State Rep by Inspector of Police, Vs Sri B.Surya Manikya Rao and Another

Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal questioning the Acquittal of the Respondent/Accused Officer No.2 herein CC.No. 36/2000, dt.12.7.2005 on the file of the Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam after obtaining permission from the Government vide Govt. Memo No.65529/Sec.VI (2) 93-94, Dt.07.03.2006 of Irrigation CAD (Ser.VI) Department

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2007(CRLAMP 1408 OF 2007

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of ''496'' days in Representation of the Crl.A.(SR) No.5367/2006 against the Order passed in CC.No. 36/2000, dt.12.7.2005 on the file of the Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2007(CRLAMP 1811 OF 2007

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (64) days in presentation of the Crl.A.(SR) No.5367/2006 against the Order passed in CC.No. 36/2000, dt.12.7.2005 on the file of the Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

¶21

Counsel for the Apellant:

¶22

1.S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

¶23

Counsel for the Respodent(S):

¶24

1.D SANGEETHA REDDY

¶25

2.K SRINIVASA RAO

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1379 of 2007

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel – cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the appellant–State, submits that the 1^st respondent/A1 died on 28.05.2004 during the pendency of the trial, and that the 2^nd respondent/A2 died on 18.12.2017 during the pendency of the appeal. In this regard, the prosecution has filed a memo dated 19.02.2026 before the Registry, along with copies of the death certificates of the deceased respondents/A1 and A2.

¶32

There is no representation on behalf of the 1^st respondent/A1.

¶33

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/A2, submits that the 2^nd respondent/A2 died on 18.12.2017 during the pendency of the appeal and that the legal representatives of the deceased 2^nd respondent/A2 have not come forward seeking leave to continue the appeal.

¶34

In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel – cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing for the appellant–State, and as none of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents/A1 and A2 have come forward seeking leave to continue the appeal, as contemplated under Section 394 of the Code

¶35

4

¶36

of Criminal Procedure, the appeal stands abated against

¶37

respondents/A1 and A2 under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶38