Of High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI O. KAILASHNATT{ REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENKATESHWAR RAO BAIRNENI The Court delivere I the following: JUDGMENT 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.41 and 5O7 OF 2OL2 JUDGMENT: Crl.A.No.SO7 of 2Ol2 is fiIed by the ACB, questioning the order passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPtr & ACB Cases, Hydeabad, in CC.No.O8 of 2OlO, dated 31.12.2OI1, in acquitting Accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 468, r/w.34 of IPC, 471 r 1w.34 of IPC, and 120(B) r /w.34 of IPC, and acquitting Accused No'2 of all the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r lw -I3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w. Section s lO9, 72O-B, 2O7, 46a,47 l, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Crl.A.No.41 of 2012 is filed by Accused No.1, questioning the conviction recorded by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hydeabad, in CC.No.O8 of 2OlO, dated 31.12'2O11, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act.

3. Since Accused No.2 died, this Court, in Crt'A'No'SO7 of 2012 by order dated O2.O8.2O22, dismissed the appeal against 42 as abated' 2

4. This Courr. has heard the appeals filed by l\1./appellant in Crl.A.No.41 tf 2012 and by the State against Ai in Cr1.A.No.507 of

5. The r:as;e ol 'he prosecution is that PW. I is a pracrtir:ing advocate. One Buchirami J?ecldy (plaintiff) and 4 others fihd suit CS.No.S18 of 1994 in the Sour: of the Prl. District Munsif (Prl. Junlor Civil Judge), Karimnagar, in ..,"-hich PW. 1 is the defendant. The su.it was filed for perpetual in unction in respect of properties in Sun.e1, No.22Z lD2, admeasuring 1.09 guntas at Husnabad Village of Karirnn agar District. The said plaint {f filed IA. No. 5 t9 of 1997 for apF,ointment of a Commissione r to neasure the iand in the said survey nu:mber and fix boundaries. ,\2 ('iied) was the Presiding Officer ol rhe :sa d prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court. A.2 appointed A1/appellant in Crl.A.N.:.41 of 2012, who was a. practir:ing advocate, as Commissionet- to ins cect the suit schedule property rvith the assistance of a qualilied sur yeyor and to demarcate t.:re suit schedule land. The said IA rnas posted to 11.06.7997 for the report of the Advocate CommissiorLer (A. 1). On O1.02.7998,.t\1, rvith the help of the Deputy Director, Sur,,ey and Land Records, Hyclerabad, executed the warrant of commissrion, but the report was nct filed. 3

6. On 19.02.1998, A1 went to the house of PW. 1 and demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- for hling the report in his favour and insisted that Rs.2O,OO0/- be paid before filing the report. On the next date, PW'l approached the ACB authorities and filed a complaint.

7. The complaint was received by PW.1l-DSP, and a crime was registered at 11.30 A.M., and a trap was also arranged at 6.30 p'm' on the same day. According to PW. 11, he orally obtained No objection from the Sessions Judge to lay a trap against A1. PW.2-Sampath Reddy, mediator, and another, namely Komarayya, were asked to assist during the trap proceedings as independent mediators. A11 the trap party members assembled in the office at 7.OO P'M' PW'I then informed the mediators in the trap party about complaint' Then a'11 the formalities that had to be undertaken before proceeding to lay the trap were completed by the DSP. All the pre-trap proceedings were drafted as the hrst mediators' report.

8. The trap party then went to the house of PW'1' PW'1 went inside his house while the other trap party members stayed at a distance from the house. PW.2, who is an independent mediator, accompanied pw. 1 into his house, and both PWs.1 and 2 were sitting in the drawing room of the house. At 9.10 P.M', 41 arrived at the house of PW'1' He 4 entered into the house and enquired with PW.l statin1,; that he had prepared a :epc rt for frling and demanded the bribe ermount. pW. 1 went inside. carae out, and gave the amounr_ to A I . A 1 started counting it; rneanwhile, PW.1 informed the DSP about Al receiving the bribe amourLt. l'he DSP and other trap party reember.,; entered the house, and the DSP asked appellant to hald over tlre amount to alother Mediator, Komarayya. Both the hands of the a.cpellant were tested, which prrtved positive. ,A1, PWs.7 and 2 r,r, ere examined during post-trap F,rocr:r:dings, and having concluded tl.e post-trap proceedings. secorrd mediators' report was drafted. 9 . During the pendency of the investigation, pW. 1 again filed a complaint with the District Judge, Karimnagar, for the reilson that the records perteLinirL5l to OS.No.S18 of 1994 and IA.l\o.519 cf 7997 were fabricated b1- thr: Court staff of the prl. District Mlur:Lsii' (prl. Junior Civil Judge). Karimnagar. An enquiry was condtrcted br,. the District Judge (PW.7), ancl A2 was kept under suspensiorr on l_hr. basis of the report {iled by P',\'.7 after an enquiry. The ACB sought lrermission of the High Court trr investigate 42. Having received perntission, ,A2 was also investigated. 5

10. Having concluded the investiSation, a charge sheet was filed against A1 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w' Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sections 109, l2OB, 468, 471, and.2Ol r 1w.34 of the Indian Penal Code; and against A2 for the offences under sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections lO9, l2OB, 468, 47I, and 201 r /w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against both A l arrd. A2 for the said offences. The prosecution examined PWs' 1 to 13, marked documents which are Exs.P1 to P13, and the material objects MOs.l to 6 were also brought on record. Ex.Dl is the portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4. 1 1 . The defence of the appellant is that he was appointed as the commissioner in the said case. In pursuance of the directions of A2 appointing him as Commissioner, A1 executed the warrant with the assistance of the Deputy Surveyor and Land Records' However, PW' 1 refused to sign the sketch plan submitted by the Deputy Director. Accordingly, an interim report was frled on 2O'O2'D9a during call work of the Court. PW'l, having come to know about the interim report and that the report given by PW.4 would go against him, went to ACBandfalselyimplicatedhim.Further,Alstatedthathehad 6 property in I(arirtrnagar which was meant for sale, ancl I:,W.1 intended to purchase the lald of A1 and agreed to pay Its.50,Ot)0/- as token advance. The appellant never demalded any bribe a:mount, and the amount that was received on 20.02.1998 was not bribt: amount but the amount tha' was paid as advance for the land bel,rnging to the appellant. Since r.he appellant refused to write a favour,rble report in favour of P\\r.1 and also informed him that the physical srlrvey and the reports were against him, PW.1 filed a false comltlaint, having invited him to collect the advance amount for the purchase of'k:Lnd belonging to the appeiizrnt.

12. The del'ence taken by A2 is not discussed. Fiowever. on the basis of the evider: ce placed by the prosecution, the iearnecl l:ipecial Judge found that tl-rere rvas no tampering of the recorcls ancl .,here was no conspiracy tretween the appellant and A2 to fabricar e any court records or to sho,v that the interim report dated 20.O2. L99a-8x.p23, was not filed dur:ng the normal court proceedings.

13. The evi,len<:e against A2 is the statement rrLade by pWs.3, 5, 6, and 7. PW.3 worked as Head Clerk in the prl. lf istrict Court. pW.5 stated that on 27.O2.1998 at about 9.30 A.M., A2 sent ,a r:sord through Mallesham, .Attender, to get the Suit hle in OS.NIo.ll}/94 and 7 IA.No.Si9/gTtohishouse.Accordingly,Pw.5tookthedocketstoA2, and, A2 informed PW.5 that an interim report was filed and accordingly made entries in the docket in the main case and also in the IA. A2 further directed PW.5 to make relevant entries in Ex.P72lA/Diary. Accordingly,PW.5madeentriesatpage-79ofExP72lA-Diarythatthe interim report was filed.

14. According to PW.3, PW.5, who worked as Bench Clerk in A2's Court,approachedhimon2l.O2.lggSat10'45A'Mandhandedover an interim report hled by A1. PW.5 asked PW.3 to enter in the inward registerthatthereportwasreceivedon20'O2'1998'Accordingly,PW'3 directed Anj ani Prasad, Inward-outward clerk, to put the initiai, even though the interim report was actually received on 21'02'1998'

15.ThelearnedSpecialJudge,discussingtheevidenceofPWs'3'5' and 6, who are the Subordinate staff, and also PW'7, who was the then District Judge who conducted the enquiry into the allegation of tampering with the docket orders in the OS and IA, found that the docket proceedings in both the IA and OS were done in the normal course and no interpolation was found. PWs.3 and 5, being the subordinates of PW.7, must have deposed against A2 due to fear of PW.7. The learned Special Judge further found that: 8 i) PW.7 admitte(l that he did not examine Maflesham tlrrough whom -A2 called P\\'.5 fitr getting the case records. ii) There was no q,ritten complaint from pW. 1 to pW.7 iii) PW.7 adrnitt.d that he did not examine the couns;el appearing in the OS, and he could not say which portion of r_he doc.l<et order was interpolated. i9 Pw.7 failed tc collect any statistics in which A1 appeared before 42 ald that anv un<lue favour was done by 42. v) PW.7 has dorr: a superficial enquiry and fouird AII 5ruilty without there being any concrete evidence.

16. The learnecl Special Judge further found that on the observation of the docke.- orrlers passed in both the IA and OS, it ,:loes not give scope to fo.n ar. opinion that there was inte.rolation in the said regard. The kronafides of pWs.3, 5, and 6 were hi.ghly s;u,rpicious, and they have spoken against A.2 without there being anv evid rnce. 17 . Further, tht: Special Judge found that by loc,king at the A Diary_ Ex.P14 whicl. is :naintained in the court, it cannot be se.id that there was any tamcerhg or that the entries were subsequentl.g made after closure of the A-t:iary proceedings. 9

18. No reason is given as to why the A-Diary ald the docket proceedings were not subjected to any scientific examination to Prove any interpolations or that the writings were not written at one go, but at different times. An expert opinion would have helped the prosecution and the Court to draw conclusions regarding interpolations in the hand written docket proceedings by A2 ' As rightly found by the learned trial Judge, the writing in the docket orders, both in the IA and OS, appear to have been done in the normal course.

19. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of ACB would submit that PW.7 is a responsible District Judge who had conducted enquiry into interpolations made in the IA and oS docket proceedings. Further, the A-Diary was also tampered with. There is no reason as to why PWs'3, 5, and 6 would speak against A2 unless A2 had written the docket proceedings the next day, i.e., 2l-O2.I99a, and not on 2O'O2 1998' For the said reason, the offence of tampering with the record is made out, and though ,\2 died and the appeal hted by the State against ,A.2 stands abated, however, the said documents, i'e', the docket proceedingsandA-Diary,canstillbelookedintoaswellasthe 10 evidence of PWr; 3, 5, 6, and 7 to find Ai gu ilty of the acquitted charges.

20. Since the allegation of fabricating the record is alsro against A1, the appeal agains,t acquittal filed by ACB is considere,l, insolar as A1 is concerned.

21. The Counsel for 41 submits that in an appeal aga.inst acquittal unless thero are compelling reasons, the appellate rllourt cannot interfere in appeal against acquittal. The finding of the learned Special Judge while rrcqtutting A2 is based on record.

22. In Mallappa and others u. State of Kqrno-taka, , the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the princil.,les whereby appeals agaiest acquittals can be interfered with. At prrra-42 of the Judgment, it. r,vas held as follows; "42. O x c rrminal jurispmdence is essentially baserl on the promis: thiti no innocent shall be condemned as guilly. A1l the safegu:irds and the jurispmdential values of crimina law, are intende:d tc prevent aly failure of justice. The principtes which come irlto play while deciding an appeal from zrcquittal could be summa riserl as: I (2024) 3 Supreme court Ca jes 544 11 (r) Appreciation of evidence is the core elernent of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of a-11 evidence, oral or documentar5z; (fl Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (inJ If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iu) If the view of the trial court is a leeally piausible view, mere possibility of a contrarSr view sha-ll not justify the reversal of acquittal; (u) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (ur) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision ofthe trial court'"

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N' Vijayakumar v. State of T.N.', held as hereunder:- "20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record.Itissubmittedthatthetrialcourthasrecordedcogentand valid reasons in support of its findings for acquitta-l' Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction' By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment ' 1ZOZ|1 S SCC 6eZ t2 in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, lt2OO7) 4 SCC 4I5l has laid down the gr:neral principles regarding the pow_-rs of th.e appeilate Court vrhile dealing with an appeal against an orde;: c f acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) "42. From the above decisions, in our considere,:l view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appr:1late court while dt:aLne r.r.ith an appeal against an order ol acquitt:.ll emerge: no limitation, nrl zr n appellate or-rclusion, both (1) An zrppetlate court has ful1 power to revieu., re ap6rreciate and reconsirler the evidence upon which the orCer of :rcquittal is foundec . (2) The Cods of Criminal Procedure , 1973 puts restriction or condition on exercise of such power a court olt tht, 6vidsngs before it may reach its o1vn c on question:; of fact and of law. (3) Va;ious :xpressions, such as, ,.substanti,?1 an,l :ompelling reasons', "good and sufficient grounds,,, ",,,er.y strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions,,,,,glaring mistilkes',, etc. are not inte;rded to curtail extensive powers of an appe,llate court in an ap,peal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are r:rore in the nature of "flourishes of language,, to emphasise the rel uctance of an appe llate court to interfere with acquittal than to r:urt:ri1 the power of the court to review the evidence and r_o come to its own conclusion (4) An a lpel. € te court, however, must bear in mind tlLat in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of thr: accused. Firstl-r, the presumption of innocence is available to hlm under the fundamt:ntal principle of criminal jurisprudence that ev::ry person shall bc pre:;r-rmed to be innocent unless he is proved 5:3ri1t-v by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having; s:rcured his acquitta , th : presumption of his innocence is further :.einforced, reaffirmr:d arLrl strengthened by the tria-l court. (5) If tu.o rezis;onable conclusions are possible on the blrsis of the evidence on :-ecord, the appellate court should not clisturb the finding of ac(Luirtal recorded by the trial court.,, 13

24. According to the case of the prosecution, the demand for bribe was made on 19.02.1998 at about 9.00 p.m., when A1 went to the house of PW. 1 and demanded Rs.5O,000/-. According to PW.1, 41 instructed him to pay the amount on the next day, i-e-, 20.02.1998, by noon. Further, A1 informed PW. I that he would wait till noon on

20.O2.19ga, thereafter he would take adjournment without frling the report. A1 stated that he would visit the house of PW. 1 at 9.OO P.M. on the same day for the amount.

25. Regarding the findings of the learned Special Judge about there being no interpolations in the docket orders, the same has to be considered. The learned Speciai Judge has given adequate reasons to come to the conclusion that there was no tampering of the docket proceedings or the A-Diary. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge are already discussed above. In case of acquittal, as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court, unless there are compelling reasons to interfere with the hndings of acquittal, the appellate Court, in an appeal against acquittal, cannot interfere.

26. The learned Public Prosecutor, except stating that this Court can come to a different view on the basis of the evidence of PWs'3, 5, 6, t4 and 7, has not srrbstantiated how the offence of fabricatic,n of record or tampering with the docket orders or A-Diary was madr: r:ut. When the docket orders a1ld the A-Diary are iooked into, there i:,, no scope to come to a ccnclusion that they were tampered with asr rightly held by the Special .Iud6y:. Further, no reasons are given as lo why. the said documents \rrere not sent to a handwriting expert fot' his opinion regarding th: alleged interpolations. It is well-settled 1z;.w that, even though two uiews are possible, in cases of acquittal, if the appellate Court is of the v r:u'that the findings of the trial ,lourt are reasonable and based on record, the said findings canr.ot be disturbed or interfered wil.h only on the ground that a different view cculd also have been taken.

27. Once the nterpolations and the allegations m.acte about the interim repo:-t b,:ing filed on the next day in collusion with ,A.2 are disbelieved, it has to be accepted that the interim report was filed on 2O.O2.I998 in the: call work itself. Since the interim reF,ort has been frled, the questiot-r of demanding the bribe amoun.: rvould not arise. As already state,l, PU/.1 did not state about his presonce il the Court on

20.O2.1998 v,hen the case was cal1ed. Neither the plaintiff nor counsel for the plaintiff rrere examined, for the reasons best k:nown to the 15 Investigating officer. The complaint was filed in the afternoon of

20.O2.ir9}A by PW. 1 with the DSP, ACB, and on the same day evening, a trap was also arranged. If the DSP had made enquiries about the case being called on 20.02.7998 and as to what transpired on that day, it would have made the issue clear whether the interim report was hled on the same day or not. It is clear that no enquiries were made by the DSP about the correctness of the complaint, before registering the complaint and laying the traP. 2a. PW.4 is the person who conducted the survey of the land along with A1 and gave a report to A1, which is Ex.P9. During the cross- examination of PW.4, Ex.Dl was marked. According to Ex'D1, PW'4 stated in his 161 cr.P.C. statement that A1 visited his office on

08.02.0998 in person. A combined sketch on a tracing paper showing the boundaries of survey numbers 227, 239, and their adjoining fields, plotted as per tippan measurements, have been sent to A1 through courier service on o9.o2.L998, since the advocate commissioner inforrned that he had to hle a report on 1O.O2.1998'

29. In the interim report which was filed, it is mentioned that the 1"t defendant, i.e., PW. 1 refused to sign. Entire case revolves around the fiIing of interirn report on 20.02.1998. 16

30. Once the version of the prosecution that tLLe interjm report was Iiled on the next clay, i.e., 21.02.1998, and records were t ampered w.ith is not belier,,tble , the defence of the appellant that the i nterim report was filed on 20.r,)2.1998 has to be accepted. Once the report was already filed, the question of demanding any amou:nt from the l"t defendant is improbable. The trap was laid with undue haste on the same day of todging the complaint. Apparentiy, no preliminary enquiry was conducted. rror did the DSP make any efforts to f:,nd out what transpired in the case on 20.02.1998. If at all the DSp hrrcl found that the interim repol't rvas already {iled, the question of 1a-yir,.g trap would not arise.

31. The Ho:-roulerble Supreme Court in p. Sirajuddin u. The State of Madras 3 held t hat when a public servant is chargr:d with acts of dishonesty, and zr First Information Report is lodgt:d ag;rirrst him, there must be a r;uitable preliminary enquiry into the alle;,1ations by a responsible olfice r. 3 AIR 1971 Supreme (:ourt 5 20 17

92. The Honourable Supreme Court in C.Il[.Gtrish Babu a, CBI, Cochin, Eigh Coura of Kerola+ held that the defence of an accused would be by preponderance of probability.

33. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P.' o' K.Narasimhachary s and T.subra,ma:nian o. Stdte of T.N.6, the Honourable Supreme Court held that when two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused can be considered.

34. In B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P7 , a three-judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court held that proof of demand is sine qua non to prove the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to prove the above offences. It was also held that proof of acceptance of a bribe can only follow if there is proof of demand. Moreover, it was held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if there is proof of acceptance of the demand for a bribe' a 120091 3 Supreme court Cases 779 5120051 8 Supreme Court Cases 364 512006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 401 'zot+1ts; scc s5 18

35. In N.\Iijalrakumar v. State of T.N8, a t1-rree-.jurlge bench of the Suprenre Court upheld and followed the abor,.e judgment in B.Jayaraj v. State olA.P-2014(13) SCC 55.

36. In P.Siatyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State <>f A.Pe, a three-judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court held that proof of demand for illegal gratification is the grava.men of the offences punishable r-inder. Siections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w l3l2) of the Prevention of Corrupl.ion t\cl and, in the absence of the r;ame, the charge would fai1. It was also held that mere acceptanc,: and recovery of the illegal gratihcaticrn u,,ould not be sufflcient to l)rove the above charges.

37. In K.Shantamma v. State of Telanganaro, a two-judge bench of the Hon.ourable Supreme Court relied upo.n r,tnd followed P.Satyanarayanre Murthy v. District Inspector of F,oiice, State of A.P-201 5(10) SC(_' I 52. " zo i z1s; scc osz 'zorslto; scc tsz 'o zozz 1z1aro 1ca.1+: 1sc; 19

38. In Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtrall, the accused was acquitted by taking into consideration his probable explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

39. In Bansilal Yadav v. State of Biharrz, it was held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be raised when the defence of thrusting is taken by the accused.

40. The appellant/A1 has given an explanation that the amount of Rs.20,0OO/ that was seized on the date of trap was the amount that was given by PW.1 as advance for the property that appellant intended to sell and PW. 1 wanted to purchase. PW. 1 accepted the fact that the appeilant had propert5r which he intended to seil. Though, the version of the appellant is that the amount was rcceived towards advance for the property, however, there is no document. In the background of the trial Court believing tlnat A2 did not help A1 in any manner whatsoever arrd that the interim report was already hled on 20.02.1998 itself, the demand aspect become doubtful. It is for the prosecution to prove the 'demand' beyond reasonabie doubt. Though, the circumstances in this case create suspicion, however when the case is looked into in its i ) " zoozlrol scc 371 " to8t1s1 scc 6s I , 20 entirety, it can be inferred that the prosecution faiieit to prove the aileged denLand of bribe by A1. Since the version of pV/. i regarding the demand, ir, tht: present facts of case, when collectirrel.g looked into, creates c1or, bt. benefit of doubt is extend.ed. Pro secutior . has failed to prove the ar;pect of demand beyond reasonable doubt.

41. ln vre',r, of the above discussion, this Court llnds Lhirt the demand was not proveci. by the prosecution, and the conseque ntial recovery from A1 is of no lonsequence

42. Accorrllng r,, Cr1.A.No.507 of 2072, fiied by : he ArlEr, is dismissed agarnst A 1 .

43. Cr1.A.l\o.4i of 2012, fi1ed by Accused No.1, is altou,ed, setting aside thc r;rnviction recorded by the II Additio.al Sper:ial .Judge for SPE & A(lB (lases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.r)S o1. 20 1O, dated 31.12.2O11. for the offences under Sections 7 ancl 1.311)(d) of the Prevention of Cc'rr-r-rption Act. oT SD/- K. SI{INIVASA RAO I JOINIT REGISTRAR \ records) //TRUE COPY/I ^ \ 1. The ll Ad jrtior,al Speciat Judge for SpE ana ACB CL 2. The lnsp<:ctor of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Ri,rnge 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, state of rerangana', Hi-gh c,:ui Buirdings 1 One CC tr Sri O Kaitashnath Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC t,r Sri B. Venkateswar Rao,-Advocate IOPUC 6. Two CD (:op ie s Plp/gh es, Hyde rabad. (with at HyderabadIOUT] .] SEC ION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 / t i') -.: rf'- \$ 'i" "r \$" t. \ (' \,:, I :_,t'l (-''/' / COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.41 and 507of 2012 DISMISSING ]'HE CRL.A.NO.5O7 OF 2C112 AND ALLOWINCi THE CRL.A.NO.41 OF 2012 9 rlaE