Legally Bharat

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 2023

communities. 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 2023

extent 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 2023

valuable 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 2023

among 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 2023

referred 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

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *