IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1061 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Saleem Traders … PETITIONER And 1. D. Shivaji 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1061 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The Public Prosecutor seeks to file this appeal against acquittal of the respondents 1 to 9 of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 286, 436, 324/34 I.P.C., Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act in Sessions Case No.251 of 1996 by judgment dated 01.06.2007, passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases cum VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Except the alleged confessional statements of the accused recorded by the designated Police Officer under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (in short, TADA), there is no other direct evidence to incriminate the respondents to the offences charged against them. The alleged confessional statements recorded by the designated Police Officer under TADA cannot be relied upon in trial of the same accused for other I.P.C. offences alone. 4. Insofar as arrest of the accused at Gulbarga is concerned, there is evidence of panch witness - P.W.14 and the Police Officer - P.W.24. Their evidence cannot throw any light as to the charges framed in respect of offences which took place in Andhra Pradesh. 5. Further, the lower Court held that sanction for prosecution granted by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, as Additional District Magistrate is not valid on the ground that the State Government cannot further delegate its powers to the District Magistrate or to the Additional District Magistrate. The lower Court placed reliance upon STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BHUPENDRA SINGH[1] and also M. SARVESHWAR RAO @ LOODH KUMAR @ KAJU @ NARESH, RAJANAGAR VS. STATE OF A.P.[2] on this aspect. In the absence of any direct evidence and in the absence of any clinching circumstantial evidence touching the offences which took place in Andhra Pradesh state and in the absence of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority for offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act, the lower Court rightly acquitted the respondents of the charges. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with well-reasoned order of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 6. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 25, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1061 OF 2010 August 25, 2010 KL [1] 2000 Criminal Law Journal 805 [2] 2005 (1) ALT (CRL) 207 (A.P.)