Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., vs Sri Earlalpati Mruthyumjaya Raju, on 21 November, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 OF 2007
Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Eluru Rang,
Eluru. .... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1) Sri Earlapati Mruthyumjaya Raju,
S/o late Gogaiah, Motor Vehicle Inspector,
Kovvuru, W.G. District.
2) Sri Vishnuboyina Srinivasa Rao,
S/o Suryanarayana, Godarigunta,
Driver of Car, Settigaripet, Kakinada,
E.G. District. ... Respondents/Accused Officers.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 21.11.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
___________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 OF 2007
% 21.11.2023
# Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Eluru Rang,
Eluru. .... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1) Sri Earlapati Mruthyumjaya Raju,
S/o late Gogaiah, Motor Vehicle Inspector,
Kovvuru, W.G. District.
2) Sri Vishnuboyina Srinivasa Rao,
S/o Suryanarayana, Godarigunta,
Driver of Car, Settigaripet, Kakinada,
E.G. District. ... Respondents/Accused Officers.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy,
(Standing Counsel for ACB
and Special Public Prosecutor)
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2021(1) Supreme 609
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
This Court made the following:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1456 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
-
The judgment, dated 15.03.2007 in C.C.No.15 of 2005, on
the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada,
("Special Judge" for short), is under challenge in this Criminal
Appeal filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau ("A.C.B." in short), Eluru Range, Eluru.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter
be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for
the sake of convenience.
3) The State, represented by the Inspector of Police,
ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime
No.18/ACB-RCT-EWG/03 of ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, alleging
the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) against
Accused Officer No.1 ("A.O.1" for short) and the offence under
Section 12 of the P.C. Act against Accused No.2 ("A.2" for
short).
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in
the charge sheet as above, is as follows:
(i) The A.O.1-Earlapati Mruthyumjaya Raju, S/o late
Gogaiah, worked as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kovvuru, West
Godavari District, from 08.05.2003 to 15.12.2003. He is a public
servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. One
Vishnu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana (A.2) is a private
person. Velagala Nageswara Rao, S/o Venkata Rao (P.W.1) is
native of Yerugudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari
District. He used to run a fancy store under the name and style
of Rohini Enterprises. He has a Maruthi Van bearing No.A.P.10-
A-3636.
(ii) On 12.12.2003 night while he was brining two bags of
fancy items in his Van, the A.O.1 stopped his vehicle and
threatened him that he will book a case against him as he is
carrying fancy items in his Van which happened to be a non
transport vehicle, as such, demanded him to pay an amount of
Rs.5,000/- as a bribe for not booking a case against him. Then
P.W.1 informed to the A.O.1 that those items were for his
personal use. On enquiry, he produced the vehicle registration
certificate. However, the A.O.1 did not return the same and
informed that the certificate would be returned without
registering a case if he pays bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to him.
P.W.1 expressed his inability to do so, but the A.O.1 did not
hear the request of P.W.1 and stuck to his earlier demand of
bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Having reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe
due to fear that his registration certificate would not be
returned, but ultimately P.W.1 decided to lodge a report to ACB.
Accordingly, on 14.12.2003 he proceeded to the office of P.W.6-
ACB DSP and presented Ex.P.1 report. ACB DSP after causing
necessary formalities registered a case against the A.O.1 and
took up investigation.
(iii) On 15.12.2003 at about 4-40 p.m., on receipt of
prearranged signal, P.W.6 along with his staff and mediators
rushed into the office of the A.O.1 where P.W.1 informed to him
that he gave the bribe amount to A.2 as per the directions of
A.O.1 and shown him. Then P.W.6 instructed his staff to keep
surveillance on A.2 and after disclosing his identity to the A.O.1,
he got conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test on both hand
fingers of the A.O.1 which proved negative result. On enquiry
with the A.O.1, the A.O.1 gave his explanation and basing on
the same, he called A.2 and when he conducted Sodium
Carbonate solution test on both hand fingers, it yielded positive
result. During further enquiry, A.2 produced the tainted amount
from his left side pant pocket, which was seized by the trap
laying officer in the presence of mediators under the cover of
mediators report. When the Sodium Carbonate solution test was
conducted to the left side pant pocket of A.2, it proved positive.
