CRIMINAL APPEAL 1633 of 2008 on 23 September 2008

1. P RAJANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAOCRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 1633.1634 and 1636 of 2008COMMON ORDER:

1. The Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1633, 1634 and 1636of 2008areheard and disposed of by way of this Common Order, since the petitioner inall the above three cases is one and the same, albeit the Calendar Cases aredifferent, but on the file of the same Court.heard and disposed of by way of this Common Order, since the petitioner inall the above three cases is one and the same, albeit the Calendar Cases aredifferent, but on the file of the same Court.

2. The Criminal Revision Case No. 1633 of 2008 has been preferred underSections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘theCr.P.C’) challengingthe judgment dated 23.09.2008inCriminal AppealNo.207of 2005 onthefileof the learnedII Additional Sessions JudgeKadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the appeal[was][ dismissed]but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment was reduced from three (03)years to six (06) months. The learnedI Additional Judicial Magistrate of1Class, Proddatur,in his judgment dated 11.07.2005in C.C.No.52 of 2004found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable[under][ Section][ 411][ of][ the]Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short ‘theI.P.C’) andconvictedhimunderSection 248(2)of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced himto undergo RigorousImprisonment for three (03) years.Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘theCr.P.C’) challengingthe judgment dated 23.09.2008inCriminal AppealNo.207of 2005 onthefileof the learnedII Additional Sessions JudgeKadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the appeal[was][ dismissed]but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment was reduced from three (03)years to six (06) months. The learnedI Additional Judicial Magistrate of1Class, Proddatur,in his judgment dated 11.07.2005in C.C.No.52 of 2004found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable[under][ Section][ 411][ of][ the]Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short ‘theI.P.C’) andconvictedhimunderSection 248(2)of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced himto undergo RigorousImprisonment for three (03) years.

3. The Criminal Revision Case No. 1634 of 2008 has been filed challengingthe judgment dated 23.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.208[of][ 2005][ on][ the][ file]of the learnedII Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, wherebyand whereunder,theappeal wasdismissed,but reducedtheRigorous Imprisonment of three (03) years to six (06) months. The learnedI AdditionalJudicial Magistrate ofI Class, Proddatur, in his judgment dated 11.07.2005 inC.C.No.56 of 2004 found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishableunderSection 411 of ‘the I.P.C.’and convicted him under Section 248(2) of ‘theCr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three(03)years.

4. The CriminalRevision Case No. 1636of 2008 has been preferredchallenging the judgment dated 30.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.206 of2005 on the file of the learnedII Additional SessionsJudge, KadapaatProddatur, whereby and whereunder, theappeal was dismissed,but thesentence of imprisonment of oneyear was reduced to nine (09) months. ThelearnedI Additional Judicial Magistrate ofI ClassProddatur, in his judgmentdated 11.07.2005 in C.C.No.50 of 2004 found the petitioner guilty, for theoffence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.and convicted him under Section248(2) 'the Cr.P.C.,' and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmentfor a period of one (01) year.

5. I have heardthe argumentsof learnedcounselandthelearnedAssistant Public Prosecutor.

6. Sri. T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner whilereiteratingthe grounds for the revision, submitted that the learnedcourts below wronglyrelied on the evidence of PW.4, PW6 and PW.4who is the stock witness inC.C.No.52 of 2004, C.C.No.56 of 2004 and C.C.No.50of 2004 respectively.There are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.6 & 7; learned courts belowthe grounds for the revision, submitted that the learnedcourts below wronglyrelied on the evidence of PW.4, PW6 and PW.4who is the stock witness inC.C.No.52 of 2004, C.C.No.56 of 2004 and C.C.No.50of 2004 respectively.There are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.6 & 7; learned courts below failed to note that a false case was foisted against[the][ petitioner][ and][ urged][ to]allow the revision cases as the prosecution failed[to][ prove][ the][ guilt][ of][ the]petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner[at][ the][ time][ of][ the][ alleged]offence was suffering from impoverishment and aged[about][ only][ 29][ years,]The alleged offence was taken place in the year 2001i.e.more than 24years ago.The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony[and][ trauma]Thebecauseof the delayed disposal of the Criminal Revision Cases.petitioner has been suffering from health complications.[He][ needs][ to][ support]his family and children. Therefore, lenient view may[be][ shown][ in][ reducing][ the]sentence of imprisonment to which the petitioner has[already][ undergone.]

8. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,[submits][ that]there wassufficient evidence available against the petitioner[for][ the][ offences]the learned trial court and the appellate court hadcharged with. Thereforerightly found the petitioner guilty of the offence[punishable][ under][ Section][ 411]nomaterialof‘thel.P.C’ andappropriately punishedhim. There areof the evidence and urgedto dismiss theirregularities and misreadingrevision cases.

9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments[adduced][ by][ the]andthelearnedAssistantPubliclearnedcounselforthepetitionerProsecutor.I have perused the entire record.

10. Now the point for consideration is;

“Whether the judgments in CrI.A.Nos. 207, 208 and 206 of 2005,dated23.09.2008&30.09.2008 passed bythelearnedIIAdditional Sessions Judge,Kadapa at Proddatu,rarecorrect,legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, orjudgment,and there are any material irregularities? And to what[relief?”]

11. Itisappositetoreferthe judgmentofHon’ble ApexCourtinBindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 &

13 it is held as under;

“12.... We have carefully considered the material on recordand we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified[in]reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to adifferentconclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemedto authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal[into][ one][ of]conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a[ limitation] onthe powers of the revisional Court, prohibitingit[from][ convert][ a]finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of thenature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure.If the High Court[could][ not]convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly,itcould not do so indirectly by the method of ordering[a][ re-trial.]It iswell settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the HiahCourt will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittalexcept in exceptional cases where the interest of public justicerequires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or theprevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The Hiah Court will notbe justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely becausethe trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred Inappreciation of evidence.It is neither possible nor advisabletomake an exhaustivelist of circumstancesin which exerciseofrevisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Courthave laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdictionby the High Court under Section 401of the Code of CriminalProcedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.13....Inthe absence of any legal infirmity eitherintheprocedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification forthe Hiah Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.Ithas repeatedly been heldthat the HiahCourt shouldnotre-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from thetrial innr^u^Court.In the absence of manifest illegality resiulfinqmiscarriage of lustice, exercise of revisional iurisdintioninsuchcases IS not warranted ”'■

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph No. 10 held as under:

“The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court underS. 439, Cr.PC., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by aprivate complainant against an order of acquittal, against which theGovt, has a right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised onlyin exceptional cases where the interests of public Justice requireinterference for the correction of a manifest illegality,ortheprevention of a gross miscarriage ofJustice. This Jurisdiction is notordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court hastaken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence onrecord.”

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP^, at Paragraph No.7 held as under:

“1. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to setaside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties,though the State may not have thoughtfit to appeal;[but]thisJurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Courtonly in exceptional cases, when there Is some glaring[defect][ in][ the]procedure or thereis a manifest error on a point of law andconsequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage ofJustice. Subsection (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a findingof acquittal into one of conviction and that makesit all the moreIncumbent on the High Court to see that it does not,convert thefinding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method ofordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding ofacquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on thepower of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal[in] revisionand it is only in exceptional cases that this power should beoxercised. It Is not possible to lay down the chteria for determiningsuch exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies.[We]may howeve,r indicate some cases of this kind which would in ouropinion Justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision.These cases may be where the trial court has nojurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accusedorwhere the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence whichtheprosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court haswrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to bef^^‘dence has been overlookedeither by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittalIS based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid underf/7e /avy r/7ese and other cases of similar nature can properly beexceptional nature, where the High Court canjustifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it isobvious that It cannot be said that the High Court was doing'^directy '^hat it could not do directly in view of[the][ provisions][ of][ S]439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the HighCourt setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheldon these principles.

