Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Rep By Inspector Of Police , Acb, vs Sri Vanipenta Mahaboob Hussain, on 14 December, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:-
This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa, Tirupati Range under Section 378(3) and (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), challenging the judgment, dated 31.01.2007 in C.C.No.1 of 2003, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, where under, the learned Special Judge acquitted the A.O. of the charges framed against him.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa, Tirupati Range, against the Accused Officer by name Sri V. Mahaboob Hussain (hereinafter be referred as "A.O."), the then Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot, under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act ("P.C. Act" for short) is as follows:
(i) The Accused Officer (A.O) worked as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot from 2 22.01.2000 to 14.03.2002, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. L.W.1-Sri Syed Abdul Kalam is working as Mechanic in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot.
(ii) The A.O. used to check the vehicles which were repaired by L.W.1 unnecessarily. A.O. used to submit the report to Depot Manager, Kadapa to issue charge sheets to L.W.1 by the Depot Manager. A.O. checked the vehicles repaired by L.W.1 on 01.02.2002 and 07.02.2002 and noted some defects purposefully and noted in the counseling book. The A.O. got managed and got conducted counseling to L.W.1 through Depot Manager on 11.02.2002 basing on the defects noticed by him. After completion of it, A.O. demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- from L.W.1 by assuring that he would see that charge sheets given to him are disposed in his favour and he would not submit any further report against him. He threatened L.W.1 that he would see the award of postponing of increments to L.W.1. L.W.1 expressed his inability to pay much amount. Then, A.O. reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and asked him to get the same on 16.02.2002 morning and to pay the same to his at his residence. Hence, L.W.1, who has no other go accepted to pay the bribe amount to A.O. Apart from this, on 3 12.02.2002, A.O. issued a charge memo for the breakdown of the vehicle calling for explanation.
(iii) L.W.1, who had no intention to pay the bribe to the A.O., approached the D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati Range and gave a report, which was registered as a case in Crime No.3/RCT- TCD/2002. D.S.P., A.C.B., conducted pre-trap proceedings in his office room along with Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Kadapa on 16.02.2002 from 8-00 A.M. to 9-30 A.M. in the presence of mediators L.Ws.2 and 3.
(iv) On 16.02.2002 at 9-35 A.M., the D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati along with two mediators (L.Ws.2 and 3), complainant and his staff left the A.C.B. Office, Kadapa and reached Ramalaym Cross Road on R.T.C. Bus Stand to Apsara Theatre Road at 9-40 A.M. and parked the vehicle. L.W.1 and L.W.3 proceeded to the house of A.O., as per the instructions of D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati. The A.O. further demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from L.W.1 to do an official favour. Then, L.W.1 came out of the house of the A.O. and gave signal. L.W.3 witnessed the above transaction by standing by the side main door behind the window. The D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati, along with the trap party who received the signal rushed into the residential house of A.O. The D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati got prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in two 4 glass tumblers and requested the A.O. to rinse his right hand fingers in one of the glass tumbler. On that the A.O. showed the cash which was hold by him in his right hand palm. On the request of the D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati, the A.O. kept the amount a side on the cot. The D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati, subjected both hand fingers of the A.O. to the Sodium Carbonate Test and the same were proved positive results. The amount found in the possession of A.O. was counted and the numerical numbers of the notes were compared with that of the numbers already recorded in pre-trap proceedings were found tallied. The D.S.P., seized the said currency notes. The entire proceedings were reduced in writing in the form of mediators report No.2. The D.S.P., seized the connected records in the office room of A.O. which were reduced by A.O. under the cover of mediators report No.3.
(v) The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Region, accorded sanction to prosecute the A.O. in a competent Court of law vide proceedings No.E2/118(1)/2002-RM"C", dated 12.12.2002.
(vi) Under the above circumstances, the Accused Officer committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Hence, the charge sheet.
5
4) The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after appearance of A.O. and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and further charge under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, against the A.O. and explained to him in Telugu. A.O. denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) During the course of trial before the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, A.O. was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that he has defence witnesses. A.O. got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.X.1. Further Ex.D.1 was also marked.
6) The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A.O not guilty of the charges and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful State, represented by the Inspector of 6 Police, A.C.B., Kadapa District, Tirupati Range, filed the present Criminal Appeal.
7) Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for determination are as follows:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 11.02.2002, the A.O. demanded the defacto-complainant (P.W.1) to pay bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- so as to do official favour pending with him and reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and further demanded P.W.1 on 16.02.2002 during post-trap proceedings to do official favour and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- as alleged?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved further that A.O. obtained any peculiar advintage by corrupt or by illegal means accepting the illegal gratification? (3) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the A.O. beyond reasonable doubt?
Point Nos.1 to 3:-
8) The learned Standing Counsel, Sri S.M. Subhan, appearing for the appellant, would contend that P.W.1, the defacto-complainant, categorically spoken about the pendency of official favour with the A.O. and the demand made by the A.O. on 11.02.2002 to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- and the reduction 7 of bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and further demand on 16.02.2002 and acceptance of bribe in the post-trap proceedings and his evidence has corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2, the mediator and official favour is spoken by P.Ws.3 and 4 and there is a valid sanction to prosecute the A.O. and the investigating officer conducted investigation on right lines.
There is no dispute that the A.O. dealt with the bribe amount handed over by P.W.1 and the chemical test proved to be positive. When that is so, the findings given by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, are all erroneous and the evidence on record proves cogently the charges framed against the A.O., as such, appeal is liable to be allowed.
9) No arguments are advanced on behalf of the respondent in spite of the opportunity given, however, it is the duty of the Court to appreciate the evidence on record, in the light of the defence taken by the respondent, A.O. before the Court below.
10) To bring home the guilt of the A.O., prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.W.1 is the defacto- complainant, Syed Abdul Kalam. P.W.2 is the then Assistant Executive Engineer, who participated in the pre-trap proceedings and post-trap proceedings and he claimed to be a witness during the things that were happened in the post-trap proceedings. 8 Prosecution examined P.W.3, the Junior Assistant in the office of the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa. P.W.4 is the then Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot, further to spoke about the charge sheet issued to the A.O. to contend that official favour was pending with the A.O. P.W.5 is examined by the prosecution to speak about the prosecution sanctioned order against the A.O.. P.W.6 is the then D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati Range, who laid trap against the A.O. and who conducted investigation. P.W.7 is the then Inspector of Police, who assisted P.W.6 during the course of investigation and who got recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. through Judicial Magistrate of First Class and who secured some documentary proof from the office of P.W.4, etc.
11) In the light of the charges framed against the A.O. and the contentions advanced by the appellant, the first aspect has to be considered is as to whether as on the alleged date of demand of bribe on 11.02.2002, any official favour to be done by the A.O. in respect of P.W.1 was pending with the A.O. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 regarding this, he deposed that while working as Mechanic in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Division, he was removed from the service on 04.01.2006 at the instance of the A.O., who bore grudge against him, since he gave report against him to ACB Department. He has been working as 9 Mechanic since 1999. He knows A.O., who worked as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). He gave complaint against the A.O. which is Ex.P.1, on 15.02.2002 at 9-30 P.M. to ACB Department, which is in his hand writing and it bears his signature.
12) P.W.1 further deposed that A.O. used to check the vehicles repaired by him and used to point out defects. On 01.02.2002 and 07.02.2002, the A.O. noted some defects in the counseling book of the vehicles checked by him. Again on 11.02.2002 the A.O. got conducted counseling to him through Depot Manager. On 11.02.2002 after completion of counseling by the Depot Manager, Depot Manager went out. Then, A.O. called him and demanded for bribe of Rs.3,000/- not to take any action on the three charge sheets filed at the instance of the A.O. and not to send the report on the counseling conducted by him. Then, he replied that he cannot pay such huge amount of Rs.3,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.2,000/-. The A.O. asked him to bring Rs.2,000/- as a bribe on 16.02.2002 morning at his residence. So, he presented a report to D.S.P., ACB. He spoken about the pre-trap procedure conducted in the presence of the mediators by D.S.P. and trails relating to the chemical examination, etc. He further spoken the fact that ACB searched his person and nothing was there and handed over three charge sheets to the mediators. Exs.P.2 to P.4 are the three charge 10 sheets. He was given instructions by ACB to give pre-arranged signal after handed over the amount to A.O. on demand.
13) Insofar as the post-trap proceedings is concerned, his evidence is that he proceeded to the house of A.O. After observing him, the A.O. asked him to come inside. Mediator was waiting at the window. A.O. demanded him whether he brought the amount demanded by him and he answered in the affirmative and A.O. received the money. A.O. was holding the currency notes in his right hand after counting the same with his both hands. He requested the A.O. not to take action on the three charge sheets given to him and not to send a report. A.O. agreed to help him. Then, he came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the DSP. This is the substance of evidence of P.W.1 regarding the official favour.
14) During the course of cross examination, he denied a suggestion that A.O. has no power to award punishments and he is only a recommended authority. He deposed that A.O. is the proper authority to issue charge sheets and punishments to him. He denied that he bore grudge against the A.O. since he issued charge memos and admonished him while he was working in Mydukuru and Kadapa Depots. He denied that A.O. sent a report on 08.02.2002 in respect of the defects noted by him on 01.02.2002 and 07.02.2002, as such the question of A.O. 11 demanding for a bribe for not sending the reports on 11.02.2002 does not arise. He admitted that the Depot Manager made counseling and he signed in the counseling register in page No.62. Witness admits his signature at page No.62 which is marked as Ex.D.1. He denied that on 11.02.2002 A.O. did not demand any money from him and he did not reduce the bribe as alleged and that he filed a false report. Regarding the post-trap proceedings, he denied that on 16.02.2002 at 9-30 A.M. when A.O. was in the house, he pushed the doors, suddenly entered into the house of A.O. and kept some cover suddenly in the hands of A.O. saying that his son sent some money to him and that from the said cover some currency notes fallen down on the floor and then he and the A.O. collected the notes and that A.O. found that it is only Rs.2,000/- as against the assurance of his son to send Rs.10,000/- and then the A.C.B. officials entered into the house.
15) So, the defence of the A.O. before P.W.1 is that no official favour to be done by him further was pending before him as on 11.02.2002.
16) Now, it is a crucial to look into the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The substance of the evidence of P.W.3 is that he knows the A.O. By the time of trap, nine disciplinary proceedings were pending against P.W.1. Whenever a mechanic 12 repaired the vehicles, Assistant Engineer would inspect the vehicles and if he finds any defects, he will send a report to the Depot Manager. From the Depot Manager, it will come to him (P.W.3). Then he would open a file and put up a note before the Depot Manager and Depot Manager will send back the file to the Assistant Manager to issue charge sheets against the concerned. They served the charge sheets through Assistant Manager (Mechanical) on the concerned mechanics. During cross examination, he deposed that it is true that as per the instructions of the Depot Manager, he prepared charge sheet and put up before the Depot Manager. Depot Manager has to dispose those charge sheets. This A.O. has no authority to dispose the charge sheets. It is true that even prior to A.O. came to Kadapa Depot, there were number of charge sheets pending against P.W.1. After A.O. came to the Kadapa Depot, number of charge sheets were leveled against P.W.1.
17) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he also spoken to the fact about the finding of defects whenever any vehicles were repaired by mechanics and preparation of charge sheets against the mechanics, if any defects are found and that Junior Assistant will prepare the charge sheets for obtaining signatures of him, etc. He further spoken to the fact that on 11.02.2002 he held counseling against P.W.1 as per the report of A.O., as there 13 were so many defects found in the vehicles repaired by P.W.1. Hence, he counseled the mechanic for gross negligence for the maintenance. Ex.P.10 is the counseling register. Ex.D.1 is the relevant entry. He and P.W.1 signed Ex.D.1. During the cross examination, he deposed that it is true that he will dispose the charge sheets against the mechanic. A.O. is not competent person to dispose the charge sheets. Prior to assuming charge by the A.O., number of charge sheets were pending against P.W.1. After A.O. assumed charge, he written number of charge sheets against P.W.1 and those charge sheets were pending. He (P.W.4) has power to conduct counseling without A.O. As per page No.61 of Ex.P.10, it is endorsed by him and A.O. that number times they held counseling to P.W.1 with regard to avoidable failures. As per his knowledge, three or four times increments were deferred to P.W.1.
18) It is to be noticed that when P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically deposed in the chief examination and cross examination that A.O. is not the competent authority to dispose the charge sheets pending against the P.W.1, prosecution did not seek any clarification. Absolutely, it is not the case of the prosecution that after issuance of charge memos, A.O. has any control over the disposal of the charge sheets. So, it is crystal clear that according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 14 3 and 4, no official favour was pending with A.O. Further already A.O. taken necessary steps for counseling to P.W.1 by P.W.4. In my considered view, prosecution miserably failed before the Court below to show that as on the alleged date of demand of bribe on 11.02.2002 or as on the alleged date of 16.02.2002, that is the date of post-trap, official favour to be done by the A.O. in respect of P.W.1 was pending with him. The evidence on record shows that prosecution utterly failed to prove the said aspect before the Court below.
19) Now, turning to the so-called demand for bribe made by A.O. on 11.02.2002 and 16.02.2002, there is evidence of P.W.1 in this regard. The defence of the A.O. is denial. Admittedly, as evident from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, after A.O. assumed charge as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), number of charge memos were issued against P.W.1 for dereliction of duties and it is not in dispute. Apart from this, the tenor of evidence of P.W.1 is such that he started the evidence with a whisper that he was removed from service on 04.01.2006 that is subsequent to the date of trial, at the instance of A.O., who bore grudge against him since he gave a report against him in ACB Department. During the cross examination, he denied that A.O. has no role to play in his removal from service on 04.01.2006. He does not know whether the Depot Manager, 15 Kadapa, passed orders removing from service on 29.12.2005, but he received an order on 04.01.2006. As evident from his cross examination he denied that he received some punishments of specific instances, but he admitted that in some occasions he was imposed with departmental punishments. So, there is every reason to believe that P.W.1 bore grudge against the A.O. for issuance of charge memos and apart from this, the evidence of him that A.O. was responsible for his removal from service means that he developed some sort of dissatisfaction against the A.O. from the very beginning. In that contest, the evidence of P.W.1 is to be scrutinized with care and caution.
20) Now, firstly, this Court would like to make it clear that as the prosecution utterly failed to prove that official favour to be done to P.W.1 was pending with A.O. on 11.02.2002, the general supposition is that there is no question of demanding any bribe by A.O. against P.W.1. However, there is evidence of P.W.1 reiterating that A.O. demanded bribe on 11.02.2002 and 16.02.2002 during the post-trap.
21) It is to be noticed that prosecution examined P.W.2, the so-called mediator in this regard. The substance of the evidence of P.W.2 relating to post-trap proceedings is that they started in a jeep at 9-35 A.M. and they reached to the house of A.O. D.S.P. instructed him to follow P.W.1 and to observe what 16 has happened. P.W.1 entered into the house of A.O. through compound wall gate. There is a window to the house. After he (P.W.2) entered into the premises, he was waiting at the window. A.O., who is present before the Court, asked P.W.1 whether he brought money. Again the witness says immediately after entering into the room of A.O., P.W.1 wished the A.O. by salute and then A.O. demanded for money. P.W.1 answered in the affirmative and handed over the currency notes to the A.O. The A.O. counted the currency notes and was holding in his right hand. Then P.W.1 requested the A.O. to see that there should not be any report against him on the charge sheets and the A.O. accepted it. P.W.1 came out and he came out and P.W.1 gave a signal.
22) During the course of cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that the place where he was standing is vintage position and at the instructions of D.S.P., he was standing there. He admitted that in Ex.P.7, rough sketch, the said vintage position that he stood at the window is not shown. Even in Ex.P.8 about the vintage position of him is not shown. He denied that DSP did not instruct him to observe what would happen between P.W.1 and the A.O from a visible place and he did not stand at the window and as the vintage point was not mentioned in Ex.P.7 and there was no such contingency. 17
23) It is to be noticed that even P.W.6, the investigating officer, during the course of cross examination deposed the vintage position of P.W.2 at the window is not shown in the rough sketch. As seen from Ex.P.6, rough sketch, it is really doubtful whether P.W.2 by standing at the vintage position could be able to hear the conversation between the A.O. and P.W.1. Apart from this, it is bounden duty of the investigating officer to show the vintage position of P.W.2 while observing as to what happened between the P.W.1 and A.O. Under the circumstances, it is really doubtful whether P.W.2 could be able to hear the conversation between P.W.1 and the A.O.
24) Apart from this, the defence of the A.O. is that A.O. is plying a lorry in Muddanuru and he hired to Thermal Station and that P.W.1 has knowledge that the son of A.O. is running a lorry in Muddanuru and on the recommendation of brother-in- law of P.W.1, the son of A.O. is running his lorry. It is further defence of A.O. that P.W.1 has knowledge that son of A.O. used to send money to A.O. for family maintenance and in that connection, A.O. while entering into the house of P.W.1, handed over a cover by stating that his son sent the amount and put the cover in the hands and then some currency notes were fallen down and then A.O. and P.W.1 counted it and then ACB officials 18 came there. Now, that defence is to be looked into by this Court.
25) As seen from the pre-trap proceedings, originally, P.W.1 produced Exs.P.2 to P.4, which were said to be handed over to the mediators. It is not understandable as to how it is borne out by the evidence that P.W.2 took Edx.P.2 to P.4 to the ACB Office during pre-trap. P.W.2 admitted in cross examination that P.W.1 picked out three charge sheets from his pocket and contained in a cover and produced by taking out from the cover. He again says that they were not kept in a cover and they were picked out from his pocket and produced. But, DSP did not seize any cover from P.W.1 during Ex.P.6-proceedings. P.W.2 deposed in cross examination that he does not know whether there was a cover in the pocket of P.W.1, since, he did not check P.W.1. The pre-trap proceedings or post-trap proceedings did not disclose that the cover, in which P.W.1 picked out three charge sheets, was seized by the D.S.P. So, in the absence of such a wishpa, it means that P.W.1 purposefully carried out the cover during the post-trap proceedings. Here, the defence of the A.O. is that a cover was handed over to him by P.W.1 stating that it was sent by his son. Under the circumstances, the possibility of P.W.1 carrying the cover to the house of A.O. 19 without knowledge to the ACB officials for the reasons best known cannot be ruled out.
26) So, to conclude this extent, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the so-called conversation between A.O. and P.W.1. Apart from this, as pointed out, prosecution utterly failed to prove the official favour pending with A.O. in respect of P.W.1. In such a case, even the question of demanding any bribe to do official favour would not arise.
27) The evidence on record goes to show that A.O. also got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 to probabalize his defence. P.W.1 undoubtedly handled with the amount but his defence is that he handled with the amount as P.W.1 handed over cover to him by stating that the amount was sent by son of A.O. As this Court already pointed out that P.W.1 has no explanation to carry cover along with him. In the absence of a seizure of the cover by the ACB during the pre-trap proceedings, it is deemed that P.W.1 purposefully carried the cover to the house of A.O. So, A.O. probabalized his defence theory. Apart from this, there is evidence of D.W.1, explaining the conduct of P.W.1 either prior to the pre-trap or post-trap. There is evidence of D.W.2 stating that A.O. on the date of trap at request of A.O. he handed over 20 the registers to A.O. and by then in the said house several persons were there. This is relating to trap date.
28) D.W.3 is the person, who deposed that he knows A.O. and P.W.1. The trap was conducted on 16.02.2002. On 15.02.2002 he, A.O. and other Muslims went to Mosque at 1-00 P.M. and they returned at 2-00 P.M. P.W.1 told A.O. that his brother-in-law brought some amount from the son of A.O. and he wants to pay the same to A.O. and enquired A.O. whether he will be on 16.02.2002. A.O. answered that he will be either at the Depot or at his house. A.O. examined D.W.3 to prove that P.W.1 had knowledge that his son is sending amount to him. Further, A.O. examined D.W.4 to speak about the punishments imposed against the P.W.1.
29) It is to be noticed that the standard of proof which the A.O. is supposed to prove is the preponderance of probabilities, but, not beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In my considered view, basing on the evidence on record, A.O. explained the circumstances, in which he dealt with tainted amount on the date of trap. Even otherwise, as no official favour was pending with him, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has no application. Even otherwise, A.O. lead 21 evidence explaining the probable circumstances in which he deal with the tainted amount.
30) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Special Judge for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, shows that learned Special Judge recorded sound reasons and dealt with evidence in appropriate manner and appreciated the evidence in a rightful manner. The learned Special Judge duly looked into the defence of the A.O. and the conduct of P.W.1 and made categorical findings that no official favour was pending with the A.O. in respect of P.W.1 as on 11.02.2002 and 16.02.2002 and that the A.O. adduced rebuttal evidence so as to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. When the judgment of the learned Special Judge for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, is by analyzation of the record in depth, I see no reasons to interfere with the said order. Hence, I hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the A.O. before the Court below, as such, the learned Special Judge for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, rightly acquitted the A.O.
31) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 14.11.2022.
PGR 22 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007 Date: 14.11.2022 PGR