The High Court · 2025

Y. Thirupataiah, S/o. D Chir c uddapah D str ct, A p, _,;T:il i::;TILIJJI;111,,; l"jill,J., Smt. Y. Pankaja, Wo. Thirupalaiah, R/o.H.No .25-1_B48.Lake View Colony, Seetharam puram, Ongole, prakasam District, A.p_ K. Rajesh Bhanu, S/o. K. Suryanarayana, Rio. H.No.25_1_848, Lake View Road, Nellore, A.p. Colony, podal'akuru Pattapu Srinaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, H.No.35_4_17, Seetharam puram, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.p. Smt. P. Amritha Raja Kumari, Wo. p. Sriniah, H.No,35_4_17, Seetharam Puram, Ongole, prakasam District, A.p. T. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. T. Ramaiah, Flat No. 6, J.V Reddy Apartments, Near J.K. Reddy House, Dargamitta, Nellore, A.p. 2 J 4 5 o (Respondent No.1,2,3,5 and 6 are Not Necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NoS..t to 6 LA NO: 20F 2015 CRL AMP NO: 14490F 20 15) Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tited in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 83 days in filing the ApIeal cou nser ror the Apperrant' snr r;ffi itt[:Y6[ 551*' Counsel for the ResPondents The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i I i --7 - I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER IA.No.2 OF 2()15 lCrl.MP.No1489 of 2O 151 in/aad -"1a Jo CRIMINAL APPEALFf, No. JUDGMENT: 'Criminal Appeal is filed by the State CBI questioning the acquittal of the respondents lA2 to A6 for the offences under Sections 109 of IPC tlw.13(2) r/w'13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Accused No.1 in the case was prosecuted for the offence of holding disproportionate assets, both in his name and the narnes of the accused A2 to A6.

3. According to the iearned Special Juclge' A2 is the wife of A1' ,A3 to A6 are not familv members of Al and A2' A3 was brought up by his grand parents who were stayirrg wittr A2 in the house of A1' A3 is the son of sister of A2. A3 was having inclependent source of income. Further, the Investigating ofhcer also admitted that A3 was doing prawn culture business in the land taken on lease by him. PW.47, Deputy MRO also stated about A3 doing prawn culture and getting an income of Rs' 1 lakh per acre' Ex' P I 15 report given by Investigating Officer PW '47 also disclosed about the income of A3. Since A3 r.r'as having indepenclent source of 2 -t'1 income, the money found in the locker in his name is that of A3' Further, insofar as A4 and A5 are concerned, there was a locker in the name of A5. A5 is the wife of A4 and she is a public servant' A5 is the sisler of A2. According to A4 and A5, the seizure of money from A4 and A5 belongs to them- The said seizure of the arnount s,as believed.

4. Insofar as A6 is concerned, he is a Government doctor working elsewhere at the time of offence. Further A6 contended that cr:rtarn amount in the house of Al belonged to him since he kept it with his mother r,r'ho was staying with A2 in the house of

5. On the basis of the elaborate discussion of the evidence produced by prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge found that no case was made out against A2 to 46.

6. The CBI, after filing the appeal was asked to serve summons on to the respondent/ accused. Proof of service was not hled. Again this Court permitted to serve notices. The notices sent to the addresses of the re spondents / accused 2 to 6 were returned unserved n,ith an endorsement 'insufficient address'. Further, memo \\ras also filed bt' the CBI stating that one of the constable 3 went to the address of the respondents/accused, however' their whereabouts were not known.

7. Having gone through the record, the appeal was filed with a delay of 83 days. Notices were not served, tnough directed to .be served insofar as respondents/accused 2 to 6 are concerned' In view of the offence being under Prevention of Corruption 8. Act, which offences are against society, I have gone through the record. As already discussed above, the offence of abetment against the Accused 2 to 6 was on the basis of certain cash component either seized from their possession or certain cash in the possession of Al being claimed by the accused'

9. The abetment under Section 107 of IPC involves a process of instigation, and depending on the instigation of such person who abets the act, the accused should have committed the act as a consequence. Further, abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as discussed under Section 107 of IPC'

10. The prosecution, except stating that A2 to A6 were related to A1, has not come up with any evidence to infer either instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid by the accused 2 to 6' I I 4 I 1. In view of non service of notices upon the accused, IA.No.2 of 2015 (Crl.MP.No.1489 of 2015) seeking condoning of the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal, cannot be entertained. On facts also, there are no grounds to admit the appeal.

12. In the said circumstances, IA.No.2 of 2015 (Cr1.Mp.No.1489 of 2015) is dismissed, consequently, Crl.A.SR.No.34228 of 2015 is also dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR f-.1) \. r_\ >.-- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lll Additional Special Judge for C B.l Cases, Hyderabad' 2. f wo CCs to the Public ProsecJtor for CBl, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad[OUT]

3. Two CD CoPtes Plp/gh n A\ t+- HIGH COURT DATED:1 210212025 toR lHE,S t(. ,7 E JUN 2W o^ li( I {\ o (,) o '+ a JUDGMENT r.A.NO.2 OF 2015(CRL.MP.NO.1489 OF 2015) IN/AND CRLA.No.292 of 2025 DISMISSING THE I,A.NO.2 OF 2015 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL 3,4- 5 t1J