IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1236 OF 2007 Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C., against the Acquittal of the Respondents/Accused Officers herein C.C.No. 2/1999 dt.06.3.2006 the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide Govt. Memo No. 3460/DW.A2/2006, Dt.21-12-2006. Between: on State rep.by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Range, Kurnool District, (Through the Standing Counsel-cum-Spl. PP., for ACB Cases) Kurnool ...Appellant/Complainant AND 1. Smt.K.M.Annapurna, Formerly Office Director of Welfare of Handicapped, Kurnool. 2. Sri G.David Rju, Sub-Engineer, A.P. State Electricity Sub-Station, Kurnool. Superintendent, O/o. Asst. Board, 220-KV ...Respondents/Accused Officers Counsel for the Appellant: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Shyam S Agrawal (Legal Aid) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Venkateswa The Court made the following: ra Rao Dittakavi APHC010008142007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1236/2007 Between: ...APPELLANT State of Rep. by Spl. PP, ACB Cases AND ...RESPONDENT(S) K.A.Annapurna and another Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATESWARA RAO DITTAKAVl 2.SHYAM S AGRAWAL The Court made the following: A 2 SRK,J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 JUDGMENT Tills Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 06.03.2006 passed in Calendar Case No.2 of 1999 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to learned Additional Special Judge’) against the Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to and the AO.2’) whereby the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 acquitted of the charges under Sections 8, 9 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) in terms of Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’). , as ‘the respondents/ as ‘the A0.1 were 2. Sum and substance of the charges against the AOs.1 and 2, is that, AOs.1 and 2 being the Public Servants, working the capacity of the Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Director of Welfare of Handicapped, Kurnool and the Sub-Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, 220-KV Sub-Station, Kurnool, respectively, accepted illegal gratification from one Boya Anjanappa, father of P.Ws.1 and 2; from P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and other in r 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 material prosecution witnesses, for their pecuniary advantage for doing official favour to them for providing employment to them in different posts and thereby AOs.1 and 2 committed the offences punishable under Sections 8, 9 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act. 1988. 3. 1988. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A0.1, who worked as Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Director of Welfare of Handicapped, Kurnool during the year 1991-1992, developed intimacy with AO.2, who worked as Sub-Engineer in Srisailam Project, Kurnool District at the relevant point of time; that both AOs.1 and 2 induced the material prosecution witnesses as referred hereunder, on the pretext of false promise of getting them appointed in different Government Departments by using their personal influence : (i) Collected Rs.30,000/- on 01.09.1993 and Rs.22,000/- on 03.01.1994 at Hotel Rajasri, Adoni from one Boya Anjanappa for getting to his sons P.Ws.1 and 2 appointed in the posts of Attender and Sweeper, respectively: (ii) Collected Rs.8,000/- in the month of December, 1993 and again Rs.8,000/- in the month 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 Of January, 1994 from P.W4 for getting his wife, P.W3 appointed in the post of Sweeper; Collected Rs.20,000/- from P.WS in the month of January, 1994 for getting him appointed in the post of Helper; (iv) Collected Rs.20,000/- from L.W6/Jangam Dass of Nandyal on 05.04.1993 getting him appointed in the post of Sweeper; (v) Collected Rs.20,000/- from P.W6 in the first week of April, 1993 for getting him appointed in the post of Hostel Warden; (vi) Collected Rs.20,000/- on 27.12.1992 and Rs. 10,000/- on 05.01.1993 at Kurnool from P.WS for getting her son viz. P.Prasad, appointed in the post of Attender/Sweeper; (vii) A0.1 collected Rs.80,000/- and AO.2 collected Rs. 1,500/- in the month of May, 1993 from P.W9 for getting him appointed in the post of Attender; A0.1 subsequently repaid Rs.8,000/- to P.W9, whereas, A0.2 was still due by Rs.1,500/-; (viii) Collected Rs.16,000/- from P.W7 and L.W12/ B.Subbaiah in the month of March, 1993 for getting them appointed in the posts of Attender; (ix) Collected Rs.8,000/- from L.W13/ A.Devasahayam of Julepalli of Kurnool in the month of August, 1992 for getting him appointed in the post (iii) 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 of Attender and subsequently returned Rs.4,000/- only; (x) Collected Rs.5,000/- from P.W15 in the month of March, 1993 for getting him appointed in the post of Typist; (xi) Collected Rs. 18,000/- from P.W10 in the month of July, 1992 for getting appointed his sister- in-law viz. Satya Krupavathi in the post of Typist; (xii) Collected Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/- on two occasions in the month of July, 1993 from P.W11 for getting her appointed in the post of Sweeper; (b) That P.Ws.1 and 2 and other victims gave joint petition to the Director, Welfare of Handicapped Persons, Hyderabad and the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and they appointed P.W20, Deputy Director, Department of Handicapped Welfare, to enquire into the matter; that P.W20 conducted inquiry and submitted Enquiry Report. Ex.P20 is the Enquiry Report and the same was referred to the Director General, ACB, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Basing on the Enquiry Report, P.W22, Inspector of ACB, Kurnool registered a case in Crime No.1/ACB-KUR/97 against AOs.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 9 of the PC Act, 1988. Ex.P24 is the FIR. 6 ^ , SRK, J Crl.A.No.l236 of 2007 (c) That during the examined the victims and receipts course of investigation, P.W20 seized cash containing the 7, 8 and L.W6/ Jangam Reddy, Assistant Kurnool. The recorded their statements, promissory notes handwritings of AOs. and leave letters "I and 2, from P.Ws.4 Dass, L.W18/R.Mary Rani and L,W22/K.Subba Director, Welfare of Handicapped Departments, admitted handwritings of the AO,1 along with referred to the disputed writings Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad under were Laboratory, a letter, dated 11.02.1997. ExP12 is the said letter. P.W17, examined the disputed si Assistant Government Examiner signatures of the A0.1 are compared with her admitted signatures and they one and the same. Ex.Pl3 are one and opined that they IS the Opinion i are issued by P.W17. Ex.PU is the Reason of Opinion. (d) After completion Exs.Pio and Pli_ ACB Kurnool filed Charge Sheet. of investigation and after the receipt of Sanction Orders, P.W23, Inspector of Police, 4. The learned Additional Special Judge took cognizance of the case against AOs.t and 2 for the 9 ancl 13 (1) (d) read with offences under Sections 8, 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 read with 120B IPC. 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 5. A0s.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 CrPC after furnishing copies of the documents. They denied the accusation as against them. Charges for the offences under Sections 8, 9 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 read with 120B IPC were framed against them, and when the charges were read over and explained to them, in Telugu, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, AOs.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. AOs.1 and 2 filed their respective written statements contending that they were falsely implicated in the case and they never induced the material prosecution witnesses promising to get them appointed in different departments by using their personal influence; that A0.1 took hand loans from the material prosecution witnesses and she repaid the same and the allegations were made by them, as she delayed the repayment; that A0.1 is only a Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Director Welfare 8 SRK,J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 Of Handicapped, Kurnool and she is not at all connected with any appointments in any department. 7. On behalf of defence, they got examined D.Ws.1 and 2, who are brother and relative of A0.2, respectively. Exs.DI to D4 were marked on behalf of defence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Special Judge found AOs.1 and 2 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 8, 9 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of I PC and acquitted them in terms of Section 248 (1) CrPC. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State/appellan t. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State/appellant contended that that the learned Additional Special Judge acquitted the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 on untenable grounds though all the material prosecution witnesses deposed in one voice about accepting the illegal gratification of A0.1 through AO.2 and the evidence of P.W20 who conducted inquiry in respect of the complaints made against A0.1, corroborates the said evidence. Further, P.W17, Examiner of questioned documents also furnished his opinion under Exs.P13 and P14 with detailed reasons which 9. 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 substantiated that when the disputed signatures on the material documents are compared with the admitted signatures, it was positive and those were the signatures of A0.1. The testimony of all the prosecution witnesses coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officers, inspires confidence and it can be taken into consideration. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established the acceptance of illegal gratification by respondents/ AOs.1 and 2 and it all established their guilt for the offences alleged against them, but the learned Additional Special Judge did not consider these aspects in right perspective and erred in acquitting the respondents/ AOs.1 and 2 of the offences with which they were charged, and hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and convict and sentence the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 contended that there are some surmises and conjectures in the evidence of all the material prosecution witnesses and it lacks corroboration and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to connect the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 with the offences alleged; that there is no legal evidence to prove either demand or acceptance of the bribe amount by the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2; that the prosecution failed to establish 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondents/AOs.1 and 2, which are necessary ingredients for the offences under Sections 8, 9 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988; that the Additional Special Judge considered these aspects in right perspective and rightly acquitted the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 and there no compelting or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Special Judge and hence, he are prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 11. Now the point for consideration is- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 8, 9 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not, and whether the impugned judgment calls for any interference by this Court? 12. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab\ wherein it is held as follows; (paragraph No.8) 13. “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on ‘compelling and substantial reasons’ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal AIR 1962 SC 439. 12 SRK,J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418; (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, ‘compelling reasons’ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally as to what this Court had, meant by the words ‘compelling reasons’. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on ‘compelling reasons’ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable. ” arose an 14. The first and second charges framed against the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 are that, A0.1 being the Superintendent, working in the office of the Assistant Director of Welfare of Handicapped, Kurnool and A0.2, being the Sub- Engineer, working in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, 220-KV Sub-Station, Kurnool, accepted illegal gratification from one Boya Anjanappa, father of P.Ws.1, 2; P.Ws.4, 5, L.W6/Jangam Dass, P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, L.W12/ L.W13/A.Devasahayam and P.W15, for their pecuniary advantage for doing official favour and induced them to provide employment in different Departments of the Government and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 8 B.Subbaiah, 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 and 9 of the PC Act, 1988. The third charge is that the respondents/AOs.1 and 2, conspired together, by means of corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants, obtained for themselves y pecuniary advantage accepted the illegal gratification from the aforesaid material prosecution witnesses and thereby committed offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC. an In order to attract an offence under Sections 8 and 9 of the PC Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established are that the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 are public servants and that they accepted or obtained or agreed to accept gratification as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servants to show favour or disfavour. 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 15. 14 SRK,J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 advantage, he is guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. 16. The respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 were working in the capacity of Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Director of Welfare of Handicapped, Kurnool and Sub-Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, 220-KV Sub-Station, Kurnool, respectively, at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that they are public servants within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. Exs.PIO and 11 are the Orders issued by the Heads of the Department of respondents/ AOs.1 and 2, according sanction to prosecute the respondents/ AOs.1 and 2. The evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14 substantiates the same. The main contention of appellant is that the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 collected huge amounts from Boya Anjanappa, P.Ws.4 to 11 and 15, L.W6/Jangam Dass, L.W12/B.Subbaiah and L.W13/A.Devasahayam for getting them appointed in different departments belonged to the Government. To prove the allegations levelled against the respondents/AOs. 1 17. one 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 and 2, P.Ws.1 and 2, sons of one Boya Anjanappa, P.Ws.4 to 11 and 15 were examined. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 goes to show that Boya Anjanappa, father of P.Ws.1 and 2 got acquaintance with A0.2 and through AO.2, on 01.09.1993 he went to the Hotel Rajasree, Adoni and paid Rs.30,000/- and three months thereafter, again, he paid Rs.22,000/- to A0.1 in the same hotel for providing job to his sons i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2. Indisputably, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would reveal that they accompanied their father viz. Boya Anjanappa and they were present at the time of making payments to A0.1. Admittedly, P.W2 turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he did not support the case of prosecution to some extent. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is 18. inconsistent and the same is not corroborated with each other. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, their father paid the amount to the A0.1 while she was in the Rajasree Hotel, Adoni. Whereas, the evidence of P.W18, Manager of Rajasree Hotel, Adoni is on different lines. A perusal of the evidence of P.W18 would reveal that on 03.01.1994, AO.2 along with A0.1 and another lady took Double Room bearing No.111 and stayed in their hotel till 16.01.1994. It is the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that their father gave 16 SRK,J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 amounts to A0.1 on 01.09.1993 and subsequent thereto, during her stay in the Rajasree Hotel. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is nothing on record to prove that their father amounts to AOs.1 and 2 for providing jobs to P.Ws.1 Government departments. gave huge and 2 in 19. While coming to the evidence of other material prosecution witness i.e. P.W4, it is his evidence that during the year 1992, he gave a sum of Rs.16,000/- in two instalments to AOs.1 and 2 during their stay in the Rajasree Hotel, for getting Sweeper post to his wife, P.W3. Admittedly, P.W4 in his evidence did not depose the about the dates as to when he gave the said amounts to AOs.1 and 2. Even P.W3 too did not depose the date of payment of amount to AOs.1 and 2. Admittedly, both P.Ws.3 and 4 turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 also did not corroborate with the evidence of P.W18, Manager of the Rajasree Hotel, Adoni, for the reason that, as per the evidence of P.W18 stayed in the said hotel for the period from 03.01.1994 to 16.01.1994 and there had been no occasion to AOs.1 and 2 to stay in the said hotel during the year 1992. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is not trustworthy. AOs.1 and 2 I 17 r SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 20. P.W5, another material prosecution witness, who is said to have given Rs.20,000/-to AOs.1 and 2 in the month of January, 1994, turned hostile and he did not support the case of prosecution. He deposed that he does not know A0.2 and he changed his entire version. There is nothing on record muchless the evidence of P.W5 does not support the prosecution case to prove the allegation that he paid amount to AOs.1 and 2 for the purpose of getting job in the Government department. 