14. Coming to the judgment in CC. No. 52 of 2004, the learned trialcourtexamined PWs.1 to 7, marked Exhibits PI to P8 and M.O.Nos.1 to 3 in supportof the charge. PW1 and PW2are the de-facto complainants. PW3 deposedthat the accused came and pledged a gold ornament with him and raised aloan of Rs.22,000/- from him. PW4, the mediator had deposed about arrest ofthe petitioner and spoke aboutrecovery of the stolen property from thepossession of the other accused. PW5 deposed aboutregistration of the caseon the basis of complaints. PW6 deposed aboutregistration of the case, afterreceipt of complaint from PW1. PW7 investigating officertestifiedaboutapprehending of petitioner, seizure of the stolen property and arrest of theaccused, in a detailed manner. Theprosecution case relied upon the evidenceof PW4 and PW7.examined PWs.1 to 7, marked Exhibits PI to P8 and M.O.Nos.1 to 3 in supportof the charge. PW1 and PW2are the de-facto complainants. PW3 deposedthat the accused came and pledged a gold ornament with him and raised aloan of Rs.22,000/- from him. PW4, the mediator had deposed about arrest ofthe petitioner and spoke aboutrecovery of the stolen property from thepossession of the other accused. PW5 deposed aboutregistration of the caseon the basis of complaints. PW6 deposed aboutregistration of the case, afterreceipt of complaint from PW1. PW7 investigating officertestifiedaboutapprehending of petitioner, seizure of the stolen property and arrest of theaccused, in a detailed manner. Theprosecution case relied upon the evidenceof PW4 and PW7.

15. PW1 and PW2 did not speak about identity of the petitioner. The chargeagainst the petitioner waT that he was in possession and jenjoyment of stolen The chargeagainst the petitioner waT that he was in possession and jenjoyment of stolen property belonging to PW1 and PW2. PW1 and PW2 deposed about theft oftheir valuable property was taken place. These witnesses had identified thestolen property and took interim custody of them. Their evidence to these factswasnot challenged. PW4and PW7arethematerialwitnesses.PW4admittedly had no enmity with the petitioner. There is no evidence about theirprior acquaintance. PW7 was performing official duties in apprehending thepetitioner and interrogating him. PW4 was claimed to have deposed in severalcases, instituted by the police. That circumstance alone is not a disqualificationto reject the testimony of PW4. Recovery of the stolen property from thepossessionof thepetitionerisrelevant under Section27oftheIndianEvidence Act. Evidence of PW4 and 7 in material particulars corroborates witheach other. The contention of the petitioner that he was implicatedin theoffence has no relevance in the light of the evidence of PW4 and PW7.

16. Merely because an official witness, who frequently[come][ to][ the][ court]and gives evidence to support the case of the prosecution, cannot be brandedas a stock witness because he was merely discharging[his][ duties][ unless][ it]wasestablished that his evidence was fraught with infirmities. Learned trial courtonelaborate discussion of the evidence of the witnesses of prosecution andoncareful examinationof the Exhibits and material objects, cametocorrectconclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of thepetitioner beyondreasonable doubt. Learned appellate court also rightly cameto the sameconclusion and confirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. This Courtwhile invoking powers under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re-and gives evidence to support the case of the prosecution, cannot be brandedas a stock witness because he was merely discharging[his][ duties][ unless][ it]wasestablished that his evidence was fraught with infirmities. Learned trial courtonelaborate discussion of the evidence of the witnesses of prosecution andoncareful examinationof the Exhibits and material objects, cametocorrectconclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of thepetitioner beyondreasonable doubt. Learned appellate court also rightly cameto the sameconclusion and confirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. This Courtwhile invoking powers under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re- appreciate the evidence by sitting as an appellate[court][ at][ second][ time.] Oncareful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses,it can be safely heldthat there are no material contradictions, which would smash the case of theprosecution. There are no material irregularities to disbelieve the version of theprosecution. There was no misreading of evidence. Learned courts below hadcome to correct conclusions by properly appreciating the evidence. Therefore,the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.’ shallbe maintained.

17. With regard to the judgment in C.C.No.56 of 2004, to bring home theguilt of the petitioner, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got markedExhibits PIto P11 and Mos.1to 4. PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the de-factocomplainants. They had deposed loss of ornamentsin the theft, later theyidentified the property, and took interim custody of[their][ stolen][ articles.] PW4deposedthatpetitionerpledgedgold ornaments andraisedloan.PW5deposed about the investigation to certain extent. PW6 who is material witnessdeposed about arrest of the petitioner, on grilling by the police, lead to therecovery of some property from the possession of the petitioner under thecover of panchanama. This witness deposed to the recovery[of][ the][ stolen]property,inpursuanceof the confessionof thepetitioner.PW7istheinvestigation officer, who received the complaint, registeredit as a case andrecorded the statements of witnesses. PW9 deposed about the investigationconducted by him in detail.guilt of the petitioner, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got markedExhibits PIto P11 and Mos.1to 4. PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the de-factocomplainants. They had deposed loss of ornamentsin the theft, later theyidentified the property, and took interim custody of[their][ stolen][ articles.] PW4deposedthatpetitionerpledgedgold ornaments andraisedloan.PW5deposed about the investigation to certain extent. PW6 who is material witnessdeposed about arrest of the petitioner, on grilling by the police, lead to therecovery of some property from the possession of the petitioner under thecover of panchanama. This witness deposed to the recovery[of][ the][ stolen]property,inpursuanceof the confessionof thepetitioner.PW7istheinvestigation officer, who received the complaint, registeredit as a case andrecorded the statements of witnesses. PW9 deposed about the investigationconducted by him in detail.

18. The case of the prosecution rests on PW6 and PW9. PW1 to PW3 didnot speak to the identity of the petitioner. The identity of the petitioner and theinvolvement of the petitionerin the present offencehadcomefromtheevidence of PW6 and PW9. Evidence of these two witnessescorroborateseach other. One of the accusedwas initially apprehended and interrogated.Some property was recovered from his possession. The said accused hadconfessed about the involvement of the other and thereupon he led the policeto that petitioner. The secondpetitioner confessedtheroleofthethirdpetitioner. The prosecution recovered the property from all the accused.It wascontended that independent evidence was not adduced by the prosecution.PW6 is a panchayat secretary. A panchayat secretaryis notpart of theinvestigation machinery. He was under no obligationtocorroboratetheinvestigation officer.In addition, PW6 has no enmity with thepetitioner.Therefore, on the ground that he was witness to the same facts in some othercases, cannot be held against this petitioner. Evenin the absenceof anindependent witness, a confession leading to a discovery of fact, can beestablished by the prosecution.not speak to the identity of the petitioner. The identity of the petitioner and theinvolvement of the petitionerin the present offencehadcomefromtheevidence of PW6 and PW9. Evidence of these two witnessescorroborateseach other. One of the accusedwas initially apprehended and interrogated.Some property was recovered from his possession. The said accused hadconfessed about the involvement of the other and thereupon he led the policeto that petitioner. The secondpetitioner confessedtheroleofthethirdpetitioner. The prosecution recovered the property from all the accused.It wascontended that independent evidence was not adduced by the prosecution.PW6 is a panchayat secretary. A panchayat secretaryis notpart of theinvestigation machinery. He was under no obligationtocorroboratetheinvestigation officer.In addition, PW6 has no enmity with thepetitioner.Therefore, on the ground that he was witness to the same facts in some othercases, cannot be held against this petitioner. Evenin the absenceof anindependent witness, a confession leading to a discovery of fact, can beestablished by the prosecution.

19. In regard to the judgment in C.C.No.50 of 2004, to bring home the guiltof the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked ExhibitsPI to P8 and Mos.1 to 3. PW1 and PW2 are the victims of the theft. Theydeposed that motor cyclist snatched their gold ornaments, and that they gavecomplaint to the police. These people did not depose to the identity of thepetitioner. However, PW2 was able to give the registration number of theof the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked ExhibitsPI to P8 and Mos.1 to 3. PW1 and PW2 are the victims of the theft. Theydeposed that motor cyclist snatched their gold ornaments, and that they gavecomplaint to the police. These people did not depose to the identity of thepetitioner. However, PW2 was able to give the registration number of the motorcycle,onwhichtheculpritshad come andcommittedtheftoftheornaments of PW.1andanother. PW3,theS.lofPolice, deposed aboutreceiving the complaint, registeringit as a case, recording the statements ofthe victims and filing of charge-sheet. He accompanied the Inspector of Policeat the time of arrest of the petitioner and seizure of the stolen property fromtheir possession under panchanamas. PW4 deposed to[the]arrestof thepetitioner and seizure of the stolen articles from their possession, in pursuanceof interrogation. This witness spoke about panchanamas drafted, covering theabove facts and his attestation to same. PW5 deposed to the investigation ofthe offence. He deposed that he found the petitioner coming in motorcycle; hecaught hold of them; he interrogated them; he found the stolen property; heseized the same under the cover of panchanamas and[to][ the][ arrest][ of][ the]petitioner. He also deposed to the arrest of another petitioner, in pursuance ofthe confession of A1 and A2.

20. Thepetitioner contendedthatnoidentification parade[was]heldtoconnect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Identification paradein thiscase has no relevance. The victims of the theft were not able to identify thepetitioner. The complaint was to the effect that unknown people, riding on themotorcycle committed theft of the gold ornaments. Therefore,[the][ identification]parade of the petitioner has no relevance in this case.It is contended that thepanch witness (PW4) is a stock witness, and therefore, his evidence should bediscarded.It was suggested to PW4 that he was a stock witness to the police.It was not elicited from him, the number of the cases in which he figured as aconnect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Identification paradein thiscase has no relevance. The victims of the theft were not able to identify thepetitioner. The complaint was to the effect that unknown people, riding on themotorcycle committed theft of the gold ornaments. Therefore,[the][ identification]parade of the petitioner has no relevance in this case.It is contended that thepanch witness (PW4) is a stock witness, and therefore, his evidence should bediscarded.It was suggested to PW4 that he was a stock witness to the police.It was not elicited from him, the number of the cases in which he figured as a witness to the police. In the absence of elicitingany useful information in thatregard, the contention that he was a stock witness had no basis.21.Aboutthesentencethat would beappropriatetoimposeonthepetitioner at this juncture, the offenceswere taken place more than 24yearsago. Much water has been flown by now. The petitioner has been sufferingfrom mental agony and trauma because of the delayed disposal of the revisioncases. The right to a speedy trialis a fundamental right guaranteed underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of speedy trial is a fundamentalright as per the decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourtinHussainaraKhatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihai^. This Right includesspeedydisposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right toa speedy trial alsoincludes criminal revisionsasper the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court inRajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^.

22. As per the letter addressed by the Superintendent of JailDistrict Prison,Kadapa to this Court, it is submitted that eitheras remand prisoner, under-trialprisoner or convictionprisoner, the petitioner underwent imprisonmentinseveral cases for seventy eight days (78). Aii these periods of imprisonmentshall run concurrently as per the Section 427 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The petitioner hassuffered mental agony because of the delayed disposal of the revision cases.The petitioner aiso submits that he has oid-aged parentswife and childrenKadapa to this Court, it is submitted that eitheras remand prisoner, under-trialprisoner or convictionprisoner, the petitioner underwent imprisonmentinseveral cases for seventy eight days (78). Aii these periods of imprisonmentshall run concurrently as per the Section 427 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The petitioner hassuffered mental agony because of the delayed disposal of the revision cases.The petitioner aiso submits that he has oid-aged parentswife and children I

who are dependents on him and has been suffering fromseverehealthcomplications due to post covid pandemic effect.

23. In view of the abovereasons, all the revision cases are disposed ofconfirming the convictions for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’while reducing the sentences of imprisonments to which the petitioner hadalready undergone. No order as to costs.reasons, all the revision cases are disposed ofconfirming the convictions for the offence under Section 411 of ‘the I.P.C.,’while reducing the sentences of imprisonments to which the petitioner hadalready undergone. No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications,if any, pending shall standclosed.

Sd/- U. SRIDEVIASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUECOPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1- The II Additional Sessions JudgeProddatur, YSR Kadapa District.Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.

2. TheI Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class:Magistrate of First Class:Kadapa District.Proddatur, YSR

3. The Station House OfficerKadapa District.ProddaturIII Town Police StationYSRKadapa District.ProddaturIII Town Police StationYSR

4. One CC to Smt P Rajani Reddy, Advocate[OPUC][OPUC]

5. One CC to Sri T Diwakar Reddy, Advocate[OPUC][OPUC]

6. Two CC's to The Public ProsecutorAmaravati [OUT]. High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravati [OUT]. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

7. The Section Officer, CriminalAmaravathi.Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi.Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

8. Three CD Copies

SAM

TF

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/03/2025

COMMON ORDER

CRLRC.Nos.1633, 1634 & 1636 of 2008

■V

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES

-'*(