Hence, the trap laying officer seized the relevant record and
arrested the A.O.1 and A.2 and forwarded them to judicial
custody and investigated into.
(iv) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the
competent authority to remove the A.O.1, issued prosecution
sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 18.02.2005 against the
A.O.1. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) On perusal of the charge sheet, the learned Special
Judge took cognizance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
P.C. Act against the A.O.1 and Section 12 of the P.C. Act against
A.2. On appearance of the A.O.1 and A.2 before the learned
Special Judge and after complying the formalities under Section
207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short),
charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act
against the A.O.1 and charge under Section 12 of the P.C. Act
against A.2, were framed and explained to them in Telugu for
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) To bring home the guilt against the A.O.1 and A.2,
the prosecution before the learned Special Judge examined
P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and Ex.X.1.
The defence counsel got marked Ex.D.1. Further the prosecution
got marked M.O.1 to M.O.10. After closure of the evidence of
the prosecution, the A.O.1 and A.2 were examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they
denied the incriminating circumstances.
7) During course of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination,
the A.O.1 stated that he neither demanded nor accepted any
bribe amount from P.W.1 and the alleged demand is not at all
correct considering the computation fee payable even if, P.W.1
were to be imposed challan and prosecuted for the alleged
violation of provisions of M.V. Act. Therefore, he was falsely
implicated. A.2 stated that he was falsely implicated in this case
and he never demanded and accepted any bribe from P.W.1 as
alleged.
8) The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and
on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found
the A.O.1 and A.2 not guilty of the charges framed against them
and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. However,
the learned Special Judge made a finding that it is expedite in
the interest of justice to prosecute P.W.1 for perjury and
accordingly directed launching of prosecution by way of filing
complaint for the offence of perjury against P.W.1. Felt
aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the
unsuccessful State filed the present Criminal Appeal.
9) Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for
determination are as follows:
(1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Special
Judge proved the pendency of official favour with the
A.O.1 in respect of the work of P.W.1 as on the date of
report lodged by him and as on the date of trap?
(2) Whether the prosecution before the leaned Special
Judge proved that prior to the date of trap and on the date
of trap, the A.O.1 demanded P.W.1 to pay bribe for not
booking a case against him and in pursuant to such
demand, accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- through
A.2?
(3) Whether the prosecution proved that A.2 facilitated the
commission of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act by
the A.O.1, as such, he was abettor in the commission of
offence as alleged against the A.O.1 in the manner as
alleged?
(4) Whether the prosecution proved the charges against
both the A.O.1 and A.2 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) P.C. Act and Section 12 of the P.C. Act, as the case
may be, beyond reasonable doubt?
(5) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Special
Judge?
POINT NOs.1 to 5:-
10) Though the learned Special Judge gave a finding
that there was valid sanction to prosecute him, but the findings
of the learned Special Judge that the A.O.1 was a public servant
within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and that the
prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the A.O.1
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act is not
under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal during the
course of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2. However, considering the evidence of P.W.3
coupled with Ex.P.16-sanction order, there is positive evidence
adduced by the prosecution before the learned Special Judge to
prove that the A.O.1 was a public servant within the meaning of
Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and that the prosecution obtained a
valid sanction to prosecute him for the offences alleged under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act. These aspects
are not under challenge during the course of arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2
in any way.
11) P.W.1 was the defacto-complainant, who set the
criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P.1 with the ACB. P.W.2
was the Service Engineer in the office of District Medical and
Health Officer, Eluru, who acted as mediator for pre-trap under
Ex.P.6 and post-trap under Ex.P.15. P.W.3 was the Section
Officer in Transport Roads and Buildings to prove sanction
against the A.O.1. The prosecution examined P.W.4 to speak
about certain procedural aspects in respect of the seizure of
Registration Certificates from the owners of the vehicles. P.W.5
was the person, who caused discrete enquiries upon the report
of Ex.P.1 at the instructions of P.W.6, which ultimately resulted
into registration of F.I.R. P.W.6 was the trap laying officer.
12) Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
Appellant/State, would contend that for obvious reasons and for
the reasons best known, P.W.1 gave a goby to the contents of
Ex.P.1 and deviated from it and he deposed false in support of
the defence of the A.Os. So, he turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. Having alleged in Ex.P.1 that the A.O.1 demanded
him to pay bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced to Rs.2,000/-
for not booking a case against him, he deviated from the
contents of it. However, the seizure of the C-book from the
possession of the A.O.1 on the date of trap by the trap laying
officer is not in dispute. Therefore, it shows that the pendency of
the official favour. Even in Ex.P.7, the voluntary explanation of
the A.O.1, he admitted the seizure of the Registration Certificate
from P.W.1 and he was in possession of such a document on the
date of trap. The evidence reveals that it was seized from the
A.O.1 on the date of trap and during the post-trap. So, the
prosecution proved the pendency of the official favour. In
respect of the demand for bribe prior to the trap and during
trap, P.W.1 deviated from Ex.P.1, as such, there is no direct
evidence to prove the same. However, the amount was
recovered from the possession of A.2 who was driver of the
A.O.1. The recovery of tainted amount was established by virtue
of the evidence of the mediator and trap laying officer. A.2
forwarded a thrust theory. In fact, it is the evidence of P.W.1
that when he met the A.O.1 with a request to return his
Registration Certificate, he asked the driver to return it and the
driver returned it and then the A.O.1 through driver i.e., A.2
accepted the bribe amount. The prosecution established the
recovery of the tainted amount from A.2 who was no other than
the driver of the A.O.1. The learned Special Judge did not take
into consideration of all these aspects. The recovery of the
tainted amount from A.2 can be attributed against the A.O.1.
A.2 accepted the tainted amount at the instructions of the
A.O.1. The learned Special Judge on erroneous reasons,
recorded an order of acquittal, as such, it is liable to be
interfered with.
13) Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, would contend that there is no dispute
about the seizure of Registration Certificate during post-trap. In
Ex.P.7, the voluntary explanation, the A.O.1 put up a possible
reason that when he made search of the vehicle of P.W.1 on
12.12.2003, he found that he (P.W.1) was not carrying required
documents in support of the vehicle and he (P.W.1) undertaken
to produce before the A.O.1, if he grants some time. On
humanitarian grounds, he allowed P.W.1 to produce the
documents at a later time, but took "C" book. Later, on the
date of trap, when P.W.1 came to him to get back the "C" book,
he asked the driver to give the same to P.W.1. Later, they went
away and they did not know what happened. The amount was
not recovered from the possession of the A.O.1. P.W.1 gave a
goby from the contents of Ex.P.1. Therefore, the allegations of
demand of bribe as alleged in Ex.P.1 are not at all proved.
Ex.P.1 and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 cannot be
read any substantive evidence. Even according to the case of
the prosecution, P.W.1 did not attribute anything against the
A.O.1 on the date of trap. According to the defence theory,
P.W.1 thrust the amount into the pocket of A.2. The prosecution
did not establish the link between the recovery of amount from
A.2 and the A.O.1. A.2 had no knowledge whatsoever about the
pendency of the official favour. Virtually, the evidence is lacking
that A.2 facilitated the commission of offence. The learned
Special Judge with a thorough appreciation of the evidence on
record, recorded an order of acquittal which cannot be interfered
with. The findings of the learned Special Judge are quietly
reasonable. In support of the contentions, he would rely upon
the decision in N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu1.
14) Before going to appreciate the contentions of both
sides with regard to the pendency of the official favour and
allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe, it is pertinent to
look into the contents of Ex.P.1, report lodged by P.W.1. The
substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1 is that P.W.1 is running
fancy goods business under the name and style of Rohini
Enterprises. He has Maruthi Van for his personal use bearing
No.A.P.10-A-3636. On 12.12.2003 at night 9-00 p.m., while he
was carrying two bags of fancy goods pertaining to his shop in
2021(1) Supreme 609
his Maruthi Van and when he reached Surya Petrol Bunk,
Kovvuru, the A.O.1 stopped the Maruthi Van and threatened him
that he will book non-transport vehicle against him, as he is
carrying two small bags of goods. He pleaded that they are
bringing for his personal use. The A.O.1 told him that he will
book a case in spite of his request. On his repeated requests, he
(A.O.1) demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for not booking a case.
Ultimately, he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and he
took his (P.W.1) "C" book and told him that unless he paid that
demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/-, "C" book will not be given and he
will book a case against him. So, this is the sum and substance
of the allegations.
15) When it comes to the evidence of P.W.1, he did not
speak the case of the prosecution on crucial aspects. His
evidence in substance is that on 12.12.2003 while he was
returning to his house from Rajahmundry and when the vehicle
reached near Surya Petrol Bunk, Kovvuru at 8-00 p.m., one
person stopped his van and asked him to produce "C" book for
checking by Motor Vehicle Inspector. He gave "C" book. He was
in the Van after handing over "C" book to that person. That
person after some time asked him that he (P.W.1) has to give
pollution certificate and insurance, etc. He was not having by
then and that they are available in his house. The said person
told him, he should not carry the goods in Maruthi Van and he
has to carry the goods in a goods carriage and that his vehicle
would be seized on that account. He told him that if a case is
booked, he has to pay Rs.5,000/-, as such, he has to bring at
least Rs.2,000/- to take back his "C" book. He cannot say the
person who stopped the Maruthi Van. So, having felt humiliation
and at the advice of some family members, he decided to lodged
a report. On 14.12.2003 he gave report to ACB DSP which is
Ex.P.1. He further spoke about the pre-trap proceedings with
regard to the applying of phenolphthalein powder to the
currency notes. His evidence with regard to the post-trap is that
as per the instructions of ACB, he proceeded to the office of the
A.O.1 and the A.O.1 was not there and he returned and
informed the same to ACB, who asked him to wait there. At
4-00 p.m., the A.O.1 came. Then he went there and asked him
about his "C" book and he informed him that "C" book is
available with the driver and asked him to take it from the
driver. He went to the driver at the road and met him. A.2 was
the driver at that time. A.2 asked him to pay the amount. Then
he gave Rs.2,000/- by taking out from his shirt pocket. He does
not remember with which hand he received the amount. After
receiving the amount, he returned "C" book which was available
with him. Then he gave the pre arranged signal. He informed
the DSP that he gave the amount to A.2. This is the sum and
substance of the evidence of P.W.1. Prosecution got declared
him as hostile and during cross examination, he denied the case
of the prosecution as alleged in Ex.P.1 and the post-trap
proceedings.
16) It is to be noted that during the course of cross
examination of P.W.1, there is no dispute about the seizure of
Registration Certificate of P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that he cannot
say the name of the person and he does not know the name of
the person and he did not identify the person who seized "C"
book. However, the evidence of P.W.2, the mediator and P.W.6,
the trap laying officer, proves the seizure of "C" book from the
possession of the A.O.1. Apart from this, Ex.P.7 is the self-styled
explanation separately written by the A.O.1 which reveals about
the seizure of "C" book from P.W.1 on 12.12.2003. The
substance of it is that when he searched the vehicle of P.W.1, he
was not possessing required certificates and he undertaken to
produce in the later time and on humanitarian grounds, he
allowed P.W.1 to give, but he took "C" book, etc. Though P.W.1
did not speak about the identity of person who seized "C" book
but Ex.P.7 which is voluntary in nature coupled with the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, trap laying officer, would prove
the seizure of "C" book by the trap laying officer from A.O.1
during post-trap. So, there is sufficient evidence on record to
prove the pendency of the official favour.
17) Turning to the allegations of demand of bribe
attributed against the A.O.1 as alleged in Ex.P.1 and in the post-
trap, P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Merely
because the prosecution was able to prove the pendency of the
official favour, it does not lead to a conclusion that the A.O.1
demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe. In view of the admissions
made by P.W.1 during the course of cross examination by the
Special Public Prosecutor as to the contents of Ex.P.1 and
further contents of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement, they are
nothing but voluntary, but, however, for obvious reasons P.W.1
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. For this part of
behavior of P.W.1, the learned Special Judge made appropriate
findings as if P.W.1 appears to have given false evidence and
ordered prosecution of perjury against him which is altogether a
different issue. But, insofar as the allegations of demand as
alleged in Ex.P.1 and in post-trap proceedings are concerned
against the A.O.1, there is no substantive evidence at all.
Ex.P.1, Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 and further
post-trap under Ex.P.15 cannot be read any substantive
evidence. It is not a case where the tainted amount was
recovered from the physical possession of the A.O.1. On the
other hand, the amount was said to be recovered from the
possession of A.2. Even it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that at
the directions of the A.O.1, he delivered the tainted amount to
A.2. According to P.W.1, the A.O.1 asked him to take back the
original "C" book from the driver (A.2) and later he took "C"
book A.2 and A.2 asked him to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/-
and then he paid the amount. So, absolutely, a link is missing in
the evidence that at the instructions of the A.O.1, A.2 took the
tainted amount.
18) It is to be noted that Ex.P.8 is the voluntary
explanation took by ACB DSP from A.2 on a separate paper. As
seen from Ex.P.8, it reads that when A.2 gave "C" book to
P.W.1, he tried to give a sum of Rs.2,000/- and then he refused
to take the amount and warded off his hand, but he forcibly
thrust the amount in his pocket. The defence of A.2 is in tune
with Ex.P.8 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1.
Therefore, the defence of A.2 during the course of cross
examination of P.W.1 as if P.W.1 thrust the amount into pocket
of A.2 is not without any basis from the record and it is from the
voluntary explanation of A.2 during post-trap proceedings. The
prosecution did not establish that A.2 facilitated the commission
of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act by the A.O.1. The
mere recovery of the amount from A.2 would not prove the
charge against the A.O.1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the P.C. Act. The mere recovery of amount from A.2 in
the absence of collusion between the A.O.1 and A.2 would not
prove the charge under Section 12 of the P.C. Act. Except the
solitary circumstance that amount was recovered from A.2, the
prosecution did not establish anything with regard to the
allegations of demand against the A.O.1 prior to the date of trap
and on the date of trap. So, when P.W.1 did not speak that the
A.O.1 demanded any bribe either prior to the trap or during the
post-trap, his evidence that A.2 asked him to pay the amount
cannot carry any weight especially when the defence of A.2 is in
tune with Ex.P.8, voluntary explanation given by him during
post-trap.
19) In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents in N. Vijayakumar's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money,
divorced from the circumstances under which such money and
article is found is not sufficient to convict the accused when
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Apart from this,
the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj
Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)2 held that to draw
a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, prosecution has
to prove the foundational facts. Coming to the present case on
hand, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the foundational
facts. Under the circumstances, as the recovery of amount was
not from the A.O.1 and as the prosecution failed to establish the
nexus between the A.O.1 and A.2, there is no benefit of
presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. It is a case where
the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts to sustain
the charges against the accused. The learned Special Judge on
thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded an
order of acquittal. Under the circumstances, the well reasoned
judgment of the learned Special Judge is not liable to be
interfered with. The prosecution before the learned Special
Judge failed to prove the allegations of demand alleged against
the A.O.1 prior to the trap and on the date of trap and further
failed to prove the allegation that A.2 facilitated the commission
of offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act. The evidence on
record warrants the learned Special Judge to extend the benefit
2 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
of doubt. However, the findings of the learned Special Judge as
against P.W.1 for ordering the prosecution under perjury are
reasonable and they are not liable to be interfered with. Hence,
there are no merits in the appeal, as such, the Criminal Appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
20) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed
confirming the judgment, dated 15.03.2007 in C.C.No.15 of
2005, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,
Vijayawada.
21) The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this
judgment to the trial Court as well as to the Court where the
perjury case against P.W.1 is pending for information.
22) The Registry is directed to forward the record along
with copy of the judgment to the trial Court on or before
28.11.2023.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.21.11.2023.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRL. APPEAL NO.1456 OF 2007
Note:
The Registry is directed to forward the record
along with copy of the judgment to the trial
Court on or before 28.11.2023.
Date: 21.11.2023
LR copy be marked.
PGR
