Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Komarapuri Gangachalam vs The Range Inspector1 on 12 November, 2024
APHC010465802023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3365] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 983/2023 Between: Komarapuri Gangachalam ...PETITIONER AND The Range Inspector1 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A GAYATHRI REDDY Standing Counsel for ACB cum Spl. PP The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS,J Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 of 2023 ORDER:
In terms of Rule 33(B)(2) of Appellate Side Rules the
petitioner/party-in-person was permitted by the Committee of
Registrars to appear as party-in-person and accordingly, he
appeared and argued the revision as party-in-person.
2. Heard the arguments of Smt. A.Gayathri Reddy, the
learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public
Prosecutor.
3. This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 402
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) impugns the order
dated 06.10.2022 of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB
Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in
Crl.M.P.No.480 of 2013 in C.C.No.15 of 2013. This revision
petitioner is A.1 in C.C.No.15 of 2013 and his prayer for
discharge was declined by the impugned order and therefore, he
preferred this revision.
3
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
4. Ravilanka is hamlet of Potharlanka Village of Kollur Mandal
of Guntur District. There is confluence of Krishna River with Bay
of Bengal. It is there river islands were formed naturally and it is
there the above referred villages found as river islands. This has
certain extents of land with huge stilt deposits and certain extents
of land there are trees and jungle growth and certain extents of
land remained barren. In Potharlanka Village considerable
population of scheduled caste and backward communities exist
and all of them formed a society in the name and style of Adi
Andhra Cooperative Collective Forming Society Limited,
Potharlanka. It seems it has 659 members. They collectively
brought 91 acres of land into cultivation in that river island and
they were cultivating banana and groundnut. There is still
cultivable land that remains undeveloped and uncultivated. It is in
the above-mentioned facts and circumstances; the crime
incidents allegedly took place.
5. District Collector, Guntur by his report dated 23.03.2001
requested the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada to
investigate and prosecute those who are responsible for large
scale irregularities of misuse and misappropriation of Government
funds in implementation of land development scheme in
4
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
Potharlanka Village. On that report F.I.R. was registered. After
due investigation, arraigning A.1 to A.12 a charge sheet was laid
for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 418, 420 and
477A of I.P.C. before learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB
Cases, Vijayawada where it was registered as C.C.No.15 of
2013. By the time the charge sheet was laid A.2, A.3 and A.5
already died. Most of the other accused retired from service. A.1
in the charge sheet is Sri Kommaragari Gangachalam. He was
formerly the Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Guntur. This
A.1 is the revision petitioner.
6. Cheating is defined in Section 415 I.P.C. A Government
servant by law and by contract is bound to protect the interest of
the Government. If such a person indulges in cheating with
knowledge thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government
whose interest he is bound to protect that is made an offence
under Section 418 I.P.C. Section 420 I.P.C. provides punishment
for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Falsification of accounts is a crime punishable under Section
477A of I.P.C. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the
above referred I.P.C. offences. He is also alleged to have
5
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
committed the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant
as defined in Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) punishable under Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per this
provision, a public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct if he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any
property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant
or allows any other person so to do; or if he, by corrupt or illegal
means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a
public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as
a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or if he or any
person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during
the period of his office, been in possession for which the public
servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or
property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
7. This revision petitioner/A.1 was the Executive Director of
S.C. Corporation from 15.08.1996 to 18.06.1997. The above
period is relevant. Because the claim of the accused rests on
6
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
that stating that he is innocent and he is not involved in any of the
illegal acts that are alleged in the charge sheet. According to
him, Sri D.Kadmial and Sri P.C.P. Raju were the former Executive
Directors of S.C. Corporation and they were responsible but the
innocent petitioner is implicated in this case
8. Prosecution case is that the Regional Vigilance and
Enforcement officials, in Guntur, enquired into the illegal activities
in the Adi Andhra Collective Forming Society, at Potharlanka
Village, Kolluru Mandal, Guntur District, committed with the
connivance of Government officers of the Revenue and Social
Welfare Departments. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement
Department conducted detailed enquiry and sent a report to
Government by marking a copy to the District Collector, Guntur,
and who in turn forwarded to the Inspector, ACB, Guntur. On
02.05.2001 the Range Inspector-II, ACB, Guntur registered the
report of the District Collector as a case in Crime No.9/ACB-
VJA/2001, under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 418, 420 and
477 (A) IPC on 27-06-2001.
7
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
9. The following are the brief facts:
The society submitted a representation to the District
Collector, Guntur through the Executive Director, S.C.
Corporation, Guntur in which it was stated that 409 acres of
Poramboke land of Krishna River basin was allotted to the said
Society comprising 659 members of both scheduled caste and
backward communities. Out of this, an extent of 91 acres of land
was already brought under cultivation by raising commercial
crops such Banana, Ground nut etc., and the rest of 318 acres of
land remained undeveloped. Hence the society requested the
Collector to take a favourable action to develop the undeveloped
part of the land at the Government expenses.
The norms of the scheme mainly insist that beneficiary
should belong to SC Community. The beneficiary should have a
land not less than 0.75 acres under his possession. During
enquiry both these conditions proved violated resulting in
wrongful loss to the state exchequer for the pecuniary advantage
to the accused Government officers as narrated in the report.
The land assigned to “Adi Andhra Co-operative Society” is
only meant for collective cultivation for both SC and BC
8
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023communities. Hence the question of individual possession of land
does not arise as such the said land is not fit to be taken up under
this land development scheme.
But to satisfy these conditions, the Mandal Revenue Officer
& Mandal Development Officer, Kollur had issued false
certificates in the name of 375 beneficiaries certifying that each
beneficiary possessed 0.75 acres of land individually though the
land was allotted to the society for collective enjoyment. While
issuing the certificates the Revenue Officer had not verified, at
least whether the arithmetical total of the extents of the individual
lands tallied or exceeded to the total extent of existing cultivable
land. Due to this reason, the total land allotted to the beneficiaries
was worked out to 274 acres against 120 to 150 acres physically
available on the ground. The officers who had conducted
subsequent inspection, blindly adhered to the figure of 274 acres
without making any countercheck. The then Mandal Revenue
Officer & Mandal Development Officer, Kollur were mainly
responsible for this irregularity.
The letter addressed by the Regional Manager, Agro
Industries, besides the District Panchayat Officer reveal that the
9
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023extent of total land under the collective enjoyment of the
beneficiaries is 100 to 150 acres only but not 273 acres.
The norms specify that the maximum permissible amount
to be spent towards land development is Rs 2,000/- per acre only.
Accordingly the maximum permissible amount to be spent on this
scheme works out to Rs.5.475 lakhs only. During the first phase
this entire amount was spent towards light jungle clearance
though the land consists of thick and heavy jungle. This work was
carried out without any technical supervision. The Mandal
Development Officer, Kollur had to make payment to the
nominees to whom the work of jungle clearance was entrusted.
But he fabricated records as if he had distributed the amount to
all beneficiaries at a rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre which was
against the norms. Hence the Mandal Development Officer, Kollur
is held responsible for this violation.
The enquiries revealed that the President of the society, in
consultation with the Mandal Development officer, Kollur and
engineers of S.C. Corporation had openly sold out valuable
timber to various timber merchants in an open auction among
various timber merchants in the vicinity to cut and carry the
10
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023valuable timber available in the land. Thus, the active timber
merchants cut and carried the timber and sold at various places
in Guntur District. During the transportation of timber for selling
purpose, the Forest Officials had also seized one of such Lorries
and registered a case for carrying the timber without suitable
Forest Clearance.
This was clear evidence that the senior officers who had to
exercise administrative control over their subordinates had also
colluded with their lower staff for misusing Government funds.
The Engineering Officers of S.C. Corporation had
fabricated the estimates without conducting any field survey. In
the first proposal they made a false provision towards light jungle
clearance for Rs. 5.475 lakhs though the land consists of thick
heavy jungle. They had issued false valuation certificates towards
clearance though they had not recorded the pre-measurements of
the jungle. When they were instructed to prepare another
estimate for sanction of additional funds, the engineers had
prepared an estimate for Rs.9.90 Lakhs (Rs. 2.87 +2.87+4.16)
with fictitious provisions. Though Rs.5.475 Lakhs were exclusively
spent on jungle clearance, another provision of Rs.67,474/-
11
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023(18,348+49,126) was made towards the same item of work which
shows duplication of work. They recorded false measurements in
P.Nos.1 to 21 of MB No.A/835/SCS/86-87 as if development
operations were carried out in 274 acres simply based on the
figure furnished by the revenue authorities though the available
land was not more than 150 acres. The Engineers had also
recorded measurements in P.No.18 of MB No. B/835/SCS/86-87
towards drilling of 71 filter points and fixing of 71 oil engines. But
as verified in the site only 41 filter points were existing. Hence, it
is proved that the remaining balance amount was misused
without drilling, for their pecuniary advantage. The oil engines
were stored at the Elementary School which were submerged in
the floods and had become defunct.
Investigation revealed that the petitioner/A.1 in their official
capacity inspected the site and submitted a favourable report to
the District Collector, Guntur duly recommending for release of
funds for land development at Potharlanka. Based on the
recommendation of A.1/petitioner an office notice was circulated
to the District Collector in which it was mentioned that the A.1 and
A.2 had personally verified the site and noticed that 318.96 Acres
of poramboke land was assigned to 425 Nos. of beneficiaries
12
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023among whom 375 belong to Scheduled Caste and the remaining
50 belong to Backward Communities. A.1 had recommended a 3-
phase development program viz., (1) Land Development (2)
Drilling of 71 numbers of Filter Points and (3) Energizing by
providing 71 numbers of oil engines. The total expenditure of this
Project was estimated as Rs. 26,34,800/-. The District Collector
had accorded Administrative approval for this scheme on
13.02.1996 subject to the condition of completion of
documentation such as certifying the caste of beneficiaries and
verification of ownership of land by the beneficiaries by M.R.O &
M.D.O, Kolluru, Guntur District.
10. In the context of above allegations, revision petitioner
pleading innocence filed petition for discharge. The facts
narrated therein are reiterated in this revision. As against that, a
detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Range Inspector-I, ACB
Vijayawada Range/respondent No.1.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner cited the following
precedent:
13
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
1. Union of India v. K.K.Dhawan1
2. State through Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Ravinder Singh2
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Stayanarayana3
4. Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh4
5. N.Kishan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh5
6. Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka6
7. A.Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala7
8. Jaganmaya Mishra v. State of Orissa8
9. Charles Waker Devadas v. State9
12. Learned counsel for respondents cited the following
precedent:
1. B.P.Krishnegowda v. Karnataka Lokyukta10
1
(1993) 2 SCC 56
2
1995 LawSuit(Del) 64
3
2014 (1) ALT 209
4
1979 LawSuit(SC) 41
5
1996 LawSuit(AP) 1152
6
2015 LawSuit(SC) 655
7
2016 LawSuit(SC) 466
14
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal11
3. Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand12
4. State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla13
5. State rep. by its CBI v. Rodda Vasudeva Reddy14
6. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of
Maharashtra15
7. Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)16
8. Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan17
13. Point for consideration is:
“Whether the revision petitioner made out a case
that there is no case against him to be charged
and therefore, is entitled to be discharged?”
8
2007 LawSuit(Ori) 464
9
1993 LawSuit(Mad) 329
10
Order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad
Bench in Criminal Petition No.11291 of 2012
11
(2015) 7 SCC 681
12
(2023) 11 SCC 636
13
(1996) 8 SCC 164
14
2006 SCC OnLine AP 1486
15
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
16
(1999) 8 SCC 728
17
(2001) 8 SCC 607
15
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
POINT:
14. In the present case, there is more than one accused. Each
accused is required to be charged separately making it clear as to
the allegations amounting to crime under specific penal provision
made out against each of such accused. Every charge shall state
the offence with which the accused is charged.18 The charge
shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the
alleged offence and the person against whom or the thing against
which or in respect of which the said offence was committed and
the details shall be in such form which are reasonably sufficient to
give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.19
If the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in
Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of
the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain
such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was
committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.20
15. The charging Court upon considering the police report and
the documents sent with it under Section 173 Code of Criminal
18
Section 211(1) Cr.P.C.
19
Section 212(1) Cr.P.C.
20
Section 213 Cr.P.C.
16
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
Procedure and after hearing the prosecution and the accused
shall take a decision to frame or not to frame a charge. If upon
consideration of the material the Court is of the opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then the charge shall be framed.21 On the other hand, if
the Court finds that charge against the accused is groundless, it
is required to discharge the accused.22 The scheme of the
statute as narrated above is a mandate to the Court trying the
case to observe the compliance of these norms. A broad and
general allegation by itself is insufficient to charge anyone unless
specifics are alleged a charge cannot be framed. There is
nothing in law to couch broad and general allegations as a charge
and mention certain penal provisions in preparation of a charge.
16. The prosecution allegations are seen in the earlier
paragraphs. The learned trial Court in the impugned order stated
that A.1/this petitioner did his duty without proper verification of
the implementation of the scheme and progress of the works and
got the funds released. It further observed that this petitioner/A.1
without assigning any reasons released Rs.5,47,500/- to MDO,
21
Section 240 Cr.P.C.
22
Section 239 Cr.P.C.
17
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
Kollur/A.3 on 06.02.1996 instead of releasing the funds to the
Executive Engineer. Learned trial Court further mentioned that
this petitioner/A.1 has full knowledge that the thick jungles were
already cleared by the President of the society with the
connivance of officials of the department. However, A.1 got an
estimation for clearing light jungles at a cost of Rs.5,74,000/-
which was found fault with by the enquiry officer earlier.
Eventually at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 the learned trial Court
concluded its order which read as below:
“11. On considering the entire material produced by the
prosecution, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case is
made out against the petitioner/AO1 for the offences under
Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and
Sections 418, 420 and 477-A of IPC. The contention of the
petitioner/AO1 that the scheme was approved during the
term of his predecessors and they were not impleaded as
accused and he was falsely implicated as accused, cannot
be considered at this stage and if during the course of trial
any evidence comes into light against the predecessors of
the petitioner/AO1, certainly this court can exercise its
inherent powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading
them as accused and to try them, but their non implicating is
not a ground to discharge the petitioner/AO1 at this stage
since a prima facie case is made out against him. The
request of the petitioner/AO1 with regard to the documents
18
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023referred by him, cannot be considered at this stage and they
will be considered during the course of trial only. The
citations relied on by the petitioner/AO1 supra, are not
relating to the subject matter of this case, because some of
those cases are in respect of Departmental enquiries and
some of those cases are relating to criminal appeals which
were preferred by the convicted accused who were
convicted after completion of trial. Here in the case on hand,
this is not a Department enquiry and no trial was conducted
and as such the facts of the cited cases relied on by the
petitioner/A01 are not identical to that of the case on hand.
12. From the above discussion, since a prima facie case
is made out against the accused from the record produced
by the prosecution for the offences under Sections13 (2) r/w
13 (1) (c) (d) of PC Act. 1988 and Sections 418, 420 and
477-A of IPC, I see no grounds to discharge the
petitioner/AO1 and this petition is devoid of merits.
Accordingly, this point is answered.”
17. It is for those reasons, it dismissed the petition and refused
to discharge the petitioner.
18. This Court, having gone through the entire charge sheet
that is made part of the record by the revision petitioner, has to
state that many important particulars are missing from the charge
sheet which particulars are essential to appreciate the actual
allegations. At the same token this Court has to acknowledge
19
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent
gives us a better picture of what the prosecution wanted to say
though certain necessary details are still missing.
19. The charge sheet says that the village comprises of
scheduled caste and backward class communities and all of them
together formed as a society named as Adi Andhra Collective
Forming Society of Potharlanka. This society with the help of
Revenue Authorities got the land allotted for collective cultivation
and that was done unofficially. In another page of this charge
sheet on the same facts the allegation is that the society got the
land allotted in favour of the society officially for collective
cultivation. Two things are to be noticed. Whether the charge
sheet alleges that the society got the land officially or it got the
land unofficially. The other aspect is whether it got the land for
collective cultivation or for individual cultivation. In the counter
affidavit it is mentioned that the society with the help of certain
Revenue Authorities got the land allotted unofficially for collective
cultivation. The charge sheet and the counter affidavit do not
mention what exactly is the scheme that was available and was
sought to be implemented. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned
that the norms of the scheme insist that beneficiary should belong
20
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
to scheduled caste and should have a land not less than 0.75
acres. It is stated that both the conditions were violated resulting
in loss to the State Exchequer. All the further allegations in the
charge sheet have sprung up based on the above facts.
Therefore, when implementation of the scheme commenced for
these lands is a matter of basic relevance. The petitioner from
the record points out that way back in the year 1994 itself the
proposals for development of this land commenced and at
various levels orders were passed accepting such proposals and
for implementation of the scheme. The undisputed fact is that in
the year 1994 and 1995 this petitioner/A.1 was not holding any
position with reference to these works. This petitioner worked as
Executive Director from 15.08.1996 to 18.06.1997. Thus, by the
time he had assumed charge in the relevant position, all that
pertaining to that scheme and this land commenced. There is no
material on record indicating that after he assumed charge he
had full knowledge of the fact that the members of the society got
the land unofficially or officially and whether it was a case of
collective forming or separate forming. It is here one has to see
what is mentioned in the charge sheet. The Mandal Revenue
Officer and Mandal Development Officer, Kollur had already
21
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
issued false certificates in favour of 375 beneficiaries certifying
that each beneficiary possessed 0.75 acres of land individually.
While issuing the certificates the Revenue Officer had not verified
the total extents of the individual lands and whether they are
tallied with existing cultivable lands. Those of the officers who
had conducted subsequent inspections blindly followed their
reports. Therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandal
Development Officer, Kollur are stated to be mainly responsible
for the entire irregularity. It is not the case of prosecution that
there was occasion for this petitioner/A.1 to find out that such
incorrect certificates were issued by such officers. It is not the
case of the prosecution that he had knowledge of such false
certificates that were already issued by the time he assumed
charge and that with dishonest intention and in collusion with
those officers perpetuated the illegality. The substance of the
discussion is only to show that in the continuity of implementation
of a scheme there was alleged defect at the very commencement
of it and some officers were found to have indulged in creating
false records. Consequences that came out of that false records
are now attributed to the petitioner who arrived into the office at a
much later stage.
22
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
20. The charge sheet and material filed along with it do not
indicate the date and period at which thick jungle was cleared
unofficially and the society and the officers benefited themselves
from the sale of timber. The allegation is that funds were secured
to clear light jungle but on ground there was thick jungle.
Contradiction lies there. If thick jungle was already cleared there
remains only light jungle. The span of time between proposal for
funds and their grant is not seen from the charge sheet and if the
time lapse is considerable the light jungle could have become
thick jungle also.
21. A keen reading of entire charge sheet clearly discloses that
the attribution against this revision petitioner/A.1 is only about his
failure in diligently monitoring funds appropriately. Thus, his
administrative failure is alleged to be the offence. Mere
administrative failure cannot be converted into a crime unless
there is material and allegation based on such material indicating
fraudulent and dishonest intention. In the case at hand, that
criminal element is not made out from the allegations and the
material placed before the Court. The other allegation is that he
released the funds for a lower cadre officer instead of the higher
cadre officer. This lapse on his administrative side may require
23
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
action on the administrative side. Allegations do not indicate that
this lapse was with a view to swallow the funds or to allow the
other officers to swallow.
22. The principle of law is that if the material on record raises
strong suspicion that an accused has committed particular
offence the Court must proceed to frame the charge. This
principle cannot be said to mean that the prosecution is entitled
not to make any specific allegation against the accused and yet
argued for charging accused since there are facts making out a
case against other accused.
23. The precedent cited for the respondent related to
jurisdiction of Court while entertaining quashment of criminal
proceedings. The precedent cited for revision petitioner related to
departmental proceedings. Therefore, any further deliberations
on the precedent is not required.
24. The learned trial Court failed to apply law to the facts.
Administrative failures without any further facts indicating
criminality were considered for charging the petitioner and that is
impermissible requiring interference in this revision.
24
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
25. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
impugned order dated 06.10.2022 of learned Special Judge for
SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge,
Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.480 of 2013 in C.C.No.15 of 2013 is set
aside. Consequently, the petitioner/A.1 stand discharged from
C.C.No.15 of 2013 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 12.11.2024
Ivd
25
Dr. VRKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.983 of 2023
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 of 2023
Date: 12.11.2024
Ivd