IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 438 OF 2007 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment, conviction and sentences passed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, dt.28.2.2007 passed in CC.No. 2/2003. Between: W.Giridhar, S/o. Nageswararao, 48 years. Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch-3, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Accused AND State ,rep by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I.,, Special Police Establishment, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, for CBI Cases , High Court of A.P., Amaravathi ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. A HARIPRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI PSP SURESH KUMAR, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI The Court made the following Judgment: r APHC010594752007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3327] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 438/2007 Between: W.Giridhar ...APPELLANT AND State, Rep by the Inspector of Police CBI Counsel for the Appellant: ...RESPONDENT 1. A HARIPRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI The Court made the following: i 2 SRK, J Cr1.A.No.438 of 2007 JUDGMENT Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to, as ‘AO’), in Calendar Case No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Special Judge’), filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment dated 28.02.2007, whereunder and whereby he was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the PC Act, 1988’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC 1988 and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to , run concurrently. was Act, 2. Sum and substance of the charges against the accused officer is that, he, being a public servant, employed as SRK,J Crl A No.438 of 2007 Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for brevity LIC’), City Branch-3, Seethammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam, and being an Enquiry Officer to enquire about the death of one G.Siva Kiran, son of P.W1, for settlement of the claim of Bhima Kiran Policy bearing No.840227396, is alleged to have demanded a bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from P.W1 on 30.10.2001 and accepted illegal gratification on 31.10.2001 for doing the official act of settling the death claim of P.WI’s son, thereby the accused officer committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read \A/ith 13 (2) of the PC Act. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the AO worked 3. as Branch Manager in LIC of India, CB-III Branch, Seethammapeta branch, Visakhapatnam during 2001 and his duties, being a Branch Manager, include over all supervision of branch, conducting investigations on early claims, etc. P.W1 is resident of Chengalraopeta, Visakhapatnam, (b) worked as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Syndicate Bank and took voluntary retirement. P.W1, while working at Pedapavani branch of Syndicate Bank, Prakasam District, took Bhima Kiran Policy bearing No.840227396 during April, 1996 in the name of his son viz. G.Siva Kiran, from LIC of India, Kavali Branch, Nellore District, for an \ 4 SRK J CriA.No 438 of 2007 assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; that subsequently during 1998- 99, P.W1 was transferred to Visakhapatnam and later, during January, 2001, took voluntary retirement from the bank; that on 15.04.2001 during evening hours, son of P.W1 was shifted to the Apollo Hospital due to sudden illness i.e. pain in stomach and chest, and after examining him, the hospital authority declared that the son of P.W1 was brought dead and issued certificate to that effect; that P.W1 informed to the LIC Office, Kavali during last week of April, 2001 about his son’s death and requested for settlement of claim of Bhima Kiran Policy stood in his name. On 25.10.2001 during evening hours, AO visited the house of P.W1 and gave a small chit with his official address and phone numbers to the wife of P.W1 and informed her to instruct P.W1 to come to his office; that after arrival of P.W1, he met AO, who informed him that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire about the death of his son viz. G.Siva Kiran, and he had to (c) make enquiry in his locality in the said connection and told that P.W1 had to satisfy in order to get the claim. (d) On 30.10.2001 at about 3.30 p.m. AO visited the house of P.W1 and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe to give a favourable report; that AO dictated that one draft letter to be taken 5 SRK, J Cri.A.No.438 of 2007 from two friends, neighbours of P.W1, who took his son to the Apollo Hospital along with P.W1 on 15.04.2001; that AO asked P.W1 to bring two similar letters as dictated by him after getting signed by L.W10/T.Srinivasa Rao and L.W11/Kothurthi Srinivasa Rao, who accompanied P.W1 to the hospital on 15.04.2001 and the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2001 at about 8.30 a.m. and further gave his visiting card, containing the residential address particulars as Pot No.301, III Floor, Sri Santha Complex, Door No.48-8-20, Srinagar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-16; that AO threatened P.W1 that if he does not pay the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/-, AO would send the bad report by 31.10.2001 noon and P.W1 would not get the LIC claim amount. P.W1, having not interested to pay the bribe amount to (e) the AO, lodged Ex.P6-report to the SP, OBI, Visakhapatnam Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam against AO. P.W6 registered the report as a case in RC.29(A)2001-CBI, VSP on 30.10.2001. EX.P24 is the FIR. P.W6 secured the presence of two independent witnesses and ensured preparation of first mediators report by incorporating the events. Ex.PII is first Mediators Report. P.W6 along with others proceeded to Srinagar area, where P.W6 laid a (f) 6 SRK, J Cr1.A.No.438 of 2007 trap on 31.10.2001 against the AO and caught him red-handed at his Flat No.301, III Floor, Sri Santha Complex, Door No.48-8-20, Srinagar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, when AO demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from P.W1 in the presence of P.W2, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank, Madras, for doing official favour. (g) During the trap proceedings, P.W6 conducted colour test to the hands of AO and the test yielded positive result; that P.W6 compared the serial numbers of the M.01-Currency Notes with that of the numbers already recorded in the pre-trap proceedings and, found that they were tallied; that P.W6 seized the above currency notes; that the entire proceedings were drafted at the residential house of AO. Ex.P12 is second Mediators Report, dated 31.10.2001. (h) L.W14-D.K.Sukla, Executive Director, Personal, LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai-21 issued sanction on 22.07.2002 under Section 19 (1) (c) of the PC Act, 1988 for prosecution of the AO. Ex.P1 is the Sanction Order, dated 22.07.2002. After conducting investigation and receipt of Ex.P1-Sanction Order, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 7 SRK, J Crt.A NoA38 of 2007 1988 against the appellant/Accused Officer. Hence, the Charge Sheet. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offencesunder Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 against the appellant herein/AO. After furnishing copies of documents, charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the appellant herein/AO, and read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22, P22A to P26 and MOs.1 to 6. 5. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the appellant/AO was examined under Section 313 CrPC, explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same. None was examined and no exhibit was marked. The appellant herein/AO filed 6. written statement and stated as follows: “The accused officer accepted Rs. 10,000/- from P.W1 towards premium amount for Jeevan Suraksha Policy. The calculation sheet pertaining to Jeevan Suraksha Policy was also seized from Ex. PI 4-long envelope by P. WO." SRK,J Cri-ANo438 of 2007 7. The learned Special Judge convicted the herein/AO of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (2) CrPC and sentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein/AO. appellant read with 8. Learned counsel for the appellant herein/AO contend that the amount paid by P.W1 to the appellant herein/AO would on the date of the incident, is the premium amount payable towards the policy of Jeevan Suraksha Life Insurance and it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the appellant herein/AO the bribe amount from P.W1 and the demanded amount which was paid by P.W1 on the date of the incident, is the gratification accepted by the appellant herein/AO to do official favour. Though the examined P.Ws.2 and 3, their evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W1 and the prosecution remaining prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W4 is the wife of P.W1, she is interested witness and P.Ws.5 and 6, are the Investigating Officers, who conducted investigation in the case. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 is not wholly reliable and trustworthy to convict the appellant herein/AO, but these aspects have not been considered by the learned Special Judge in right perspective, and as such, prayed for acquittal of the appellant/AO. 9 SRK, J CrtA.No438 of 2007 Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public 9. Prosecutor for CBI would contend that the evidence of P.W1 is consistent and cogent with regard to demand made by the appellant herein/AO and on the date of the trap, the appellant herein/AO was caught red-handed while accepting the illegal gratification from P.W1 to do the official favour. The evidence of P.W2 who is the Assistant Manager of Indian Bank, who accompanied P.W1 on the date of trap and his evidence is cogent, consistent and corroborates the evidence of P.W1. He further contended that on a perusal of the chief examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is quite evident that there is a demand made by the appellant/AO and tainted amount was recovered from the appellant/AO and as such, the demand and acceptance are established beyond reasonable doubt. The entire evidence of prosecution witnesses goes to show that there is no necessity for P.W1 to subscribe for Jeevan Suraksh Policy as he had no interest or capacity to take the said policy. He further submits that the learned Special Judge, upon considering the evidence on record in right perspective, found the appellant/AO guilty of the offences, with which, he was charged and accordingly, rightly convicted and sentenced him, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 10 SRK,J Cn.A.No.438 of 2007 10. Now the point for consideration is- “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant/AO for the charges leveled against him i.e. Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the Judgment of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 11. In order to attract an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established are that the appellant herein/AO is a public servant and that he accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration and the gratification was to do an official favour. Under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he is guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. 12. The appellant herein/AO was working as Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, City Branch-3, Seethammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam, at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. 11 SRK, J Crl A No 43a of 2007 13. P.W1, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P6-report, deposed in his chief-examination that his son viz. G.Siva Kiran took Bhima Kiran Policy bearing No.340227396 for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, from LIC of India, Kavali Branch, during the month of April, 1996; that on 15.04.2001 during evening hours. when G.Siva Kiran was brought to the hospital due to pain in stomach and chest, the Doctors of Apollo Hospital declared him as brought dead. 14. P.W4, wife of P.W1 deposed during her examination in chief that her son viz. Siva Kiran died during the year 2001 and subsequent to his demise, P.W1 submitted the claim papers to the Lie of India, Kavali branch. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 goes to 15. show that during the life time of their son viz. Siva Kiran, he took Bhima Kiran Policy from the LIC of India, Kavali Branch for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh in the month of April, 1996. Their evidence further discloses that on 15.04.2001 their son viz. Siva Kiran was shifted to Apollo Hospital as he was suffering from pain to his stomach and chest, and by the time their son was shifted to the hospital, the Doctors of Apollo Hospital declared that he was brought dead. 12 1 SRK,J Crt.A.No.438 of 2007 16. With regard to demand made by the officer, it is the evidence of P.WI Ex.P3-Slip, containing his P.W4, wife of P.W1, informing that he regard to the claim made i* further deposed that appellant/AO in his chambers appellant/accused that the appellant herein/AO gave name, phone number and address, to was the Enquiry Officer with in pursuance of death of her son. He P-m. he met the wherein, P.WI was informed that in appellant/AO has to be satisfied. on 25.10.2001 at 5.30 order to get favourable report, the Again, on 29.10.2001 P.WI over phone call that at 7.00 P-m. the appellant/AO demanded he was coming on 30.10.2001 at 3.30 P-m. and asked him to get ready the funds ready as demanded that on 30.10.2001 and justified his demand by 25% to 30% of claim earlier. It is the version of P.WI appellant/AO directly came to his house stating that it is their practice to take get favourable report. the amount to 17. In this regard, approaching P.WI by the appellant/ AO, the evidence of P,W4 is that on 25.10.2001 at about 3.00 or 3.30 house and gave his address his office and residence P-m. the appellant/AO went to their particulars, telephone numbers of and asked her to ai to her give the same to P.WI and contact him. It is her SRK, J Crt.A.NoASB of 2007 further evidence that again on 30.10.2021 at about 3.30 p.m. the appellant/AO came to their house and had conversation with P.W1. 18. Though, the evidence of P.W4, wife of P.W1 does not disclose about the demand made by the appellant/AO, her evidence would disclose the series of incidents that occurred subsequent to the death of their son i.e. subsequent to submitting the claim papers in the LIC Office, Kavali Branch, the appellant/AO approached the house of P.W1 and furnished his address particulars along with telephone numbers. The evidence of P.W4 coupled with the evidence of P.W1 with regard to approach of the appellant/AO for second time would goes to show that the appellant/AO went to the house of P.W1 on 30.10.2001 at 3.30 p.m. and demanded P.W1 to get the funds ready. 19. As per the evidence of P.W1, the appellant/AO is working as Branch Manager, LIC of India, Seethampeta Branch, Visakhatpatnam and he was the Enquiry Officer for causing inquiry of the death claim made by P.W1 in respect of the LIC policy taken by his son viz. Siva Kiran during his life time and that was the official favour pending on the side of the appellant/AO and in order to get favourable claim report, the appellant/AO demanded P.W1 on 25.01.2001 at about 5.30 p.m., in the chambers of appellant/AO at 14 SRK,J Crt.A.No.438 of 2007 \ first instance, on 29.10.2001 at 7.00 p.m. over phone at second . instance and on 30.10.2001 at about 3.30 p.m. at third instance. The evidence of P.W1 further goes to show that though the appellant/AO stated that it is their practice to take 25% to 30% of the claim amount, the appellant/AO finally agreed to take a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the official favour to be done. In regard to demand made by the appellant/AO on the 20. date of raid, i.e. on 31.10.2001, the evidence of P.W1 is to the effect that on 31.10.2001 at about 8.40 a.m. he along with P.W2 went to the house of the appellant herein/AO, situated at Flat No.301, Sri Santha Complex, Sreenagar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, and knocked the door; that both P.W1 and P.W2 went inside the house of the appellant herein/AO and sat on the diwaan cot; that P.W1 handed over Exs.PS and P9-statements of his friends towards known reference to the appellant herein/AO; that the appellant herein/AO opened one long envelope and took out some papers, read over the contents to show as to how he prepared the report; that the appellant herein/AO told him that ‘esa escooSfooo*^’, then, P.W1 replied SRK,J Cr1.A.No.438 of 2007 that he arranged as appellant/AO wished; that the appellant herein/AO asked ‘arrange and then P.W1 replied that h:)da dc7>’; that the appellant/AO asked P.W1 to hand over the same by stretching his right hand towards P.W1; that P.W1 took over the tainted amount of Rs. 10,000/- from his left side pocket with his right hand and handed over the same to the appellant/AO and kept the tainted currency notes in the said envelope where all the papers were kept. P.W2 accompanied P.W1 on the date of trap. His 21. evidence is to the effect that on 31.10.2001 he accompanied P.W1 to the house of appellant/AO situated at Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam. He along with P.W1 were asked to come and sit inside the house of the appellant/AO and the appellant/AO sat on the diwaan cot. With regard to demand made by the appellant/AO, it is the evidence of P.W2 that the appellant/AO brought Ex.PI 4-long cover containing claim papers and after taking out those claim papers, he uttered that esdhoa doodS esoaoSfooo^^, 16 SRK, J Crt.A No.438 of2007 and to which, P.W1 stated to him as •^6 and in turn, the appellant/AO asked P.W1 as ‘esocoeS ^6_^cC2bod’. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant/AO that the said amount of Rs. 10,000/ towards premium amount for Jeevan would contend - given to the appellant/AO is Suraksha Insurance Policy to be subscribed by P.W1 and in that regard the date of birth and other particulars were collected by the appellant/AO from P.W1 was given to the appellant/AO is not bribe alleged to have been demanded by the appellant/AO for and the amount that settlement of claim of P.W1. 23. If the contention of the appellant/AO is taken into consideration, indisputably, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of P,Ws,1 and 2. Indeed, it is not P.W1 who approached the appellant/AO, it is the appellant/AO, who went to the house of he gave Ex.PS-VIsting Card to the per the evidence of P.W2, who is P.W1 and during his absence wife of P.W1 i.e. P.W4. Even as accompanied witness lines as deposed by P.W1 that the long envelope containing claim on the date of trap, deposed on the same appellant/AO showed Ex.P14- papers of P.W1, read over the 17 SRK, J Crt A.No.438 of 2007 contents of the report to show that he prepared a favourable report to P.W1 and asked P.W1 that if the demanded amount is handed over to him, the entire work would be done favourably. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the amount of 24. Rs. 10,000/- is accepted by the appellant/AO towards Jeevan Suraksha Policy to be subscribed by P.W1, a perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to show that as on the date of trap i.e. on 31.01.2001, P.W1 was having four policies which include Jeevan Suraksha Policy taken at Kandukuru branch, LIC of India Prakasham District vide No.840288055, dated 28.02.1997 up to 28.02.2006. When P.W1 had already subscribed to Jeevan Suraksha Policy way back in the year 1997, again subscribing for the same policy on 31.10.2001 i.e. six months after the death of his son, as contended by the appellant/accused, appears to be not believable. Furthermore, Exs.P13, P14 and PI5 contains small and long envelope along with bunch of claim papers. It contains neither application pertaining to Jeevan Suraksha Policy nor date of birth and other particulars of P.W1. Though Ex.P26 is relating to ready reckoner for New Jeevan Akshay and Jeevan Suraksha Policy for Lie of India, such applications were not filled with the name of P.W1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 coupled with the evidence 18 ^ SRK, J Cr1.A.No.438 of 2007 appellant/AO, being the Enquiry made by P.WI in was pending before him and to do the appellant/AO demanded amount Of Rs.10,000/-towards illegal gratification said sum towards bribe on 31.10.2001. of P.W2 clearly establishes that the Officer to i respect of his son viz. Siva Kiran such official favour to P.WI inquire into the cause of death claim an and accepted the 25. Apparently, on the date of the incident and ori accused officer made a demand of bribe P.W1 is consistent in his chief-examination examination. His evidence has examination by the defence i It is pertinent to mention here that by the defence to the extent that accused officer. In the absence of that by P.WI is consistent, the prior to that, amount and the version of and as well in the not been shattered during cross- cross- in connection with demand of money, no suggestion was made to P.WI no demand has been made by the and when the version given same cannot be brushed aside. 26. Even soon after the P.WI, the trap laying party and conducted Sodium fingers of the accused officer, accused officer produced tainted brown envelope, which pre-arranged signal made by reached the house of the appellant/AO Carbonate solution test on both hand which proved positive. The wife of the amount wrapped in small used was available on the folded wooden cot and 19 SRK, J Crt A NO-438 of 2007 the chemical test conducted on the upper portion of wooden folding In view of the same, the aforesaid cot also proved positive. contentions submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant have no legs to stand. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered 27. opinion that the learned Special Judge, on proper appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and taking all the above aspects into consideration, has rightly found the accused officer guilty of the charges leveled against him and, accordingly, convicted for the aforesaid charges and I see no reasons to interfere with the same. With regard to quantum of sentence, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant/AO to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) 28. 20 SRK,J CdA.No.438 of 2007 read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. As on the date of offence, the appellant/AO was aged about 44 years and as on the date of his examination under Section 313 CrPC i.e. on 09.02.2007, by the learned Special Judge, he was aged about 48 years. The present Criminal Appeal was filed in the year 2007 and as on the date, the appellant/AO is aged about 66 years. Considerable time has elapsed. Therefore, considering the age factor of the appellant/ AO, which is a mitigating circumstance, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Judge. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is confirming the conviction recorded in Judgment dated 28.02.2007 in Calendar Case No.2 of 2003 by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. dismissed However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Judge is modified, and the appellant/accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year, while confirming the fine amount as well as the default sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The appellant/accused officer is further sentenced to undergo simple 21 SRK, J Crt.A.No.43a of 2007 imprisonment of one (01) year, while confirming the fine amount as well as the default sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatna district (with records) The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district One CC to Sri. A Hariprasad Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Advocate [OPUC] To, 1. m 2. 3. 4. 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Three CD Copies Stu vna 1 < HIGH COURT DATED:18/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.438 of 2007 of r = 2 6 JUN 2025 60 O^ ^ . Current Section ^ y> gCSPATCWgi^ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL