APHC010891292016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 514/2016 Between: KOVVADA SRIRAMULU, SRIKAKULAM DIST., S/O. LATE RAMAYYA, AGED 42 YEARS, NAYARAVALARA VILLAGAE, REGIDI, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND State of A.P. rep., by Standing Counsel for SPE and ACB cases, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 28.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.no.71/2016 in STC No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases - cum- III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRC.MP 697 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in S.T.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases- cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case before this Hon'ble Court. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 2 DR.YLR,J CRL.R.C.No.514 of 2016 Dated 04.07.2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order of Stay granted in Crl.R.C.No. 514 of 2016 dt 20-08- 2016 pending before this Honble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: C SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order, dated 28.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.71 of 2016 in STC.No.03 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam whereby and whereunder the learned trial judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 344(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) seeking to stay the proceedings in STC against the petitioner/accused till the disposal of Criminal Appeal on the file of this Court which was filed challenging the Judgment in C.C.No.27 of 2010 acquitting the accused officer by the learned Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB for the respondent-State. 3 DR.YLR,J CRL.R.C.No.514 of 2016 Dated 04.07.2025 3. Mr Ismail, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of Revision, submits that Section 344(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’, mandates the Court, which is going to take up the case against the person, who had allegedly resorted in giving false evidence, to grant stay of the case pending before it, when an appeal is preferred against the Judgment in which the person had given false evidence. Therefore, the order of the learned Special Judge is not correct and against the spirit of Section 344(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and stay of all further proceedings in STC.No.3 of 2014 shall be granted and maintained till the disposal of Crl.A(SR).No.51067 of 2014 pending on the file of this Court. 4. On the other hand, Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB submits that the observation given by the learned Special Judge in declining to grant stay is sound and reasonable inasmuch as there is no appeal preferred by the State or any person against the observations passed against the petitioner herein while acquitting the accused officer. In other words, he submits that neither the prosecution nor the petitioner nor the accused officer preferred any appeal challenging the findings of the learned Special Judge made against the petitioner in Judgment in C.C.No.27 of 2010, and he urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 4 DR.YLR,J CRL.R.C.No.514 of 2016 Dated 04.07.2025 6. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order, dated 28.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.71 of 2016 in STC.No.03 of 2014 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. A fair reading of Section 344(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’, it can be gleaned that the legislature has not discriminated between the appeal preferred at the behest of the prosecution and the appeal preferred by the accused. Section 344(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’, mandates that the Court of Sessions or a Magistrate of the First Class shall stay further proceedings of the summary trial until disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon further proceedings of the trial of the summary case shall abide by the result of the appeal or the application for revision. 8. Indeed, the legislature has taken care of the situation to ensure that, in case the appeal preferred, either at the instance of the prosecution or by the accused, has ended in either acquittal or conviction, and any incidental observation by the learned appellate Court or the revisional Court about taking cognizance or lodging a complaint against witness who had resorted to giving false evidence would have bearing on the Court where case pending for prosecuting person found for giving false evidence as the appellate Court or the revisional Court has got such ample power, while setting aside the 5 DR.YLR,J CRL.R.C.No.514 of 2016 Dated 04.07.2025 Judgment of conviction or acquittal. It can also deal with the order of prosecuting an offender for the offence of giving false evidence for the simple reason that the appellate Court has all the powers of a trial Court. Of course, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, such powers may not be there with the revisional Court. 9. In any case, the application was filed only to seek for stay of further proceedings of the summary trial until the disposal of the appeal preferred by the prosecution in the year 2014. If a stay is granted as per the legislative mandate of Section 344(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. On the other hand, the interests of both sides would be preserved. 10. There is not much legal force in the observation of the learned Special Judge that the Criminal Appeal was preferred by the prosecution against the Judgment of acquittal before this Court, but not against the findings of the learned Special Judge made against the present petitioner. The language of Section 344(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C’ is very clear that it does not discriminate between the appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal or the appeal preferred by the accused against conviction. 11. Be that as it may, the order of the learned Special Judge is not sustainable and not followed the true spirit of Section 344 of ‘the Cr.P.C’, and it is liable to be interfered and set aside. The stay of all further proceedings in ST.C.No.3 of 2014 shall be granted and maintained till the disposal of the 6 DR.YLR,J CRL.R.C.No.514 of 2016 Dated 04.07.2025 Criminal Appeal preferred by the prosecution against the accused officer pending vide Crl.A(SR).51067 of 2014. We expect that the prosecution would move this Court at appropriate level for getting listed Criminal Appeal for hearing and disposal in accordance with law by appropriate bench. 12. In the result, the order, dated 28.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.71 of 2016 in STC.No.03 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam is hereby set aside and further proceedings in STC.No.03 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam are stayed until disposal of Crl.A.(SR).No.51067 of 2014 on the file of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.07.2025 TM 7 DR.YLR,J CRL.R.C.No.514 of 2016 Dated 04.07.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 514/2016 Date:04.07.2025 TM