21. P.W6, who married the sister of A0.2, too turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Though he deposed that he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to A0.1, AO.2 has nothing to do with the case and as such, he was declared as hostile. In the cross- examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he paid the amount to A0.1 in the presence of AO.2. In Ex.P8-statement recorded by P.W22, Investigating Officer, it is the version of P.W6 that he got acquaintance of A0.1 through AO.2. To prove the payment made by P.W6 to A0.1, there is nothing on record to believe his version. Though, he deposed that his wife was present at the time of making payment, the prosecution failed to examine her. The evidence of P.W6 with regard to date, time and place of payment of amount to A0.1 is IB SRK,J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 not at all consistent. Therefore, his evidence i and trustworthy. IS no way reliable 22. P.W8, who Rs.20,000/- to A0.1 for getting job to her was said to have paid a sum of son viz. P.Prasad, deposed that she paid Rs.20,000/- on 27.12.1992 and Rs.10,000/- 05.01.1993. Indisputably, the evidence of P.W8 would that A0.1 sent Rs. 12,000/- to her through her brother-in-law viz. Balasundaram and she further admitted on reveal during her cross- examination that A0.1 told her after paying the balance amount, she would take back her household articles. Ex.P9 is the Receipt executed by A0.1 in respect of amount taken from P.W8 towards hand loan. If at all P.W8 paid the amount to A0.1 for getting job to her son, why did she keep the household articles with her. Therefore, the evidence of P.W8 goes to show that A0.1 took the amount from P.W8 towards hand loan and when she failed to repay the amount, she delivered her household articles to P.W8 under Ex.P9 and made part payment of Rs. 12,000/- to P.W8. Indeed, there is no mention in Ex.P9, receipt that A0.1 would provide job to the son of P.W8. Therefore, the evidence of P.W8 does not prove the allegation of receipt of through AO.2 for providing job to her amount by A0.1 son. 19 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 23. Similarly, a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.7, 9, 10, 11 and 15 would reveal that their evidence does not establish the allegation of receipt of huge amounts by AOs.1 and 2 from them for providing jobs to them in various departments belonged to the Government. P.W9 in his cross-examination though denied the suggestion that A0.1 took the amount towards hand loan, he admitted that A0.1 repaid the amount to him. Whereas, the evidence of P.W7 goes to show that when he pressed AO.2 for repayment, AO.2 was said to have executed a bond in favour of P.W7. As per the evidence of P.W7, A0.2 executed the bond in favour of P.W7 stating that he borrowed the amount of Rs.20,000/- from the father of P.W7. Admittedly, the prosecution did not examine the father of P.W7 to prove the contents of the bond that was executed by AO.2 in favour of father of P.W7. The evidence of other material prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.10, 11 and 15 does not corroborate with independent witnesses, for the reason that, they did not depose the exact date and place where they have paid the amounts and to whom they have paid the amounts i.e. either to A0.1 or AO.2. When such is their version. their evidence is not reliable and trustworthy to convict the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2. 20 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 P.W20 conducted inquiry against A0.1 regarding the allegations and submitted Ex.P20-report. As per the evidence of 24. P.W20, the inquiry that was conducted by him is a preliminary inquiry and the Ex.P20, Report dearly discloses that the allegations against A0.1 are to be inquired in depth and he recommends to refer the matter to the police for investigation. Therefore, the evidence of P.W20 is no way helpful to the prosecution case. 25. From a perusal of the entire prosecution witnesses, it can be safely held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused officers received the amounts under false promise of providing jobs. It is the specific defence of accused officers that the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 received the amounts in their individual capacity towards hand loan but not under false promises of providing jobs to the material prosecution witnesses. There is no reliable and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution to prove that AOs.1 and 2 took the amounts from the material prosecution witnesses on the pretext of providing jobs to them in various departments of the Government. The prosecution failed to establish that the AOs. 1 and 2 received the amounts as illegal gratification from P.Ws.1 to 12 and 15. 21 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1236 of 2007 Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents/AOs. 1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of 26. the case, the learned Additional Special Judge rightly acquitted the accused officers of the charges leveled against them. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Additional Special Judge. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is. 27. accordingly, dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 06.03.2006 passed in Calendar Case No.2 of 1999 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// dro^FFICER SE To 1. The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. 2. The Inspector of Police, ACB Kurnool Range, Kurnool District. 3. One CC to Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri VenkateswaraRao Dittakavi,Advocate[OPUC] 5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 7. Two CD Copies SAM RAM HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1236 of 2007 ^ 1 0 JUL 2025 Jg <SSSEiSSi^^ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL