IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 456 OF 2009 & 459 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 456 of 2009 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of Special Judge for ACB Cases -cum- III Additional District and sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in CC.No. 39 of 2004 dated 06.04.2009. Between: Sistu Vykunta Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, P.G.Teacher -cum- Deputy Warden, APSWRS/Junior College, Gollakanchili, Srikakulam District. R/o. Radha Vallabhapuram Village, Post Polavaram, Kanchili Mandal, ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED N0.2 AND The State , rep by Inspector of police ACB, Srikakulam Vizianagaram Range, Rep by Spl. PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI. BADETI VENKATA RATHNAM Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S.SYAM SUNDER RAO STANDING COUNSEL CUM SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR ACB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 459 OF 2009 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of the Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, in CC.No.39/2004, dt.06*^ day of April 2009. Between: Alamanda Jojappa (A-1), S/o Late Rayappa, aged 43 years. Principal, APSWR School/Junior College, Gollakanchili, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED N0.1 AND State of A.P., rep.by Inspector of Police, Krishna ACB, Srikakulam District, Vizianagaram Range, Rep by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S.SYAM SUNDER RAO STANDING COUNSEL CUM SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR ACB The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.456 of 2009 & 459 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 06.04.2009 in C.C.No.39 of 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), they are being disposed of, by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2009 has been preferred 2. by A02, and Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2009 has been preferred by AOl, in the aforesaid C.C. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Special 3. Judge found AOs.l and 2 guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), accordingly convicted them of the said charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each, for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and Section 34 IPC, 2 and further sentenced for a period of to undergo rigorous imprisonment one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each, for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) 34 IPC. Both the read with 13 (2) of the Act and Section sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution is as follows, was working as Principal, APSWR School/ Junior College, Gollakanchili, Kanchili AO.l mandal and A02 working as P.T.Teacher-cum-Deputy Warder said institution, and both under Section 2 (c) of the Act. was of the are public servants as defined L.W.l-Gummadi Saradhi was a Vegetable Contractor. He obtained Tender for supply eggs, to A.P.S.W.R. School/ Junior College, Gollakanchili, supplied the of vegetables, fruits, sweets. same in the month of September, 2003 and submitted bill for On 18.10.2003, he met AO.l and Rs.48,546/- to AO.2. requested to pass the bill. On that, AO.l demanded bribe of Rs.7,000/- to do the official favour of passing the bill and issue cheque. On his request, AO.l reduced the demanded amount to Rs.5,000/- and stated that unless the bribe amount is paid, the bill would not be passed and AO.l instructed AO.2 to cheque would not be issued. AO.l collect the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from him. instructed him to bring the bribe amount within 4 or 5 days. Thereafter, AO.2 took him to hostel and demanded Rs.5,000/- to do official favour to sign on bills and submit the same to AO.l, and when he expressed his inability. AO.2 reduced the bribe to Rs.3,000/- and instructed to bring the amount. Unwilling to pay the same, he presented a written report to P.W.2, who registered a case in crime No. lO/RC-ACB/VZM/2003 basing on the said report, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act. After completion of pre-trap proceedings, the trap was laid on 21.10.2003 at 12.30 noon in the presence of mediators. L.W. 1-Gummadi Saradi went into office of AOl and P.W.l took vantage position near the door of office At that time, AOs.l and 2 were present in room of AOl. On seeing L.W. 1-Gummadi the office room of AO.l. Saradi, AOs. 1 and 2 enquired about the bribe amount, for 4 i which he responded positively, hand over the bribe handed over the bribe AO.l instructed him to amount to AO.2. Accordingly, he amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- to AO.2, who received the same. Immediately, AO.l called L.W.4-G.Eswara Rao, Office Superintendent to bring cheque book by filling the bill amount. Later, L.W.l- out and relayed the pre-arranged signal. Chemical test conducted to right hand of AO.2 Gummadi Saradi came gave AO.2 produced tainted currency notes. positive result. whose numbers are tallied with the one mentioned in pre- P.W.2 took up further investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and trap proceedings. seized material objects, and after receipt of sanction order and completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet. 5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and, on considering the material on record, charges under Seetions 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act framed against AOs.l and 2. When the respective eharges were were 5 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.l to 5 examined and Exs.Pl to P15 were marked, besides 6. were case properties M.Os.l to 9. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the were incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. D.W.l was examined and no documents were marked, on behalf of defence. After hearing both sides and appreciating the 8. evidence on record, the learned Special Judge found the appellants guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeals were filed. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for 9. appellant/AO. 1 in Criminal Appeal No.459 of 2009 and Sri Badeti Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for appellant/ 6 AO.2 in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2009, and Sri S.Syam Sundar Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. Perused the record. 10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the informant-L.W. 1-Gummadi Saradi, criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.Pl 1-written report, died before commencement of trial, and the entire case of prosecution rests who set the the evidence of the alleged accompanying witness P.W.l, and there is any amount of ambiguity in relying upon the evidence of P.W.l for on the reason that the mediator who examined during post trap proceedings has never mentioned with regard to was presence of P.W.l at the scene of offence. He further submits that basing on the evidence of P.W.l, the accused officers cannot be convicted for the reason that the evidence of P.W.l would be on par with an interested witness in order to favour the prosecution. It is his submission that P.W.l deposed that when the informant went inside the room of AO.l, he was waiting at the entrance door of the office room of AO.l, and according to 7 his evidence in cross-examination, measurement of the room of AO.l is 20 x 15 feet, and in such a case, P.W.l would not be in a position to say exactly what transpired The learned counsel submits there in the office room. that P.W.l would not be in a position to hear what transpired in the office room at the relevant point of time of The learned counsel submits that even the incident. according to evidence of P.W.l, he was orally instructed by the Executive Engineer to appear in ACB office and in the pre-trap proceedings, there is no reference of the oral instructions of the employer, and therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.l alone, which is uncorroborated, to maintain a conviction. It is his submission that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the demands allegedly made by the appellants/accused officers on earlier occasions prior to the date of trap, and it cannot be said that the alleged demands on earlier dates are proved to be established beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that there is no impeaching evidence to establish the alleged demand and hr: acceptance of the bribe officers, but these Court in right perspective, convictions and sentences Judge against the appellants. amount by the appellants/accused trial prays to set aside the recorded by the learned Special aspects were not considered by the Hence, he 11- On the other hand. Prosecutor the learned Additional Public appearing for respondent/A.C.B. submitted that though the informant-L.W.l-Gummadi Saradi before died commencement of trial, the evidence of P.W.l, who accompanying witness, is consistent with regard to the demand and IS an acceptance of bribe amount by the appellants/accused officers there is on the date of the trap, and recovery of tainted amount from the possession of appellant/AO.2 and an official favour appellants/accused officers was pending with the on the date of trap; that as there .s no reason for P.W.l to foist a false case of this nature against the appellants unless bribe amount. they demanded the It is his submission that any, in the evidence of P.W. 1 contradictions, if would not go to the root of As regards acceptance, he the case of the prosecution. 9 ( ,i\a i. - submits that appellant/AO.2, accepted the tainted money on the instructions of AO.l. He submits that the learned Special Judge, upon considering the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 12. Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of appellants/accused officers 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge needs interference by this Court? any The charges framed against appellants/AOs. 1 and 2 are punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the Act are - 13. i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official 11) as a motive 10 act or for showing exercise of his official function to any person. 14. Insofar forbearing to show, in the favour or disfavour or as Section 13 (1| (d) of the Act iIS concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i)that he should have been (iijthat he should have used a public servant; corrupt or illegal means, or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and (iii)that he should have obtained thing or pecuniaiy advantage for himself for any other person. a valuable or 15. It is the case of the public servant Junior College, Gollakanchili, relevant point of time of the incident prosecution that AO.l, being working as Principal, APSWR School/ Kanchili mandal at the demanded bribe from was a Vegetable Contractor, for Rs.48,546/- for L.W.l-Gummadi Saradhi, who for passing the bill submitted by him supply of vegetables, fruits, School/Junior College, Gollakanchili, cheque, on 18.10.2003, and instructed A02, public servant working as P.T.Teacher of the said institution at the relevant sweets, eggs, to A.P.S.W.R. and for issuing who was a -cum-Deputy Warder point of time of the ,^/5 incident, to collect the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from It is further alleged that AO.2 also demanded on bills him. Rs.3,000/- from him to do official favour to sign and submit the same to AO.l. The informant L.W. 1-Gummadi Saradhi died before commencement of trial. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the solitary testimony of P.Wl, who was working Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Section, Ponduru, who was arrayed as accompanying witness along with the informant L.W. 1-Gummadi Saradhi, the date of trap, with regard to the alleged demand of illegal gratification by appellants / AO s. 1 and 2 and acceptance thereof by appellant/AO.2 on the instructions of appellant/AO.l. When a case rests on the solitary testimony of a witness, it is settled law that it must be consistent, cogent and trustworthy and it has to be placed in the category of ‘wholly reliable’. In such a case, there is legal bar to base conviction basing on the testimony of solitary witness. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a 16. as on no 12 decision in Vadivelu Thevar wherein it vs. the State of Madras^, was held thus; (Paragraph No. 10) “Generally speaking oral context may be classiifed into these namely: (i)wholly reliable (ii)wholly unreliable testimony in this categories, (iii)Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable In the first category of proof the should have Court difficulty in coming to its no conclusion either way it may convict acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to he above reproach interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has or may on suspicion of no to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.” 17. P.W.l deposed in his evidence that on the date of the trap, himself and the informant L.W. 1-Gummadi Saradhi went to the office of AO.l, and the informant the room of AO.l and he went inside was waiting at the entrance of AIR 1957 SC 614. 13 door of the office room of AO.l. It is his further evidence that on seeing the informant L.W. 1-Gummadi Saradhi AO.l asked about the demanded amount, for which the informant replied positively, and on that AO.l directed the informant to give the amount to AO.2. It is his further evidence that the informant picked up the amount from his shirt pocket and handed over to AO.2, and AO.2 received the same and kept on the table of AO.l. It is his further evidence that thereafter, AO.l called the Office Superintendent and asked him to bring the bill and cheques pertaining to the informant, and accordingly, he went outside in order to bring the bill and cheques, and thereafter, the pre-arranged signal was given by the informant, pursuant to which the trap party entered the room of AO.l and post-trap proceedings took place. 18. P.W.2 worked as Inspector of Police, ACB, Vizianagaram at the relevant point of time of the incident. He deposed about registration of the subject crime under Ex.P12 basing on Ex.PI 1-report dated nil, lodged by L.W.l- Gummadi Saradhi, conducting pre-trap, laying the trap V, 14 and conducting post-trap proceedings, as Inspector of Police, ACB, Srikakulam, DSP during pre-trap and post-trap further investigation in P.W.3 also worked who assisted the proceedings, conducted the subject crime and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation and receipt of relevant documents. 19. P.W.4 worked as Section Officer, Social Welfare He deposed about issuance of Department, Secretariat. sanction orders under Exs.P13 and Principal Secretary to the Government, Department Mr. Ajendra Paul, to prosecute the appellants/ AOs. 1 and 2 respectively. PI4 by the then Social Welfare 20. P.W.5 worked as Principal of A.P. Social Welfare He deposed regarding issuance of Ex.P3 (a) proceedings, accepting the tender of Residential School, Srikakulam. L.W.l-Saradhi for supply of vegetables, fruits, sweets to Residential School, Kanchili. He deposed that the supplier will present the bill before the Deputy Warden, who in turn prepare the bill and forward the same to the eggs and 15 the bill after Principal concerned, who will pass verification. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 21. appellants that P.W.l is a planted witness and the mediator who was examined during post-trap proceedings has never mentioned with regard to presence of P.W.l at It is his submission that admittedly, the scene of offence. P.W.l, being a witness to the pre-trap proceedings (Ex.P2) and post-trap proceedings (Ex.PlO), is an interested witness, and hence, in the absence of evidence of the informant and in the absence of corroboration, his evidence cannot be relied upon. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 goes to show that 22. on the date of the trap, when the informant went inside the room of AO.l, he was waiting at the entrance door of the office room of AO.l, and on seeing the informant L.W.l- Gummadi Saradhi, AO.l asked about the demanded amount, for which the informant replied positively, and on that AO.l directed the informant to give the amount to The evidence of P.W.l is silent on the aspect of AO.2. 16 AO.2 demanding the amount of Rs.3,000/- asked by him paying the same, on the date of as bribe and the informant trap. Whereas, in his statement iin post-trap proceedings Ex.PlO, he stated that A02 demanded money for himself and the informant stated that he brought the money for A02 also and accordingly handed over the said amount to A02. Therefore, there is a clear omission on this material aspect in the evidence of P.W. 1. 23. P.W.l deposed in his evidence as if he witnessed the entire transaction that took place between the officers and the informant accused on the date of trap. According to his evidence in cross-examination, measurement of the room of AO.l is 20 x 15 feet, and according to his evidence, he was standing outside the door of the office room of AO.l. In cross-examination, when a suggestion was put to him that he did not hear the transaction in the room and it was not audible to the alleged place where he stood, he denied the same. But, he did not elaborate that he witnessed the transaction. Therefore, there is any amount of ambiguity whether P.W.l witnessed the "N 17 transaction or heard the same from outside the room of AO.l. 24. A perusal of the recitals in post trap proceedings Ex.PlO goes to show that one Rada Satyam, Sweeper of APSWR School/Junior College, Gollakanchili, Kanchili mandal stated that on 21.10.2003, he was standing in front of office room of the Principal, and at 12.45 PM, the informant went inside the office of the Principal, and within 5 or 10 minutes, he came out from the room of the Principal, and the Office Superintendent went inside with Presence of the said Attendee in front of some papers. door of room of the Principal is quite natural. Even P.W. 1 stated that one Attendee Satyam was present at the entrance of AO.l room. His presence cannot be ruled out. But, he did not specifically state that another person was standing at the door of office room of AO.l. If really P.W.l was standing at the door of office room of AO.l, he would have certainly stated about presence of P.W. 1 at the door of office room of AOl at the time of trap. But, there is no such recital in his statement. In view of the same, there is 18 any amount of ambiguity about door of the office Further, P.W.l stated i Executive Engineer orally instructed office. He admitted that i presence of P.W. 1 at the room of AO.l at the time of the trap. in cross-examination that the then him to appear in ACB pre-trap proceedings, there i no reference of oral instructions of his in IS employer, an Assistant Executive Admittedly, P.W.l working as was Engineer, Rural Water without authorization from his Supply Section, Ponduru. But, employer from his employer to participate in the trap proceedings. 25. When a case rests upon the evidence of witness, unimpeachable and above board. solitary testimony of a his evidence must be In the light of the aforesaid infirmities and in the absence of any orders from his superior, there is any amount of ambiguity with regard to his participation in the trap proceedings, especially he Witnessing the incident proper. Therefore, P.W. 1 cannot be termed as a wholly reliable witness, evidence requires corroboration. In such a case, his Except his evidence, there is absolutely no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to 19 establish the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe amount made by the appellants. There is no substantive evidence of the informant. Further, the evidence of P.W. 1 does not substantiate the earlier demand allegedly made by the appellants. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that an implicit reliance cannot be placed on the solitary testimony of P.W. 1 to base the conviction, and it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants/AOs. 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 26. appellants that in the absence of any evidence of the informant, the alleged earlier demand made by the appellants on 18.10.2003 is not established, and if the said part of the prosecution story is held to be not accepted. conviction cannot be based on the other part, which cannot stand by itself in the absence of proof of the vital part beyond reasonable doubt, in order to attract the offences alleged against the appellants/AOs. 1 and 2, it is essential that all the essential ingredients of offences alleged have to be made out. There cannot be any dispute that earlier ^ ■ 20 demands are integral part of subsequent acceptance, and it is just and demand which has been demand and necessary that earlier made by the appellants / AOs.l and 2 has to be proved, so lodge a complaint before ACB. as to lead the informant , to 27. According to the case of when the informant L.W. AO.l, who i ■ prosecution, on 18.10.2003, 1-Gummadi Saradhi approached IS Warden-cum-Principai of the Institution and requested to bribe to do the official favour pass the bill, he demanded Rs.7,000/- as of passing the bill and issuing and on the the cheque for Rs.48,546/-, the informant. AO.l reduced further alleged that working P.T.Teacher- request made by the same to Rs.5,000/-. It is on the same day, A02, who was cum-Deputy Warden, also demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- to do the official favour of signing the bills and submitting the AO. 1, and on the the same to Rs.3,000/-. 1-Gummadi Saradhi died Admittedly, P.W.l has request of the informant, he reduced In the on hand, the informant L.W. case before commencement of trial, witnessed when AOs. 1 not and 2 made the earlier demand for 21 bribe from the informant on 18.10.2003. Therefore, there piece of evidence to substantiate the earlier demands made by the accused officers. is no substantive 28. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision i Hari Dev Sharma m vs. State (Delhi Administration^, the HonT)le Supreme Court held thus (paragraph No.3): The High Court on appeal preferred by the appellant before us did not accept the prosecution first two charges on the ground that it would be unsafe to hold on the bare testimony of the complainant that Rs.20 had been paid to the appellant as alleged. Apparently, the High Court looked case on the upon the complainant as a witness not to be believed unless his evidence was corroborated by other evidence. The High Court however accepted the other part of the prosecution case that the appellant had been caught while accepting Rs.70 as bribe from the complainant. One circumstance which appears to have impressed the learned Judge was that the complainant harassed by various objections raised application ever since 1964 when the property purchased. It appears however that the started dealing with the file only from July 1966, and the earliest of the notes made by him on the file was dated July 20, 1968. Admittedly, the complainant was being on his was appellant met ^ (1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 352. I 22 the appellant for the ifrst time on January 29, 1969 and, that being objections raised it is dififcult to hold that the so. prior to this date were calculated to put pressure on the complainant. It is hardly reasonable to think that the appellant could anticipate what m fact followed. Besides, the appellant could not have been responsible for any objection raised between 1964 and July 1966. But the main dififculty we feel i accepting the prosecution in case arises out of the fact part of it which. that the High Court disbelieved the according to the prosecution. was the genesis of the case. Having disbelieved the story that the appellant had asked for a bribe of Rs 100 of which Rs 20 was paid in advance, we do not think the High Court could reasonably proceed on what was left of the prosecution case to afifrm the order of the conviction passed by the trial court. The prosecution case was one integrated story which the trial court had accepted. If the High Court did not find it possible to accept a vital part of the story, it is difficult to see how the other part, which did not stand by itself, could be accepted. It was not the prosecution case that Rs 70 which was recovered from the appellant was the amount that the appellant had asked for from the complainant. This was a new case made by the High Court. Undoubtedly there circumstances in this case which are highly suspicious against the appellant, but the High Court having disbelieved an essential part of the prosecution are case on which the other part was dependant, we do not 23 consider it safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentences passed against the appellant. ” There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution 29. case is one integrated story. In view of lack of substantive evidence with regard to the alleged demand made by the appellants on the earlier occasion, it is difficult to accept a vital part of the story i.e. earlier demand made by the appellants on 18.10.2003, which is the genesis of the case. In the absence of the same, the other part of the prosecution story did not stand by itself and the same is also not acceptable. 30. With regard to the fact that tainted money was recovered from AO.2 and chemical test conducted on the hands of AO.2 gave positive result, mere recovery of tainted currency, by itself, is not a ground to find a person guilty of the offences alleged. The prosecution failed to establish the earlier demand and the demand on the date of the trap made by the appellants. In the absence of the same, the 24 appellants cannot be found guilty of the charges levelled against the appellants. 31. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants for the charges leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective and erred i convicting and sentencing the appellants. in Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 32. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed, setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants, in the judgment dated 06.04.2009 in C.C.No.39 of 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. The appellants are found not guilty of the charges leveled against them and accordingly acquitted of the said charges and they at liberty. Fine amounts, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. are are set 25 / Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if pending in these Criminal Appeals shall stand closed. t any. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR /r SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Special Judge for ACB Cases -cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District (with records ) 2. The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Srikakulam District, Vizianagaram Range 3. One CC to Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N Ravi Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Sri. S.Syam Sunder Rao Standing Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 7. THREE CD COPIES stu TAG » HIGH COURT •Ik’- DATED:18/06/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.456 & 459 of 2009 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS