Sri U.u.prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April,2026

Crl MP No.323/2026 in Cr.No.5/RCT-VSP/2025

Between The State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam Range.

.... Complainant

Sri Dasari Eswara rao,S/o Late Mukhalingam, 40 years, Sub Inspector of police, Anakapalle town PS, R/o 2nd floor, Sri.Sai Nivas, Raghuram layout, Anakapalle town, Anakapalle District. N/o. Balingam Village, Haripuram (P), mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

.... Accused Officer

This petition came before me 22-04-2026 on this day for final hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/ Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

During the Investigation, the Investigating officer filed memo/application along with a letter of advice with a request to forward the mobile phone for

Forensic examination with the following averments. The main case is a trap case, in which the accused allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of

Rs.50,000/- from the complainant to cause performance of public duty. During the post trap proceedings, the accused was caught red handed, and the 2 investigating Officer seized . During the course of investigation, Investigating officer secured CC TV Foottage of Anakapalle Town PS were extracted and stored in sand Disk Cruzer blade USB 2.0 Flash Drive (Pen Drive of 8 G.B.) under the cover of mediators report dated 30-08-2025.

2.The Sand Disk is required for analysis by the Expert APFSL Mangalagiri to know the events taken place on 16-7-2025 and 18-7-2025 along with voice conversation etc. Hence, the petition may be allowed, and the Sand Disk(Pen drive) may be handed over to a forensic expert for further investigation.

3. Perusal of the letter of advise shows that Investigating Officer requires the details of examination as follows:

Footage-1: Request to examine the events took place on 16-7- 2025 at station House officer’s room ie., Sri T.V.Vijay Kumar,

Inspector of police, Anakapalle town Police Station from 19.24.00 hrs to 19.29.00 hours for the duration of 5 minutes. Request to extract the voice conversations took place in the room from 19.24.00 hrs to 19.29.00 hrs.

Footage-2: The events took place on 18-7-2025 at S.I-1(A.O.)

Room ie., Sri Dasari Eswara Rao, Sub Inspector of police,

Anakapalle town Police station from 11.34.01 hrs to 11.36.59 hrs for the deration of 2.58 secods. Request to extract the voice conversations took place inthe room from 11.34.01 hrs to 11.36.59 hrs.

Footage-3 The events took place on 18-7-2025 at SI-1(AO) room ie., D.Eswara Rao, Sub Inspector of police, Anakapalle town Police station from 12.47.01 hrs to 12.47.59 hrs for the duration of 58 3 seconds. Request to extract the voice conversation took place inthe room from 12.47.01 hrs to 12.47.59 hrs.

Footage-4 The events took place in the S.H.O. room on 18-7-2025 from 12.55.00 hrs to 13.00.01 hrs for the duration of 05.01 seconds. Request to extract the voice conversations took place int he room from 12.55.00 hrs to 13.00.01 hrs and request to examine the Item No.1 whether the video footages in the pen drive are genuine or not? Retrieve that information and furnish the report.

4. Heard spl. public prosecutor. He submitted that Pen drive containing the video footages/Item No.1, is required to be forwarded to the FSL for the purpose of examination by Forenscic expert as prayed.

5. Whether the prayer of the Investigating officer to send pen drive

containing video footages for forensic examination, is tenable or not?

6.Perused the case record.

7.This is the trap case, the facts of the case shows that the defacto complainant in the present case is the owner of the house let in for rent to others. The others, being tenants of the house, committed mischiefs, damaging the wall of the neighbouring building, in which gold shop was functioning. As the gold shop authorities reported to the police against the residents of the neighbouring house and the tenants absconded, the police made an enquiry with the owners of the building. The defacto complainant is none other than the owner of the building, at this stage, to close the case against owner of the building that the defacto complainant on the report of the gold shop onwers, during the enquiry, owner of the building/defacto 4 complainant herein handedover the house advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- given by the tenants, handeover to the Sub-Inspector of Police during the period from 16.07.2025 to 18.07.2025, subequently, Investigating Officer in the report given by gold shop, necessitated the defacto complainant herein to pay bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently reduced to Rs.50,000/- not to register any criminal case. At this stage defacto complainant reported to the ACB police. Investigating officer laid trap after receipt of the report of the defacto complainant dated 14-8-2025 and registered F.I.R on 14-8-2025. Initially, ACB officials prepared pre trap procedings with proposed bribe amount of

Rs.50,000/- brought by the defacto complainant and subsequently the accused was caught redhanded with tainted amount of Rs.50,000/-.

8.After completion of trap proceedings, investigating officer/D.S.P. secured 04 CC TV Footages of Anakapalle town PS, were extracted from Anakapalle

Police station DVR and stored in Sandisk Cruzer Blade USB 2.0 Flash

Drive(Pen Drive) of 8 GB under the cover of mediators report dated 30-08- 2025 drafted in the premises of of anakapalle town Police station, Anakapalle

District in the premises of mediaotrs and the same was submitted to the court through Form No.60 on 30-8-2025. Now, Investigating officer filed the memo/Application with a request to send the pendrive mentioned above to forensic expert to extract the voice conversations dated 16-7-2025 and 18-07- 2025 and genuineness.

9.As the Investigating officer secured CC TV Footages of Anakapalle town

Police station particularly footages dated 16-07-2025 and 18-07-2025 and prayed to know the conversation relating to the present case, I am of the view that the examination of the pen drive to know the conversation allegedly taken place on 16-07-2025 and 18-07-2025 is to prove the meeting accused by the de facto complainant herein, and handed over the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- 5 during the period from 16.07.2025 to 18.07.2025 and accordingly the petition is liable to be allowed.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed to send the material to the Forensic expert for examination and submission of the report as mentioned above. The expert is hereby directed to furnish report with in a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of the material for examination.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-U.U.Prasad

Sd/- U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

Copy to

1. The Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, Visakhapatnam.

2. The counsel for the Accused Officer.

//True Copy//

Superintendent III ADJ/VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

Crl.MP.No.332/2026 in Cr.No.05/RCA-VSP/2026

Between

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vishakhapatnam.

.... Petitioner/ Complainant

Sri.Dasari Eswara Rao, S/o Late Mukalingam, 40 years, Sub Inspector of police,Anakapalle town PS, R/o 2nd floor, Sri.Sai Nivas, Raghuram layout, Anakapalle town, Anakapalle District N/o. Baligam village, Haripuram (P), Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

....Accused Officer

This petition came before me 21-04-2026 on this day for final hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/ Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

During the Investigation , the Investigating officer filed memo/application along with a letter of advice with a request to forward the mobile phone for

Forensic examination with the following averments. The main case is a trap case, in which the accused allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of

Rs.50,000/- from the complainant to cause performance of public duty. During the post trap proceedings, the accused was caught red handed, and the 2 investigating Officer seized the mobile of the accused i.e.,OPPO Reno 8 T 5G,

Sunrise Gold Colour, IMEI No.-1, 867426063654551, IMEI No-2:

867426063654544, SIM No.9441362567, Network BSNL. Network BSNL was seized in the presence of mediators. The said phone was submitted to the court along with Form No.60 on 15-08-2025. On the same day, this court returned the said mobile to Investigating Officer for further investigation with instructions to produce at the time of filing the case on merits.

2.The mobile phone is required for analysis by the expert APFSL,

Mangalagiri. for retrieving the deleted Calls & Chats/Messages in Whatsapp or any other conversations/communications of the afore-mentioned seized mobile phones from 15-07-2025 to 14-08-2025 in between the phone No’s 8985169999 (complainant Surisetti Ramalinga Jagga Apparao) and AO

Phone No.9441362567. Hence, the petition may be allowed, and the mobile phone of AO may be handed over to a forensic expert for further investigation.

3. Perusal of the letter of advise shows that Investigating Officer requires the details of examination as follows:

Q-1.Request to examine the deleted Calls & Chats/MessagesinWhatsapporanyother conversation/communication Pertaining to bribe transactions in item No.1 from 15.07.2025 to 14.08.2025 In between the complainant Phone Number 8985169999 and AO’s phone number 9441362567 Retrieve that information and furnish the report.

Q-2. Please verify whether any deleted Whatsapp Conversation, deleted Call Logs, deleted financial transactions or any other communication — bribe transactions in item No.1 from 15.07.2025 to 14.08.2025 in between the complainant 3

Phone Number 8985169999 and AO’s phone number 9441362567 Retrieve that information and furnish the report.

4. Heard spl. public prosecutor. He submitted that the phone of accused is required to be forwarded to the FSL for the purpose of examination of mobile by Forenscic expert and regarding deleted Whatsapp chats conversation and deleted calls and chat messages from the period from 15-07-2025 to 14-08- 2025, with phone of defacto complainant.

5. Whether the prayer of the Investigating officer to send the mobiles of Accused Officer for forenscic examination, is tenable or not?

6.Perused the case record.

This is the trap case. Investigating officer laid trap after receipt of the report of the defacto complainant dated 14-08-2025 and registered F.I.R. on 14-08- 2025. Initially, ACB officials prepared pre trap procedings with proposed bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- brought by the defacto complainant and subsequently the accused was caught redhanded with tainted amount of Rs.50,000/-.

7.After completion of trap proceedings, investigating officer/D.S.P. secured cell phone i.e., of the accused OPPO Reno8 T 5G, Sunrise Gold Colour, IMEI

No.-1, 867426063654551, IMEI No-2: 867426063654544, SIM

NO.9441362567, Network BSNL. Now, Investigating officer filed the memo/Application with a request to send the mobile of the accused mentioned above to forensic expert to retrieve the deleted whats app calls, text messages between the accused mobile and defacto complainant.

4

8.In the instant case, FIR crime No.05/RCT-VSP/2025, dated 14.08.2025, along with the report of the defacto complainant, discloses that the defacto complainant applied for returning the shop keys and ensuring the complainant would not be implicated in the case of attempt of theft. The case record further shows that on the date of trap i.e., 14-08-2025 accused was caught redhanded after receipt of the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- from defacto complainant and then he was arrested. The case record further shows that the voice record provided to the complainant was recovered by the police and the voice record discloses the conversation of the defacto complainant with accused. Then

Investigating officer transferred the conversation into the memory card and seized the same.

9.To send mobile to expert, there must be relevancy and necessity of a mobile phone to the present case as a primary tool, storage of evidence, or instrument of crime for the offence of conspiracy, financial fraud. Accordingly, the device must be the primary object of the crime. There must be a rational nexus between crime and the data sought, ensuring the search shall not be a fishing expedition for an offence. Investigation must demonstrate that the data on the phones is directly linked to the alleged bribery Ex: Specific Whatsapp chats, call records, etc, As this case is of trap case, the phone must be related to demand and acceptance of bribe only.

10.The facts of the case discloses the defacto complainant made use of his phone for recording a conversation. Accordingly, the case record do not disclose specifically any kind of Whatsapp chats, except out going call to the defacto complainant on 14-08-2025. Regarding call data record, Investigating officer is able to secure the same from Nodal officer of the concerned Telecom 5

Net work. As there are no specific details of Whatsapp calls or call records relating to the present case particularly demanding for bribe between the phone of the defacto complainant with phone of the accused, this court is of the view that mobile phone is not prime document to achieve the object of the investigation, hence, there are no merits to consider the request of the investigating officer to send the mobile phone to the Forensic Experts for analysis on the issues sought by them. Further, the accused was caught red handed and bribe was received. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 22 nd da y of April, 2026.

Sd/-U.U.PrasadSd/- U.U.Prasad

Sd/- U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

Crl MP No.325/2026 in Cr.No.1/RCA-VZM/2026

Between The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vizianagaram.

.... Petitioner/ Complainant

Sri.Netti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Ramalinga Swamy, aged 42 years, Home Guard-117, District Police Office, Vizianagaram District, R/o. D.No.1-15-7D, Flat No.401, 4th Floor, Laxmi Nivasam-2 Apartments, Sri.Alakananda Colony, Vizianagaram.

....Accused Officer

This petition came before me 22-04-2026 on this day for final hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/ Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

During the Investigation, the Investigating officer filed a memo/application along with a letter of advice with a request to forward the mobile phone for Forensic examination with the following averments. The facts of the case show that this case is disproportionate in terms of the assets worth of Rs. 56,98,886/-(Rupees fifty six lakhs ninety eight thousand eight hundred eighty six only) possessed by the accused Netty Srinivasa Rao. On the proceedings of the Joint Director, Andhra Pradesh Zone, ACB, Vijayawada, 2

Investigating Officer prepared an occurrence report and registered a case in

Cr.No.01/RCA-ACB/VZM/2026 on 28.01.2026 and held searches in the residential premises of AO and his family members and found several movable and immovable properties noted under the cover of mediators report dated 29.01.2026.

2.The mobile phone of AO and his wife are required for analysis by the expert APFSL, Mangalagiri, for retrieving the deleted Chats, financial transactions, screen shots in photo gallery and google photos and deleted financial transactions screenshots and others which were sent through

Whatsapp, Gmail, Phonepe, Googlepay etc., of the afore-mentioned seized mobile phone from 06.08.2012 to 29.01.2026 between the phones item No.1:

Mobile Phone Vivo T3x 5g vide IMEI Nos 860946077936196 & 860946077936188 which was seized from:-the Accused Officer during inventory proceedings, dated: 29.01.2026 at the residential premises of AO.” and item No.2: Model No. RMX3710 vide IMEI Nos 864755063134856 & 864755063134849, which were seized from the wife of AO during inventory proceedings, dated: 29.01.2026 at the residential premises of AO. Hence, the petition may be allowed, and the mobile phone of the AO may be handed over to a forensic expert for further investigation.

3. Perusal of the letter of advise shows that Investigating Officer requires the details of examination as follows:

Q-1. Request to examine physical back up of Item Nos.01 & 02 i.e., chats, deleted chats, financial transactions screen shots in Photo Gallery and Google Photos and deleted financial transactions screen shots and others which were sent through WatsApp, Gmail, Phonepe, Googlepay etc., during check period i.e., 06.08.2012 to 29.01.2026 (till date of searches) and furnish the report.

3

4. Heard spl. public prosecutor. He submitted that the phone of the accused and the wife of the accused is required to be forwarded to the FSL for the purpose of examination of the mobile by a forensic expert, and regarding deleted chats, financial transactions screenshots in Photo Gallery and Google

Photos, and deleted financial transactions screenshots and others which were sent through WhatsApp, Gmail, Phonepe, Google Pay, etc., during the check period, i.e., 06.08.2012 to 29.01.2026

5. Whether the prayer of the Investigating officer to send the mobiles of accused for forenscic examination, is tenable or not?

6.Perused the case record.

7.The facts of the case show that after registration of the crime, the police held searches in the house premises of the accused at D.No.1-15-7D, Flat

No.401, 4th Floor, Laxmi Nivasam-2 Apartments, Sri.Alakananda Colony,

Vizianagaram, in the presence of mediators, found and noted movable and immovable properties possessed by the accused and his family. Further, they found two mobile phones, i.e., item No.1: Mobile Phone Vivo T3x 5g vide IMEI

Nos 860946077936196 & 860946077936188, which was seized from the

Accused Officer during inventory proceedings, dated: 29.01.2026 at the residential premises of AO, and item No.2: Model No.RMX3710 vide IMEI Nos 864755063134856 & 864755063134849 to the Forensic expert to elicit calls and retrieve the same from the phone of AO with his relatives.

8.To send a mobile to an expert, there must be relevancy and necessity of a mobile phone to the present case as a primary tool, storage of evidence, or instrument of crime for the offence of conspiracy, financial fraud, etc.

Accordingly, the device must be the primary object of the crime. There must be a rational nexus between crime and the data sought, ensuring the search shall 4 not be a fishing expedition for an offence. Investigation must demonstrate that the data on the phone is directly linked to the alleged financial transaction, e.g., specific WhatsApp chats, call records, Gmail, Phonepe, and Google Pay.

As this case is a disproportionate assets case, the phones must be related to the specific purpose only.

10.The prayer of the Investigating Officer is to ascertain WhatsApp, Gmail,

Phonepe, Google Pay transactions, etc., from the phone of AO with his wife and relatives/friends, who allegedly acted as binamies. The record do not disclose anywhere allaged material facts about the wife of AO and his family members are relevant to the accused officer. Regarding financial

transactions through mobile phone, this court is of the view that mobile

phones are not material since all the financial transactions online are

from individual bank accounts of the accused, etc., which are available in

the bank accounts in detail. Further, in this case, the Investigating Officer has already noted all the details of movable and immovable properties of A.O., in his mediator report; accordingly, there is no material to show that the accused's phone and his wife’s phone are prime material documents to achieve the object of the investigation. Further, the application/memo of the

Investigating Officer do not show the specific allegation/transaction against the property/financial transaction. I am of the view that there are no merits to allow the petition.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 22 nd da y of April, 2026.

Sd/-U.U.Prasad Sd/- U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

Crl.MP No.348/2026 in Cr.No.02/RCA-VSP/2026

Between

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vishakhapatnam.

.... Petitioner/ Complainant

Sri.Kallepalli Srinivasa Rao, aged 62 years, S/o. Late Ramachandra Rao, Retd.Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Visakhapatnam, R/o. Flat No.8105, 10th Floor, 8th Block, MVV City, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

....Accused Officer

This petition came before me 21-04-2026 on this day for final hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/ Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

During the Investigation, the Investigating officer filed a memo/application along with a letter of advice with a request to forward the mobile phone for Forensic examination with the following averments. The facts of the case shows that this case is disproportionate of assets worth of

Rs.1,49,69,400/- (Rupees one crore forty nine lakhs sixty nine thousand and 2 four hundred only) possessed by the accused Kallepalli Srinivasa Rao. On the proceedings of the Joint Director, (Andhra Zone), ACB, Vijayawada,

Investigating Officer prepared occurrence report and registered a case in

Cr.No.02/RCA-VSP/2026 on 02.02.2026 and held searches in the residential premises of AO and found several movable and immovable properties noted under the cover of mediators report dated 05.02.2026.

2.The mobile phone of AO is required for analysis by the expert APFSL,

Mangalagiri, for retrieving the deleted Calls & Chats/Messages in WhatsApp or any other conversations/communications of the afore-mentioned seized mobile phone from 01.11.2015 to 06.02.2026 between the phone numbers 9866505808 (binami/friend) Repaka Gowri Sankar 7483886741 (binami/friend)

Rapaka Sarojini and 9948267166(binami/brother-in-law) Idupuri Narayana

Rao and AO’s phone No.8008243111. Hence, the petition may be allowed, and the mobile phone of the AO may be handed over to a forensic expert for further investigation.

3. Perusal of the letter of advise shows that Investigating Officer requires the details of examination as follows:

Q.1: Request examine the deleted Calls @

Chats/MessagesinWhatsapporanyother conversation/communication Pertaining to transactions in item

No.1 from 01.11.2025 to 06.02.2026 in between the phone No.s 9866505808 (benami/friend Repaka Gowri Sankara Rao), 7483886741 (benami/friend Repaka Sarojini & 9948267166 (benami/brother-in-law Indupuri Narayana Rao) and AO’s phone 3

No.8008243111 ? Retrieve that information and furnish the report.

Q-2. Please verify whether any deleted Whatsapp

Conversation, deleted Call Logs, deleted financial transactions or any other communication transactions in item No.1 from 01.11.2025 to 06.02.2026 in between the phone No.s 9866505808 (benami/friend Repaka Gowri Sankara Rao), 7483886741 (benami/friend Repaka Sarojini & 9948267166 (benami/brother-in-law Indupuri Narayana Rao) and AO’s phone

No.8008243111 ? Retrieve that information and furnish the report.

4. Heard spl. public prosecutor. He submitted that the phone of accused is required to be forwarded to the FSL for the purpose of examination of mobile by Forenscic expert and regarding deleted whats app chats conversation and deleted calls and chat messages from the period from 01-11-2025 to 06-02- 2026, with binami.

5. Whether the prayer of the Investigating Officer to send the mobiles of accused for forenscic examination, is tenable or not?

6.Perused the case record.

7.The facts of the case showed that after registration of the crime, the police held searches in the house premises of the accused at MVV city apartment opposite the road to the International Cricket Stadium,

Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam, in the presence of mediators, found and noted movable and immovable properties possessed by the accused and his family.

4

Further, they found two mobile phones, i.e., Apple iPhone 14 Pro and Apple I- phone 16 pro max, and returned to them after noting the value of the items.

Now the Investigating Officer prayed to send the Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

IMEI-1: 3582455295019990, IMEI-2 358245529626987, SIM-1: 8008243111 &

Phone Lock: 0990663 to the Forensic expert to elicit calls and retrieve the same from the phone of AO with his relatives, said to have acted as binamies.

8.To send a mobile to an expert, there must be relevancy and necessity of a mobile phone to the present case as a primary tool, storage of evidence, or instrument of crime for the offence of conspiracy, financial fraud, etc.

Accordingly, the device must be the primary object of the crime. There must be a rational nexus between crime and the data sought, ensuring the search shall not be a fishing expedition for an offence. Investigation must demonstrate that the data on the phone is directly linked to the alleged financial transaction, e.g., specific WhatsApp chats, call records etc.,. As this case is an disproportionate of assets case, the phone must be related to the specific purpopse only.

10.The prayer of the Investigating Officer is to ascertain WhatsApp transactions etc., from the phone of AO with his relatives/friends, who allegedly acted as binamies. The record do not disclose anywhere allaged material facts that friend by name Rapaka Gowri Sankar, Rapaka Sarojini, and brother-in-law

Idupuri Narayana are binamidars of the accused. Further, in this case, the

Investigating Officer has already noted all the details of movable and immovable properties of A.O., in his mediator report; accordingly, there is no material to show that the accused's phone is a prime material document to achieve the object of the investigation. Further, the application/memo of the 5

Investigating Officer do not show the specific allegation/transaction against the property/finanacial trnasaction, I am of the view that there are no merits to allow the petition.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 22 nd da y of April, 2026.

Sd/-U.U.Prasad

Sd/- U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR

SPE & ACB CASES, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri U.U.Prasad III Addl. District Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.362/2026 in Cr. No.02/RCT-VZM/2026

Between: The State represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vizianagaram Range. …. Petitioner/Complainant And:

1.Sri Ambati Rampydi Chittibabu, S/o Narasinga Rao, aged 35 years, Village Revenue Officer, Savaravilli Village Grama Sachivalayam and I/C of Chakivalasa Grama Sachivalayam, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

….Respondent No.1/Accused Officer.

2.Sri Lanka Bangaru Naidu, S/o late Satyam, age 43 years, R/o. Chakivalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ….Respondent No.2/ Defacto-Complainant

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner/Complainant, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the prosecution U/Sec.39 of BSA, 2023 with a prayer to direct the Respondent no.1/Accused Officer/ Ambati Rampydi Chittibabu and

Respondent-2/defacto complainant/Lanka Bangaru Naidu, to attend before the

Asst.Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri for giving their specimen voices.

2

2.The ACB, Vizianagaram has registered a case against the Accused

Officer/Ambati Rampydi Chittibabu and Respondent-2/defacto complainant/Lanka

Bangaru Naidu, in Cr.No.02/RCT-ACB/VZM/2026. As per the prosecution, Accused

Officer demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant Lanka Bangaru Naidu, for “processing the mutation of land admeasuring Ac.0.7380 cents situated at Chakivalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal in the name of complainant’s peternal uncle, Sri.Lanka Appala Narasimhulu and for issuing a pattadar pass book.” On 23.02.2026, the defacto complainant lodged a report against Accused Officer/Ambati Rampydi Chittibabu, Village Revenue Officer,

Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District along with “XTREME SM Micro SD HC

CLASS (10) 4 GB Memory card, as the conversation took place between himself and Accused Officer.

The defacto complainant had recorded the conversation between himself and

Accused Officer in his mobile phone through voice recorder. Now the sample voice of AO and the defacto complainant are required for comparison with the voice recording produced by the defacto complainant. Hence, petition may be allowed.

3.No counter filed.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Learned Spl.P.P argued that voice samples of the defacto complainant and

Accused Officer is required for the purpose of comparison with their voices recorded by the defacto complainant. Hence, petition may be allowed.

6.The counsel for the respondent No.1/AO argued opposing the petition and submitted that the petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is entitled for

the relief of directing the Respondent No.1/AO and the De-facto complainant

to attend before the Assistant Director, Audio & Video Section, S.F.S.L., A.P.,

Mangalagiri for giving their specimen voices?

3

8.POINT:

Perused the case record. As per the record, F.I.R in

Cr.No.02/RCT-ACB/VZM/2026 was registered on the report of the defacto complainant on the ground that the AO demanded and accepted bribe of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for doing official favour i.e., for “processing the mutation of land admeasuring Ac.0.7380 cents situated at

Chakivalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal in the name of complainant’s peternal uncle, Sri.Lanka Appala Narasimhulu and for issuing a pattadar pass book and the defacto complainant recorded the voice conversation between him and AO in his cell phone while the they were demanding bribe and transmitted the same into a “XTREME SM Micro SD HC CLASS (10) 4 GB Memory card”. On 23.02.2026, the defacto complainant lodged a report against Accused Officer/Ambati Rampydi

Chittibabu, Village Revenue Officer, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as the conversation took place between himself and AO.

9.Though the counsel for the Respondent No.1/AO opposed the petition, in view of the authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No.2003 of 2012 between Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of U.P & Another wherein Hon’ble Apex Court discussed various judgments viz., 1) State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu Oghad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808, 2) State of U.P Vs. Ram Babu Misra reported in AIR 1980 SC 791 and 3) Sushil Kumar Sen Vs. State of Bihar (1975) 1 SCC 774 and held that a Magistrate got power to order a person to give sample of voice as follows:

“In the light of the above discussions, we unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”.

4

10.Considering the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the voice samples of Respondent No.1/AO and the defacto complainant are required for identification and comparison by the expert with their earlier voice recordings produced.

11.In the result, petition is allowed, Accused Officer/Ambati Rampydi Chittibabu and Respondent-2/defacto complainant/Lanka Bangaru Naidu are directed to appear before Director, Audio & Video Section, F.S.L., A.P., Mangalagiri to record their voice samples for comparison with their questioned voices, within two weeks from this day.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- U.U.Prasad

III Addl. District Judge-cum

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Visakhapatnam.

Copy to The Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam