop and cause

hindrance to his business. Hence, LW.1 reluctantly agreed to pay

i

the bribe of Rs.2,OOO/-to AO-1 and subsequently he lodged a

report with the ACE offlCials on ll.O6.20OO. LW.14 -D.V.S.

Bhaskara Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACE,

Visakhapatnam registered the report of LW.1 as a case in Crime

No.7/RC-WLR/20OO, as above, on 12.O6.2OOO and investigated

into.

(ii) On 12.06.2OOO atO4:45 p.m. AO-1 was trapped in his

office chambers, situated in the office of commercial Tax Officer

when he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,500/-from

I,W.1 from out of the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,OOO/-. AO-1

also asked LW.1 to pay the remaining amount of Rs.500/-to AO-2

to receive the assessment order from AO-2. As per the instructions

of AO-1, LW.1 approached AO-2 in the main hall of the offilCe Of

2024:APHC:1907

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

LW.5 - Commercial Tax Officer and enquired about his

assessment order. AO-2 demanded him to pay the bribe of

Rs.50O/-. When the complainant paid the amount of Rs.5OO/- to

AO-2, he received the same, counted with both hands and kept it

in a small zip bag and thereafter he delivered the assessment

order acknowledgment i.e., Form-AA9 (Part-B) acknowledgmentGum-demand notice to LW.1 after obt.aiming acknowledgment with

ante date as 16.O5.2OOO instead of 12.O6.2OOO, though LW.1

expressed his pretest for putting his signature with ante date.

AO-2 on seeing the DSP, ACE, Visakhapatnam (LW.14) and other

ACB ofrlCialS in the Chambers Of AO-1, passed on the zip bag

containing tainted cash of Rs.50O/- to LW.3 -Kotilingala Trinadh

- a Tea Stall owner at VUDA Complex, who in turn passed the zip

bag I.o LW.4 - Kotilingala Padma, his wife, to hide the zip bag. The

chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of AO-1 and inner

lining of his right side pant pocket was proved positive. The I

tainted amount of Rs.1,500/-was recovered from AO-1 at his

instance. The chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of

i

AO-2 and zip bag pocket of AO-2 was also proved positive. The

bribe amount of Rs.50O/- was recovered at the instance of AO-:2

from his zip bag which was passed on to LW.3 and from him to

LW.4. The serial numbers of the tainted amount which were

2024:APHC:1907

I AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings were tallied with the tainted

` I amount that was recovered from AO-1 and AO-2. LW.14 seized the

tainted currency of Rs.1,50O/-and Rs.5OO/-from AO-1 and AO-2

respectively. The explanation tendered by AO-1 is far from truth.

AO-2 admitted that he received Rs.5OO/-from LW.1 and delivered

the acknowledgment to the complainant during the post-trap.

(iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh being the

competent authority accorded sanction to prosecute the AO-1 and

AO-2 in a competent Court of law separately I,z'cZe a.O.tMs.Nos.541

£lnd 542, dated O4.08.2OOl of Revenue (Vigi.lance-1) Department.

So, both the Accused Officers are liable to be punished for the

offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the

PC Act and further AO-2 is liable to be punished for the offence

under Section 201 IPC.

4. The learned Special |Judge took cognizance of the case under

the above provisions of law. After appearance of the Accused

()fflCerS, by COmPlying the necessary formalities under Section 207

Cr.P.C, the learned Special lJudge framed charges under Sections

7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act against AO~1 and

AO-2 and further a charge under Section 2Ol of IPC against AO-2,

'_-

2024:APHC:1907

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

read over and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt against the Accused Officersl,

the prosecution before the trial Court examined PWs.1 to PW.6

and got m;rked Pxs.P-1 to P-21, P-2(a) and MOs.1 to MO.14.

6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, both the .

Accused Officers Were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with

reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the

evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the

incriminating circumstances and reported defence evidence. In

furtherance of their defence, the Accused Officers got examined

DW.1 -B. Nagendra, who is a Junior Assistant in the office of

Commercial Tax Officer, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

7. The learned.Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after

considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, made a .

finding that as the prosecution failed to establish the allegations of

demand as against AO-1 and AO-2, acquitted both of them under

I

Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,

{the Cr.P.C') for the charge under section 7 of the PC Act. The

learned Special Judge, however, found AO-1 and AO-2 guilty of

2024:APHC:1907

I

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act

and further found AO-2 guilty of the charge under section 2OI IPC

€md convicted them under section 248(2) Cr.P.C ,and, after

questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them

to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a

fine of Rs.1,OOO/-each in default to suffer simple Imprisonment

for two months each for the offence under section 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Further, the learned Special Judge

sentenced AO-2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months

and to pay a fine of Rs.5OO/- in default to suffer Simple

` Imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 201 IPC

and that the punishment imposed against AO-2 shall run

concurrently.

8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentence

imposed, the unsuccessful Accused Officer No.1 filed Criminal

Appeal No.858 of 2007 and Accused Officer No.2 filed Criminal

Appeal No.857 of 2OO7.

9. As against the finding of the learned Special Judge that the

. prosecution did not prove the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act

against AO-1 and AO-2, the prosecution did not file any Appeal.

So, the scope of these Appeals is confined to decide the validity of

2024:APHC:1907

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act against AO-1 and

AO-2 and further Section 2OI IPC against AO-2 for causing

disappearance of evidence relating to section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section

13(2) of the PC Act.

10. Now, in deciding these Appeals, the points that arise for

consideration are as follows:

1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court

proved that AO-1 and AO-2 are public servants within

the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether

the prosecution obtained a valid sanction in terms of

Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute them for the

charges framed?

2) Wriether the prosecution before the trial Court

proved that AO-1 and AO-2 by corrupt or illegal means

or by abusing their official position as public servants

obtained a sum of Rs.1,500/-and Rs.50O/-from PW.1

towards bribe in the manner as alleged by the

prosecution?

3) Whether AO-2 caused disappearance of evidence

relating to receiving a sum of Rs.5OO/- by him from

PW.1 so as to hide the commission of offence?

LE-ri

2024:APHC:1907

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

4) Whether the judgment, dated 21,06.2OO7, in

Calender Case No.29 of 2OO1, is sustainable under law

and facts and whether there are any grounds to

interfere with the same?

l1. POINT No.1: There is no dispute tllat both the Accused

()fficers were working as public Servants within the meaning of

Section 2(c) of the PC Act and they were drawing salary from the

Government. So, absolutely, there is no dispute that both the

. Accused Officers were working as public servants within the

meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. With.regard to the sanction

obtained by the prosecution, the prosecution exhibited sanction

c,rders under Pxs.P-2O and P-21. It is to be noted that, as evident

from the deposition of PW.6 -Trap Laying Officer, 'the learned

clefence counsel before the learned Special Judge gave his consent

to exhibit Pxs.P-2O and P-21 without examination of the person or

who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority

who issued Pxs.P-20 and P-21. So, as evident from Pxs.P-2O and

P-21, absolutely, there is application of mind by the sanctioning

authority with reference to the allegations against AO-1 and AO-2.

So, a perusal of Pxs.P-2O and P-21, undoubtedly, shows that the

sanctioning authority after due application of mind into the

.._-

2024:APHC:1907

10

AVRB.J I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

allegations of prosecution decided to accord sanction. Accused

Officers had no objection for marking of Pxs.P-2O and P-21 and

further they did not dispute the contents of Exs.P-2O and P-21

before the trial Court. Even in the grounds of Appeal, they did not

challenge the findings of the learned Special Judge that the

prosecution obtained a valid sanction under section 19 of the PC

Act. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the

prosecution.

12. POINT Mos.2 to 4: PW.1 is no other than the cZe-/czcfo

complainant who lodged Ex.P-3 report with the DSP, ACE,

visakhapatiam. pw.2 is the mediator for the pre-trap and posttrap proceedings, who supported the case of prosecution. pw.`'3

and PW.4 did not support the case of prosecution. pw.5 was

examined by the prosecution to speak about the procedura.1

aspects in respect of filing returns in the commercial Tax

Departmen't. PW.6 is the Trap Laying Officer.

13. Before going to appreciate the evidence with reference to the . `

contentions advanced, this Court would like to place on record

that insofar as Criminal Appeal No.858 of 2007 filed by AO-1 is

concerned, he died during pendency of the criminal Appeal. The

legal representative of AO-1 is impleaded to prosecute the Appeal

2024:APHC:1907

1l

AVRBJ

Crl.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

I,{'cZe orders of this court in I.A. No.2 of 2O22, dated 1-9.06.2023.

So, insofar as Criminal Appeal No.858 of 20O7 is concerned,

Appellant/AO-1 is no more and his wife is prosecutingpthe Appeal.

I.4. Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant/AO-1 in Criminal Appeal No.858 of 2OO7, would contend

that the findings of the learned Special Judge are that the

prosecution did not prove the fact that AO-'1 demanded PW.1 to

I pay the bribe of Rs.2,OOO/- on O9.O6.2OOO and in pursuance of

a,uch a demand, he further made a demand on the date of trap

and accepted the tainted amount. Therefore, the finding of the

learned Special |Judge was that the prosecution did not prove the

c~lllegation of demand of bribe as against AO-1 and Ao-2. When

that is the situation, in the absence of a demand, which is s,-71ecJL!a-rlOr1, for the Charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the conviction of the appeilants under

Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is wholly unsustainable. The defence of AO-1 before the trial Court was that as

I-le insisted the presence of the original assessee by name M.

Tarakeswari for verification of certain facts, pw.1 bore grudge

against him and falsely implicated him. He would contend that

both the AO~1 and AO-2 set forth a proper defence before the

2024:APHC:1907

12

AVRB.J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

learned Special Judge. During the course of trial, AO.1 put up the

thrusting theory. According to his defence though AO-1 declined to

receive any -amount but forcibly the cze-Jacto complainant kept the

amount in the trouser pocket of AO.1. This defence of AO-1 was

not found favour by the learned Special Judge. The law is we].1

settled that mere recovery of the tainted amount would not absolve

the prosecution from proving the allegations of demand and

acceptance' of bribe. Insofar as the contention that pw.1 had

submitted the reulrns on 3O.05.2OOO is concerned, it was falsified

by his own documents. when pw.1 submitted the return; on

16.O5.2OOO, it was duly assessed and the assessment order was

passed on, 16.O5.2OOO itself. PW.1 signed the document

acknowledging the receipt of assessment order on 16.05.20OO but

deliberately he carried the order during the post-trap and created

a version as if AO-2 demanded him to sign the order with ante

date on 16.05.20OO instead of 12.O6.2OOO. Such version of pw. I

was highly suspicious. Absolutely, there was no pendency of any

work relating to PW.1 either before AO-1 or before AO-2, according

to the evidence available on record. The very conviction of the

Accused Officers under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the

PC Act, when there were findings that the prosecution did not

prove the demand, is un-sustainable under law and facts. PW.3

2024:APHC:1907

13

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

and pw.4 did not support the case of prosecution With regard tO

AO-2. Learned counsel for the appellants in Support of his

contentions would rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex

court in p. satyanarayana Murtky v. District Inspector of

police, state of Andhra Pradesh and another;, State of

Kerala and others v. a.P. Rad2, SuJit Biswas v. State of

Assam3 , PunJcLbrco V. State of Maharashtrct and B. dayarof v.

State a, A.F5. Learned counsel would submit that mere recovery

of the tainted amount from AO-1 is not sufficient to establish the

g,uilt against him and further the learned Special Judge

erroneously applied Section 20 of the PC Act to Section 13(1)(d)

R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and it is also wholly unsustainable. with the above submissions, he would contend that

the Appeal is liable to be allowed.

I.5. Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri

I). Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/AO-2

in criminal Appeal No.857 of 20O7, would conte.nd that the tainted

amount was not recovered from the possession of AO-2. AO-2 set

forth a defence theory that when the complainant tried to give an

12016 (1) ALT (Cr1.)(SC) 160 (FB)

22011 (6) SCC450

3 2O13 {3) ALT (Cr1.)(SC) 316 (DB)

4 (2OO2) 1O SCC 371

52014(13)SCC55

2024:APHC:1907

14

AVRB.I

Cri.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

amount of Rs.50O/-to him, he resisted the act of pw.1 and PW.1

went away and he would submit that there was a possibility for

AO-2 to come into contact with the phenolphthalein powder when

AO-2 warded off the tainted amount and it was not recovered from

his possession. In furtherance of the defence, DW.1 was examined,

who spoke about the conversation between AO-2 and PW.1. The

learned Special Judge on erroneous appreciation of the evidence

on record disbelieved the defence theory. Learned counsel would

submit tha-t AO-2 is also entitled for an acquittal.

16. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-GumSpecial Public Prosecutor for ACE, appearing for the RespondentState, would contend that though there is no Appeal filed by the

prosecution: with regard to acquittal of the Accused OfrlCerS Of the

charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, but when this court is

dealing with the Appeals with regard to section 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of the PC Act, it has every power to decide as to

whether the evidence on record established the demand which is a

s]'rle-qtJCZ-rlOrl for the OffenCeS under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section

13(2) of the PC Act. Though the learned Special Judge made

findings that the prosecution did not prove the allegations of'

demand but convicted both the Accused Offlcers under section

2024:APHC:1907

15

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and when the legality of

such a judgment is impugned in these Appeals, this Court can reappraise the evidence on record with regard to the allegations of

c[emand at least in respect of the offences under Section 13(1)(d)

R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is concerned. The tainted amount

-I of Rs.1,500/-was recovered from the possession of AO-1 and

tainted amount of Rs.500/-was recovered froin the possession of

PW.3 and PW.4, who did not support the case of prosecution. The

clefence theory set forth by AO-1 and AO-2 is not sustainable.

pw.1 had no necessity to implicate AO-1 and AO-2 falsely. There

was no previous animosity existing between PW.1 and AO-1 at one

hand and AO-1 and AO-2 at the other hand. Though the learned

special Judge disbelieved the prosecution theory under Section 7

of the pc Act but was inclined to give conviction under Section

13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act against AO-1 and AO-2.

Though the State did not prefer any Appeal under Section 7 of the

IX= Act but this Court is not debarred from deciding aS.tO Whether

the evidence on record would prove the demand so as to constitute

the offence under section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC

Act. Even without the aid of Section 2O of the PC Act, which

cannot be made applicable to Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2)

c,I the pc Act, the evidence on record would prove the charge

2024:APHC:1907

l6

AVRB.J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act against

AO-1 and AO-2 ;nd further a charge under Section 2OI Ipa

against AO-2. With the above submissions, learned standing

Counsel-Gum-Special Public Prosecutor would seek to dismiss

both the Appeals.

17. As seen from the report lodged by PW.1 under the cover of

Ex.P-3, the allegations were that he was looking after the affairs of

Queens Bakery and Sweets shop in RTC Complex, Dwarakanagar,

Visakhapatnam having got authorization from his aunt M.

Tarakeswaii. When he submitted the returns of his shop on

3O.O5.200O, he did not receive the assessment order and when he

met AO-1 and asked him to issue the assessment order, he

demanded the bribe of Rs.2,OOO/- and directed him to pay the

bribe amount on 12.O6.20OO. This is the sum and substance of

the allegations in Ex.P-3 report.

18. Now, coming to the evidence of pw.1, his evidence in

substance its that he is looking after the Queens Bakery and

Sweets shop in RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam of LW.2. Ex.P-1 is

the authorization, dated 18.O9.1996, given to him to look after the

business. on 3O:O5.2OOO, he submitted the returns of that

business in the office Of DCTO for the assessment year 1999-20OO.

2024:APHC:1907

l7

AVRB,I

CrI.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

Ex.P-2 is the made up file in relation to his business. The DCTO at

that time was AO-1. On 09.06.2OOO in the evening he apet AO-1 in

his offlce and enquired him about his assessment order in relation

to Queens Bakery and Sweets shop following the returns

submitted by him. He replied that a sum of Rs.2,OOO/~ was to be

paid towards bribe. He expressed his inability to do so. AO-1

threatened him that he will inspect his shop and would not issue

the assessment. He asked him to bring the bribe amountlon

12.O6.2OOO. As he was not interested to pay the bribe, he

approached the DSP, ACE and lodged a report under Ex.P-3. DSP,

ACE asked him to come to his office On 12.06.2OOO along with the

proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,OOO/-. On 12.O6.2OOO at O1:3O

p.m. he went to the office of DSP, ACE where he was introduced

. with the mediators. Mediators confirmed from him about the

contents of the report lodged by him. He spoke of the pre-trap

events to the effect that he produced Rs.2,OOO/-before-DSP, ACB,

which contains one five hundred rupee note and fifteen One

I-lundred rupee notes and mediators noted down the serial

numbers in the 'pre-trap and he revealed that he was having

Rs.1,096/-personal cash, one bunch of keys and one mobile

phone. The DSP, ACE asked him to keep his personal cash and

keys in his left side pant-_ pocket and mobile in his right side pant

~ .

*_ -A

2024:APHC:1907

18

AVRB.I

CrI.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

pocket. DSP, ACE instructed Head Constable 633 to keep wad of

tainted am.ount of Rs.2,OOO/- in his left side shirt pocket, which

was applied with phenolphthalein powder. The DSP, ACE further

instructed him to pay the bribe amount only on further demand by .

AO-1.

19. His evidence in relation to the post-trap is that when he

proceeded to the IV Floor of Udyoga Bhavan to the office Of DCTO

at Suryabagh and met AO-1 with a request to issue assessment

order, AO-1 asked him whether the demanded bribe amount of

Rs.2,OOO/- was brought or not. He replied in positive. Then, he

asked to pay Rs.1,50O/-to him out of Rs.2,OOO/-and to pay

Rs.5OO/- to his clerk - B. Apparao (AO-2) and to collect the

assessment order from AO-2 on the same day. Accordingly, he .

gave Rs.1,5OO/- to AO-1 and retained Rs.50O/- in the

denomination of five one hundred rupee notes. AO-1 received

Rs.1,5OO/-;ith his right hand and counted the same and kept it

in his right side pant pocket. When he went to the Hall, where

AO-2 was seated, and asked AO-2 to issue the assessment order,

he asked h'im whether the bribe amount was paid or not. He

replied in positive. Then AO-2 questioned him as to whether AO-+I

directed him to pay any amount to him and accordingly, he paid

2024:APHC:1907

19

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

Rs.5OO/-to AO-2, who received the amount of Rs.500/-and put

the same in his zip bag of blue colour. Thereafter, AO-2 issued the

assessment order to him. Bx.P-4 is the assessment order issued to

him by AO-2 at that time. As per the instructions of AO-2, he

signed on the copy of the order as token of receipt {®.e., Ex.P-4.

AO-2 asked him to affix his Signature and date as 16.O5.2OOO

though it was issued to him on 12.O6.2OOO. Then he told him that

he submitted the returns way back on 3O.O5.2OOO for which Ab-2

replied that, DCTO (AO-1) will make some adjustments and he was

asked to affix the date as 16.O5.2OOO. In fact, Ex.P-4 was issued to

him on 12.06.2OOO. Ex.P-2(a) bears his signature on the copy of

assessment order in Ex.P-2 file. Then, he came out and gave signal

to the ACE officials. The ACE officials rushed there and asked him

to wait outside and, after half an hour, he was asked to enter

inside the office. He narrated the events to the ACE offic'ials.

2O. The prosecution examined pw.2, a mediator, who supported

the case of prosecution with regard to the pre-trap and post-trap

€,'vents. His evidence insofar as the post-trap concerned is to the

effect that on 12.O6.2OOO at O4:45 p.m. they received a signal

through SI Baburao. Immediately, they rushed into the office Of

AO-1 where PW.i was present in the corridor. He was instructed

\ \S.

2024:APHC:1907

20

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

to wait there for some time. They entered into the chambers of

AO-1. The DSP, ACE disclosed his identity particulars to AO-1 and

also introduced other mediators to AO-1. On hearing the identity

particulars of the DSP, ACE and other mediators, AO-1 took out

his hand from his right side pant pocket and kept his right hand `

to his back. On being asked by the DSP, ACE, AO-1 revealed his

identity particulars and showed the currency notes in his right

hand and on his instructions, AO-1 handed over the currency

notes to M. Prasad -(LW.12), a mediator. when the DSP, ACB got

conducted chemical test to both hand flngerS Of AO-1, it yielded

positive result. The denomination of the currency notes were

tallied with the pre-trap proceedings. The narration of AO-1 was

incorporated in the post-trap proceedings. The version of pw.'l

was also incorpor'ated in post-trap proceedings. The version of

AO-1 was confronted with pw.1. On the basis of the statement

made by PW.1, the DSP, ACE along with other mediators went to

the room of AO-2 and on seeing the ACE officials, AO-2 became

speechless and he started rubbing his hands to the handles of the

chair. The DSP, Ace asked AO-2 to disclose his identity

particulars and accordingly he disclosed his identity particulars.

When the DSP, ACE got conducted chemical test to both hand

fingers of AO-2, it yielded positive result. AO-2 stated that he kept

I.`` -b

2024:APHC:1907

21

AVRB,J

CrI.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

the money in a zip bag and itwas kept with a tea bunk owner -K.

Trinadh (LW.3) on hearing about the AO-1 being trapped by the

ACB officials. AO-2 led the raid party to LW.3 and pointed out

I,W.3 -tea stall owner as receiver of the zip bag. statement of LW.3

was accordingly recorded. LW.3 disclosed that he handed over the

z;ip bag to his wife - K. Padma (LW.4) who was waiting in the

ground floor. Then, they went to LW.4 and brought her back. She

handed over the zip bag to AO-2, who in turn opened the zip bag

and took the tainted amount of Rs.5OO/- and gave it to the

mediator. The serial numbers therein were tallied with the

numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. The chemical test

conducted to the inner linings of the zip 'bag yielded positive

I r'€sult. The zip bag was also seized by the DSP, ACE, which was

marked as MO.1O. The DSP, ACE conducted chemical test to the

I-ight side pant pocket of AO-1 which yielded positive -result. The

I)SP, ACE examined the version of pw.3 and his wife and it was

incorporated in the post-trap proceedings. He further spoke of the

seizure of records from the possession of AO-1 and AO-2.

21. It is a fact that PW.3 -Tea bunk owner and PW.4 -wife of

I]W.3 did not support the case of prosecution. The prosecution got

cleclared them as hostile. However, during their cross-examination

c-`

2024:APHC:1907

22

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

their statements under Pxs.P-17 and P-18 were marked by way of

confrontation.

22. Prosecution examined pw.5, the Assistant Commercial Tax

OfrlCer, Who teStifi1|ed that AO-1 -Deputy Commercial Tar Officer

and AO-2 - Senior Assistant worked in the DCTO Circle,

Suryabagh Branch, , Visakhapatnam. DCTO is empowered to

assess business turnover from rupees two lakhs to ten lakhs.

Sales Tax is exempted for secondary sales with respect to Bakery

and confectionaries. He had the jurisdiction between the Jail Road

and Poorna Market. RTC Complex comes within the jurisdiction of

DCTO, Suryabagh. The assessment under Ex.P-2 has to be filed

on or before 3Oth April and the assessment order has to be issued

within a period of one month from the date of filing of assessment

by shop keeper. Ex.P-2(a) is dated 16.O5.2OOO. AO did not bring to

his notice about I-he assessment made by pw.1. On 12.O6.2OOO,

he was in the office Of DCTO, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam. He was

examined by the DSP, ACE, and his statement was recorded in the

post-trap proceedings.

23. PW.6 is the Trap Laying Officer, Who spoke Of the

registration of FIR on the basis of Ex.P-3 report and he spoke of

2024:APHC:1907

23

AVRB,I

CrI.A. Mos.857 & 858/2007

the pre-trap and post-trap events. His evidence is similar with that

of the evidence of PW.2 -the mediator.

24. The learned defence counsel examined DW.1 before the tr:ial

court and he was mainly examined to speak of the conversation

between AO-2 and PW.1. His evidence in substance is that in the

month of June, 2OOO, he was in his office at the time'of ACE raid

against the Accused Officers. He knows that PW.1 was running

crown (sic) Bakery in RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam. On the d;te

of raid at about O4:OO p.m. he went to the seat of AO-2 to collect

white papers and found PW.1 near the table of AO-2. While he was

collecting white papers, he heard that PW.1 was asking AO-2 to

s`,ettle his case with the DCTO and also offering him some amount,

for which AO-2 replied to PW.1 that he can settle his matter with

I)CTO directly. He went to computer room after collecting white

papers and at the same time PW.1 left the place and went towards

Chambers of AO-1. Half an hour later, while he was in the

computer room, ACE officials called him and other staff members

€lnd he was orally examined by the ACE officials. He can identify

the carriage bag of AO-2 as he used to get carriage in that bag.

MO.10 is the zip bag shown to the witness. He stated that MO.1O

2024:APHC:1907

24

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

was not the carriage bag of AO-2 as he never saw MO.1O bag or

similar bag with AO.2.

25. Admittedly, it is a case where the prosecution presented two

occasions where AO-1 was alleged to have demanded pw.1 to pay

the bribe of Rs.2,OOO/-. First demand was on o9.O6.2OOO with a

direction to PW.1 to bring the bribe amount on 12.O6.2OOO. The '

second demand was on 12.O6.2OOO during the post-trap to the

effect that AO-1 demanded PW.1 to pay Rs.1,50O/- out of

Rs.2,OOO/-to AO-1 and the rest of Rs.5OO/-to AO-2 to get the

assessment order. The allegation of demand against AO-2 was on

12.O6.20OO during the post trap where he demanded pw.1 to pay

bribe of Rs.5OO/- and upon payment of the same, he issued the

assessment order. It is a fact that pw.1 spoke of both the

demands I'.e., O9.O6.2OOO and 12.06.2OOO against AO-1 and

further demand on 12.O6.2OOO against AO-2. The findings of the

learned Special Judge were that there was no corroboration to the

evidence of PW.1 with regard to the demand dated o9.06.2000 and

further the demand dated 12.06.2OOO and ultimately the findings

of the learned Special Judge were that the prosecution failed to

prove the allegations of demand of bribe against AO-1 and AO-2.

The peculiar features of the judgment further were that the

2024:APHC:1907

25

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

learned Special Judge convicted both the Accused Officers for the

charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

26. Proving of demand is a sI-71e-gZJCZ-71Orl tO establish the guilt

under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. As rightly

pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the RespondentState, it is absolutely within the province of this court to decide in

both the Appeals which arose against the conviction and sentence

under section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act asl to

whether the evidence on record would establish the demand.

Though this Court is handicapped now to deal with the allegations

under Section 7 of the PC Act for want of any Appeal by the

prosecution/State but as the legality of the conviction and

Sentence is under challenge in the present Appeals, this Court can

as well re-appraise the evidence on record to decide whether the

a,'vidence on record established the demand, which is a sI®rte-quCZ7lOrl for the Offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Sectiori 13(2) of the

PC Act.

2,7. Turning to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in P.

Saftyanclragana MttrtJlty (1st supra), the HonJble Apex Court held

that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the

-accused, without proof of demand` would not establish the

J^

2024:APHC:1907

26

AVRB.J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. Apart from this, in

view of the decision of Honble Apex Court in P. Safty¢naraganor

Mrt,rfhg (1st szJPra), a Presumption under Section 2O of the PC Act

cannot be drawn insofar as the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of th'e PC Act is concerned. It was also laid down in

the decision of the Honble Apex Court in B. Uagaraj (5th supro) -

that applicability of Section 20 of the PC Act can only prove the

offence under Section 7 of the PC Act but not under Section

13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Needless to point out

here that the learned Special Judge took aid of Section 20 of the

PC Act so as to convict the Accused OfflCerS under Section 13(1)(d)

R/w. Sectioi 13(2) of the PC Act. Apart from this the Honjble Apex

Court in Neerdy Dutta v. State (Government of NOT of Dethlf,

categorically held that Section 2O of the PC Act does not apply to

Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the PC Act. According to the decision of the

Honble Apex Court in jVeeraj Dt,tta (6th sttpra), demand is a sl'rl€,-

qzJCZ-rlO71 tO establish the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

28. Now, as the legality of the judgment under section 13(1)(d)

R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is under challenge, I would like to

6 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724

--r

2024:APHC:1907

27

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

re-appreciate the evidence on record as to wh,ether the evidence on

. record would prove the allegations of demand so as to constitute

the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC

Act. With regard to pendency of official favour, the Case Of the

prosecution is that PW.1 submitted the returns on 30.05.2000 but

AO-1 did not issue the assessment order and he demanded the

bribe on 09.06.2000 as well as on 12.O6.2OOO and in pursuance of

a,uch demands, PW.1 paid Rs.1,5OO/-to AO-1 and in pursuance of

the demand of AO-1, he approached AO-2 where he demanded

bribe of Rs.50O/- and accordingly he paid Rs.50O/- to AO-2. It is

to be noted that corroboration to the testimony of PW.1 can be in

any form. It is a case where the prosecution has come up with a

c;se that tainted amount of Rs.1,5OO/-was re;overed from AO-1

physically and both the hand fingers of AO-1 and inner linings of

trouser pocket of AO-1 also yielded positive result. There is no

.clispute that the tainted amount of Rs.1,5OO/-was recovered from

the possession of AO-1 and his both hand lingers yielded positive

result and further the inner linings of the right trouser pocket of

AO-1 also yielded positive result. These circumstances corroborate

the evidence of PW.1, in my considered view.

2024:APHC:1907

28

AVRB.J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

29. Coming to the thrusting theory set forth by AO-1 during the

course of cross-examination, PW.1 denied that when he put some

amount on the table of AO-1, AO-1 asked him that he need not

pay any amount and asked him to go to AO-2 to pick up the

assessment order and after some time PW.1 met the AO-1 and

tried to handover' the amount and when AO-1 warded off the

attempt of pw.1, he forcibly kept the tainted amount of Rs.1,5OO/-

into the trouser pocket of AO-1. PW.1 denied such a defence

theory. The defence of AO-2 before PW.1 was that he tried to give

the amount of Rs.5OO/-and he warded off his attempt and then

pw.1 went away. So, the defence of AO-2 was that when he

warded of the attempt of pw.1 to receive the amount of Rs.5OO/-,

his hands might have touched the phenolphthalein powder. It is to

be noted that pw.1 testified the demand dated 12.O6.2OOO against

AO-1 and AO-2 during the course of evidence. It is to be noted that

according to the evidence of PW.5, an assessee under the

commercial Ten Department was supposed to file the returns on

or before 30th April. The evidence of PW.1 was that he submitted

the returns on 3O.O5.2OOO but he was handed over the

assessment order on 12.O6.2OOO with ante date. The defence of

Accused Officers Was that deliberately PW.1 carried the

assessment'order which he received on 16.O5.2OOO during the

2024:APHC:1907

29

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

post~trap without knowledge of the ACE officials. It is very difficult

to accept such a contention. The evidence of PW.5 regarding the

procedural aspects that the assessment returns were to be

submitted on or before 30th April was not challenged by the

Accused Officers. When that is the situation, it is not

understandable as to how AO-1 could receive the assessment

clocuments on 16.05.2OOO. It is quite improbable to assume that

when pw.1 made the assessment applicatio'n on 16.O5.20OO,I on

I the same day both the Accused Officers processed the same. So, it

goes to show that out of innocence or otherwise, pw.1 could not

a,ubmit the returns on or before 3O.O4.2OOO but he co'uld submit

the same at the end of May, 20OO but the fact remained is that the

a.ignatures of PW.1 were obtained with antedate as 16.O5.20OO.

30. The evidence of PW.1 disclosed that he voluntarily intimated

to the DSP, ACE at the time of post-trap about the personal cash

and also mobile phone and the DSP, ACE took precautions to say

that his personal cash was to be kept in another pocket.

I Absolutely, PW.1 had no motive at all to file a false case against

the Accused Officers. There was no animosity existing between

PW.1 and AO-1 at one hand and AO-1 and AO-2 at an6ther hand.

When PW.1 had a valid authorization from LW.2 -M. Tarakeswari

2024:APHC:1907

30

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

to look after the business affairs of Queens Bakery and Sweets.,

AO-1 had no business to insist for the presence of original

assessee. Absolutely, there was no necessity for AO-1 to insist for

the presence of original assessee. If the presence of original

assessee was required, there was no possibility for AO-1 to cause

issuance of' Ex.P-2(a) -assessment order. so, his defence that

when he insisted for the presence of original assessee, he was

falsely implicated cannot stand to any reason. Absolutely, there

were no doubtful circumstances in the evidence of pw.1 to

disbelieve his testimony. The prosecution with consistent evidence

proved the pendency of offlCial favour.

31. The oral evidence of pw.1 with regard to the allegations of

demand had corroboration from other aspects l'.e., recovery of the

tainted amount from AO-1 and further recovery of the tainted

amount from PW.4 at the instance of AO-2. Though PW.3 and

PW.4 did not support the case of prosecution, there is evidence of

PW.2, independent mediator, who acted as a mediator for the first

time in ACE trap case that AO-2 during the post-trap proceedings

disclosed that he handed over tainted amount which was kept in

the zip bag to PW.3 and PW.3 disclosed that he handed over the

zip bag to PW.4. PW.2 -the mediator, who acted as a mediator for

2024:APHC:1907

3l

AVRB,I

t)rI.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

the first time in ACE trap case, had no reason to depose false. The

evidence of PW.2 and PW.6 - Trap Laying OfflCer iS quite

consistent throughout. So, both hand fingers of AO-2 yielded

positive result when they were subjected to chemical test. In my

considered view, the testimony of PW.1 with regard to his

allegations of demand of bribe against AO-1 and AO-2 had support

from various circumstances referred to above:

32. The findings of the learned Special Judge that lthe

prosecution did not prove the allegations of demand are not at all

sustainable on facts. It is to be noted that, according to the settled

legal position, proof of demand is a s['rle-qZJCl-71On even.tO Prove the

charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. As

the very conviction and sentence is impugned in both these

Appeals, this Court has every power to re-appraise the evidence to

clecide as to whether the evidence on record would establish the

demand which is a s{'neqzJCl-rtO71 tO Prove the dffenCe under Section

I 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Hence, this Court would

like to differ with the filndingS Of the learned Spe-cial Judge that the

prosecution did not prove the allegations of demand. Having given

such a finding, t.he learned Special lJudge bent upon to convict the

Accused Officers under Section 13(1)(d)R/w. Section '13(2) of the

2024:APHC:1907

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

32

PC Act. As the very conviction and sentence is under challenge, ,

now this Court on re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record

with regard to Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is

of the considered view that the evidence of pw.1 proved the

allegations demand against AO-1 and AO-2 on the date of trap t'.e.,

12.O6.2OOO.

33. Turning to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in StljiC

B£stt,as (3rd szJPrCZ), Cited by learned defence counsel, this court

admits that a conviction cannot be based on mere surmises and

conjectures or suspicion. As the prosecution in this caseo

established the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of

the PC Act and also under Section 2OI IPC, with consistent

evidence, the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Sttj£t B£srous

(3rd szJPra), iS Of nO use tO the contention Of the defence. Turning to

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in mnjabrao (4th sttpro), it

has no application to the present case on hand as the defence of

both the Accused Officers iS not at all tenable. Turning to the

decision of the HonJble Apex Court in a.P. Rao (2nd suprcz), it is a

case where the complainant could not be examined by the

prosecution and in such circumstances, the Honble-Apex Court

declined to interfere with the order of acquittal. The facts in a.p.

_I2024:APHC:1907

33

AVRB,I

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

J3ao (2nd szJPra) Cannot be made applicable to the present case on

hand as in this case the complainant was examined and fully

supported the case of prosecution.

34. As pointed out, the prosecution did not flle any Appeal

challenging the order of acquittal of AO-1 and AO-2 of the charge

under Section 7 of the PC Act. In view of the above reasons, this

Court is of the considered view that the evidence on record

categorically proved the charge under section 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of the PC Act against AO-1 and AO-2.

35. Turning to the charge under section 2OI IPC against AO-2,

the evidence of pw.2 ~ the mediator and tile evidence Of PW.6 -

Trap Laying Officer would establish the fact that on sensing that

ACE trap party rushed into the ofrlCe Of Accused Officers, AO-2

with a deliberate intention, handed over the zip bag to pw.3, who

in turn passed over i.he same to pw.4. Though PW.3 and PW.4

turned hostile, there is categorical evidence of .pw.2 and PW.6 in

this regard. So, prosecution established further that AO-2 with an

intention to screen away the offence under section 13(1)(d) R/w.

Section 13(2) of the PC Act, handed over the zip bag to pw.3, who

in turn passed over the same to pw.4. Hence, in the considered

2024:APHC:1907

34

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

view of this Court; the evidence on record is sufficient to convict

and sentence the AO-2 for the charge under section 2OI IPC.

36. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the

evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and believable so

as to sustain the conviction under section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section

13(2) of the PC Act and also under section 2OI IPC as such there

are no merits in both these Appeals. The points are answered

accordingly.

37. In the result, both these Criminal Appeal are dismissed.

38. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under '

Section 388 Cr.P.C to certify the common judgment of this court

along with the trial Court record, if any, to the learned Ill

Additional District and Sessions Judge-Gum-Special |Judge for

ACE Cases, Visakhapatnam on or before 31.O1.2O24 and on such

certification, the learned Special Judge shall take necessary step,s

to carry out the remaining sentence imposed against the Appellant

in Criminal Appeal No.857 of 2OO7 i.e., Accused OfflCer No.2 in

C.C. No.29 of 2OO1, dated 21.06.2OO7, and to report compliance to

this Court. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar

.--

2024:APHC:1907

35

AVRB,J

Crl.A. Nos.857 & 858/2007

(,Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the

concerned Officers in the Registry.

39. As the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.858 of 2OO7 I-.e.,

AO-1 is no more, there is no need to take any further ;tops insofar

as Criminal Appeal No.858 of 2OO7 is concerned.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

sD/-S.V.S.R. MURTHY

//TRUE COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

one Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice A.V Ravindra Babu

(For His Lordships' Kind Perusal)

Toll. The Ill Additional District and Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for ACB

cases, visakhapatnam, visakhapatnam district (along with trial Court

record)

2. The Registrar(Judicial),High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi(for

information and necessary action)

3. The Station House Officer, ACB, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district

4. One CC to Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy Standing Counsel for ACB Gum Special

public Prosecutor Advocate [OUT]

7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amaravathi [OUT]

8. 9 L.R cop'les

9. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company

Affairs, New Delhi

10.The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association Library,

High Court Buildings at Amaravathi

ll. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, H'lgh Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amaravathi

12.Three CD Copies

Stu

ssb

8V,wl.

2024:APHC:1907

HIGH COURT

DATED..22/01 /2024

COMMON JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.857 AND 858 of 2007

o 6 FED 2024

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Lti uliQ)

4VJV

6.L.L|/

2024:APHC:1907