The High Court · 2025

Smt. K- Minakshi, Wo. Gurukrishna, 42 yts, Sr. Asst. O/o. Commissioner of Transport, Govt. of A.P., Hyd. Mohd. Nasarullah Khasn S/o. Moh. Ataulla Khan, 43 yrs Jr. Asst. in O/o. DTO, Hyd., Urban rlo. 123-8, Mallepalli, Hyderabad. l0.Madduri Siva Kumar Reddy, S/o. Venkatrami Reddy, Age 40 yrs, Sr. Asst. RTO Office, Manchiryal. '1 l.Mididoddi Samuel, S/o. M. Lalappa, age 35 yrs, Occ: Warden of BC Hostel basheerbagh, r/o. Jamgi (V) Medak District. '12.M.A. Subhan (Case against 412 was separated vide, CC.No.416i97 NBW Pending)

13.M.A. Basheer, S/o Ivl.A. Aziz,41 yrs, T.P.A.MCH Circe TV, Hyderabad, r/o. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad l4.Bharath Singh, S/o. Ravisingh,45 yrs, T.P.A. MCH, Ci cle-ll, Hyderabad, r/o. Gaganmahal, Hyderabad

15.M.A. Sattar, S/o. M.A. Ghani,35 yrs, TPS, MCH, Circler-l, Hyd, r/o. Datatreya colony, Asifnagar, Hyd. '16.G. Ramulu, S/o Pullaiah, 44 yrs, Jr. Asst. in MPP, Amangal (V), [vlahaboobnagar Dist., r/o. Amangal (V), M.B. Nagar District

17.M. Ramaiah, S/o Venkaiah, 45 yrs, Jr. Asst. in MPr, Amangal (V), M B. Nagar Dist, r/o. Rampur (V), lvl B. Nagar dist. lS.Sandyamulu Ramasubba Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, 43 yrs, UDC, O/o. Div. Engineer, APSEB, Nandyal, rlo.28lB03lB, JVR Nagar, ltlandyal.

19. Koduvari Prasada Rao, s/o. Tirumalaiah, 32 yrs. Typist, O/o. Dy. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Nellore.

20. V. Guravaiah (Case against A20 is abated as he died)

21.A. Sambi Reddy, S/o. Rama Koti Reddy, 47 yrs, Ass:. Project Officer, O/o. DRDA, Eluru

22.P.V. Krishnaiah, S/o. P. Venkataiah, Sl yrs, Teachr:r, ZPP High School, Poondla, Bapatla (tt/l), Guntur District

23.G. Venkata Reddy, Sio. Sita Reddy,54 yrs, Dy. Tahasildar, O/o. Collector office, Nalgonda, R/o. Sharada Nagar, Hyderabad.

24. S. Ramulu, S/o. Saiappa, 45 yrs, Asst. Social Welfare Officer, r/o. Kamareddy, Nizamabad.

25. D. Acharyulu (Case against A25 was separated vide C)C.989/04 on 16.10.04 since NB\A/ pending against him)

26. K. Madhusudan Reddy, S/o. Bhumi Reddy, 45 yrs, Sr. l\sst. O/o. Collectorate, R.R. District, rlo Plol.Z7 Hastinapuri Colony, Soughsagar road, R.R. District.

27.P. Venkata Ramaiah, S/o. Venkatanarayana, 55 yrs, l/andal Suveyor, MRO Office, Narsaraopet, Guntur Dist.

28.G.V. Prabhakar, S/o. late Narasimha 60 yrs, Occ: Rtl.Asst. Social Welfare office, r/o. Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar dist.

29. Smt. A. Annapurnamma, Wo. Subbarao, 38 yrs, Typist, Oio. Director of Mines Geology, r/o. Hyderabad.

30. P. Prabhakar Rao, s/o. Krishna Rao, 40 yrs, Occ: Jr. Asst., AMM Court Medak, r/o. Sangareddy.

31.A.Lazar, S/o. Veeraiah,40 yrs, Jr. Asst. in Dist. Sessions Court, Sangareddy.

32. K. Vidyasagar (Case against A32 is abated on 18.1 .97 as he died)

33. D. Buchaiah, S/o. Pochaiah, 38 yrs, Jr. Asst., Addl. Sessions Court, Sangareddy.

34.C.D. Harikishan, Sio. Govindaraju Mudaliar, age 49 yrs, RTO Office, Warangal.

35. Bayali Himavantu, S/o. Narasimhulu, 54 yrs, Sr. Asst. MPP Officer, Mondapadu, Mahaboobnagar District. ...ACCUSED/RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents 5 and 6: Sri K. Surender Counsel for the Respondents 9 to 29: Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 34: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: Sri A. Bhuvan Sunder Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 2, 30, 31 and 32: Sri Krishna Rao Modhalavalasa Counsel for the Respondent No. 8: Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No. 33: Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 35: Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2OOB ORDER This C riminal Appeal has been hled aggrieved oy the Judgment passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistratr:, Hyderabad in C.C.No.74 ,rf i995 dated 20.1.2.2OO4, whereunder acquitted respondent Nos. I to 35 who are the accused or the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471,42O read with 120-B IPC.

2. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learnec. Senior Counsel representing respondent Nos.9 to 29, Mr. AvinaslL Singh, learned Counsel representing Mr.A. Prabhakar Rao, le ,arned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7.

3. Mr. Al:kam Eswar, learned Counsel submits that during the pendency of ,-he Appcal, respondent No.33 viz.,. Mr. fr. Buchaiah died. In view of the same, the Appeal is liable to be dism ssed against the said respondent as abated.

4. Lrarned Assistant Public Prosecutor bal;ing upon the instructions received from the concerned ofhcers sutmits that during the pendency of this Appeal, respondent No.9 viz., Md.Nasarullah Khan, resporLdent No.1O viz., Madduri Siva Kumar Rr.ddy, respondent No.17 viz., M.Ramaiah, respondent No.19 viz., Kodu',art Prasada Rao, respondent No.34 viz., C.D.Harikishan and respondent No.35 viz., 2 Bayali Himavantu were died and filed memo before the Registry by enclosing the death extracts of the said respondents. In view of the same, the Appeal is dismissed against the above said respondents as abated

5. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as under: "APPSC conducts departmental tests for Sale Government Employees twice in a year for their benehts and promotions, etc. 42 to A35 are the Government servants working in different departments who appeared for departmental examinations conducted by AppSC several tirrres, but they faited. During the year 1989-90, A2 to A34 approached A1, who is working as Senior Assistant in AppSC and paid huge amounts from Rs. 15OO/ to Rs.2500/ for getting their candidature passed in the departmental tests. After making promise to ,A.2 to A35, A1 prepared a fake memorandum of marks that the said candidates have passed departmental tests, by forging the signature of p.W.34- P.Ibrahim Khan, P.W. 38-K.8. Lingam, p.W.4 1 -Gulam Ali Khan and M.S.C (L.W.70) ofhciats of AppSC and delivered to the accused persons purported to have been issued from AppSC, Hyderabad. A1 prepared fake and false supplementary notification declaring that 42 to A35 passed the departmental tests. The said notihcation and the said letters related were allegedly got typed in Ushodaya Typewriting Institute, Hyderabad by A1, and sent them to govei-nment printing press, Chanchallaguda by P.W.39-MNarasinga Rao arrd p.W.4O- V.Lingam who were the attenders in APPSC for printing. Further the case of the prosecution is that after receiving the same, B.Shanker Rao (L.W.9) and V.S.R.Sastry (L.W. 1 1) belongs to Government Printing Press, Chenchalaguda returned the said notification with some remarks and objection by seeking some clarilications After came to know about the return of the said notification. A1 prepared a fake Gazette copies to 42 to A35. After collecting the said fake gazette copies, A.2 to A35 submitted them to their concerned t_ w 3 dep€rrtments, got entries in the service registers, as i'they have passed the departmental examinations to claim their future benefits. Therefore it is further case of the prosecutirn that A1 comrnitted offences punishable under Sections 46t, 4Zl and 42O read with 12O(B) IPC, and A2 to A35 committ<,d offences punishable under Sections 471, 42O read with 120(8) IpC."

6. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, p.Ws.1 to P.W.48 were examined and Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-130 wtre marked and Exs.D- 1 to Ex.D- 16 were marked for defence of respo rdents/accused. The trial Court after taking into consideration cf the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, acquitted the respondents/ accused Nos.1 to 35 (exce pt A-3, A-12, A- 20 and A-25) for the offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and 42O read with 12O-B IPC. The record further reveals that during the pendency of :he C.C. No.74 of 1995, accused Nos.3 12, 20 and 25 were died an<i the C.C is dismissed as abated against the above said accused conc,lrned.

7. The lea,rned Assistant public prosecutor cont.ended that the Court below passed the impugned judgment ancl acquitted the respondents/.accused only on the ground that Ex.p-3 compiaint dated

25.05.1993 was lodged after lapse of one (1) year tu,o (2) months from the date of alleged offence and the same was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C, and the same is contrary to 1aw.

8. Per contro, the learned Senior Counsel submi._s that the trial Court after el'aluating the oral and documentarJr evic ence on record, acquitted the respondents/accused by giving cogent findings. There , 4 are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 a,lso reiterated the very same submissions.

9. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the defacto-complainant lodged the compiaint on 25.O5.1993 which was marked as Ex.P-3, basing on the same, a crime was registered for the offences under Sections 468, 47 1,420 read with 12O-B of IPC, the Inspector of Police, CID, Hyderabad after conducting investigation hled charge sheel for the offences punishable under Sections 46a, 47 I and 42O read with Section 12O-B of IPC against accused No.l and for the offences under Sections 471 and 42O read with Section 12O-B of IPC against the accused Nos.2 to 35 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was taken cogniz-ance and issued summons to the accused in C.C. No.74 of 1995.

10. After perusal of the said impugned judgment, it reveals that on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws-1 to 48 were examined and Exs.P-l to P-130 were marked and Exs.D-l to D-16 were marked for defence of accused. The trial Court taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2004 and acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 35 (except 3, 12,20 and 25)/accused for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 42O read with 12O-B of IPC. The trial Court in the impugned judgment specifrcally held that Ex.P-3 I /./l / 5 complaint w,1s filed after lapse of one year two morrths tiom alleged offence. 1 1 . It is relevant to extract para 13 of , the imp ugne d judgment which reads as under "ln this case, basing on the l"r reference lettr r ol AI)PSC dat(:d 31.03.1992, the CID police did not issu: tLny FIR kno[.ingll that it is a cognizable offence, and the sarrtr: must be treeC as PIR investigation would have conducted on thirt basis. But crimc $.as registered only after Ex.P-3 complaint was add:essed to thc CID police. Thcrefore, Ex.P 3 is hit br Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the very complaint Ex.P-3 itscrf is not mairtainable in law. It suffers from legal infirmity. I'h,) matter s.as informed to the CID police vide lettcr date(l : 1.C3. 1992, q.hereas IJx.P3 is lodged on 25.05.1993 and recei,,crl in CID office on 31.05. 1993. There is a gap ofabout 'l'1ear ancl ,2' mor ths bet\a een the first complaint and Ex. p-:t .,nd the \r,itnesses u,ere examined during the said period but their stat,lments were not recorded, and a report rvas also filed to that effect. On the basis of the said report o rh Ex.p-3 complarnt was again submitted. Thcrefore, I am of r lrr: opitrion that Bx.P-3 is hit by Section 162 Cr.l,.C."

12. This Court does not find any ground to intcrfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Court below datt.d 20.12.2OO4 in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Seclion 37g(3) of Cr.P.C.

13. Accord,.ngly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed t,y r:onfirming the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 6 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To, '1. The lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri K. Surender, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Sri A. Bhuvan Sunder Reddy, Advocate tOpUC] 7. One CC to Sri Krishna Rao Modhalavalasa, Advocale tOpUCl 8. One CC to Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri B Chandrasen Reddy Advocate [OpUC] 10. One CC to Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 1 1. Two CD Copies VH/PSL Nr HIGH COURT DATED:2110812025 ,/ I ORDER CRLA.No.796 of 2008 c (1 ! L J \ 11 SEP ZO5 o -c.s r,,1i il ii DISMISSING THE APPEAL \ 4