* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

&

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

+CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.110, 138, 139 AND 169 OF 2025

% 03.07.2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.110 of 2025

# Rela Rajeswari W/o Sudhakar Raju

… Appellant

Vs.

$ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor,

…. Respondent

! Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent: ADDITONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138 of 2025

# MANUKONDA SRINIVASA RAO S/o LATE SUBBA RAO

… Appellant

Vs.

$ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor,

…. Respondent

! Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T.PRADYUMN KUMAR REDDY,

learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of MS GANGA BHAVANI RAGI

Counsel for the Respondent: ADDITONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.139 of 2025

# JANGALA KOTESWARA RAO @ KOTI S/o KOTAYYA

… Appellant

Vs.

$ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor,

…. Respondent

! Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRINIVASULU P

Counsel for the Respondent: ADDITONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.169 of 2025

# BOPPUDI ANJAMMA W/o LATE LAKSHMAYYA

… Appellant

Vs.

$ State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor,

…. Respondent

! Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent: ADDITONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1963 SCC 749

2. (2003) 7 SCC 749

3. (2022) 12 SCC 240

4. 2012 LawSuit(SC) 629

5. 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1753

3

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

&

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.110, 138, 139 AND 169 OF 2025

Date of Judgment Pronounced: 03.07.2025

Submitted for Approval:

SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

AND

SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

_____________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

4

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

APHC010090292025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3528]

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 110, 138, 139 AND 169 OF 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 110/2025

Between:

1. RELA RAJESWARI, W/O SUDHAKAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52

YEARS, R/O.HOUSE NO. 14 -867, DOLAS NAGAR,

TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRAD ESH.

...APELLANT

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AT AMARAVATI.

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIEF

INVESTIGATING OFFICER, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION

AGENCY, HYDERABAD BRANCH OFFICE.

...RESPODENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

5

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 138/2025

Between:

1. MANUKONDA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED

50 YEARS, OCC FACULTY OF LAW , R/AT D.NO. 13-408/A,

JYOTHINAGAR, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...APELLANT

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY

SOLICITOR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, AMARAVATHI,ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NATIONAL

INVESTIGATION AGENCY, HYDERABAD.

...RESPODENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. GANGA BHAVANI RAGI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 139/2025

Between:

1. JANGALA KOTESWARA RAO @ KOTI,, S/O KOTA YYA, AGED

53 YEARS, LABOUR/COOLIE, C/O PRESIDENT,

ASSOCIATION, PRAJAKALAMANDALI, GUDIPUDIVARIPALEM,

NEAR CHEEMAKURTHY, MAMATHA NAGAR COLONY,

NAGOLE, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE

...APELLANT

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY

SOLICITOR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NIA, HYDERABAD.

...RESPODENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SRINIVASULU P

6

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 169/2025

Between:

1. BOPPUDI ANJAMMA, W/O.LATE LAKSHMAYYA, AGED

ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.HOUSE NO.3 -40/1, GANAPAVARAM

VILLAGE, NADENDIA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

...APELLANT

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NIA, AT AMARAVATI.

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHIEF

INVESTIGATING OFFICER, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION

AGENCY, HYDERABAD BRANCH OFFICE.

...RESPODENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

7

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

The Court made the following

COMMON JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

As the issue involved in all these Criminal Appeals is similar,

they are being disposed off, by way of this Common Judgment, at the

stage of admission.

2. Crl.A.No.110 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.60, under Section

21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, questioning the charges

framed by the learned Special Judge for NIA Cases-cum-III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred as

‘Special Judge’), dated 04.12.2024 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2023.

3. Crl.A.No.169 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.46 questioning the

charges framed by the learned Special Judge on 18.12.2024 in

Sessions Case No.11 of 2023.

4. Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.80,

questioning the order, dated 06.01.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1119 of

2024 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2023 dismissing the discharge

application.

5. Whereas Crl.A.No.139 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.84,

challenging the order, dated 31.12.2024, dismissing the discharge

application, vide Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2024 in Sessions Case No.11 of

2023.

6. Brief facts, leading to filing of these Criminal Appeals, are as

follows:-

(i) The National Investigating Agency filed a charge sheet before

the Court of learned Special Judge for NIA Case-cum-III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam against 84 accused. The

8

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

offences alleged in the said charge sheet were under Sections 10, 13

and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 120-B,

121, 120(a), 143, 144, 124(a) read with 149 IPC and Section 8(i), 8(ii)

Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992 and Section 25 of the Arms

Act, 1959. Initially Crime No.47 of 2020 was registered on the file of

Munchungput Police Station and subsequently, the investigation was

entrusted to National Investigating Agency, Hyderabad and the case

was re-registered as Rc-01/2021/NIA/Hyderabad, dated 07.03.2021.

After registration of crime, all the appellants were arrested and they

were enlarged on bail on different dates. It is pertinent to note that FIR

was registered on 24.03.2020, whereas charge sheet was filed on

25.01.2021 before the Special Court for NIA Cases and the case was

numbered as Sessions Case No.11 of 2023.

(ii) The appellants in Crl.A.No.138 and 139 of 2025 have filed

discharge applications, vide Crl.M.P.No.1119 and 301 of 2024

respectively. It was contended by the appellants before the trial Court

that the documents, as required under Section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023) were not supplied to them. Apart from the said ground, they also

raised grounds for discharge on merits. The National Investigating

Agency took objections with regard to the maintainability of the said

application and also on merits. After hearing both sides, both the

discharge applications were dismissed by the impugned order. As

already pointed out, the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.110 and 169 of 2025

have not filed any discharge applications and they filed Criminal

Appeals questioning the charges framed by the learned Special Judge

on the ground that the documents, as required under Section 207 Code

of Criminal Procedure (230 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

were not supplied to them.

9

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

7. Sri T.Pradyumn Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Ms.Ganga Bhavani Ragi, learned counsel for

the appellant in Crl.A.No.138 of 2025, strenuously contends that the

accused were supplied all the documents, except the statements of

protected witnesses. He further contends that as the statements of the

protected witnesses are not furnished to all the accused, they filed

Crl.M.P No.174 of 2025 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2023 on

10.02.2025. Learned Special Judge in the docket proceedings, dated

24.03.2025 recorded as follows:-

“During hearing, the National Investigating Agency Constable

by name Yashodara Rao submitted that they supplied

truncated copies of protected witnesses to the petitioner’s

counsel. Hence, the petition for supplying necessary copies

of the protected witnesses becomes infructuous.

Accordingly, the petition is closed”.

8. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has

placed a reliance on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in Noor Khan vs. State of Rajasthan

1

, Shakila Abdul Gafar

Khan v. Vasanth Raghunadh Dhoble and another

2

and Waheed-ur-

Rehman Parra vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

3

,

V.K.Sasikala vs. State of Karnataka

4

and Vinubhai Haribhai

Malaviya and others vs. State of Gujarat and another

5

.

9. The learned Senior Counsel while relying on the contents of the

counter filed by NIA in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2025 wherein it was

categorically mentioned that the statements of the protected witnesses

cannot be supplied since it may lead to reveal the identity particulars of

1

AIR 1963 SCC 749

2

(2003) 7 SCC 749

3

(2022) 12 SCC 240

4

2012 LawSuit (SC) 629

5

2019 Law Suit (SC) 1753

10

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

the protected witnesses that endanger their lives, has strenuously

contended that there is no dispute with regard to the non-supply of the

statements of the protected witnesses to the appellants.

10. Whereas, Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, and Sri P.Srinivasulu,

learned counsel appearing for appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.110 of

2025, 139 & 169 of 2025 have also conceded to the arguments of the

learned Senior Counsel.

11. On the other hand, Sri Challa Dhanunjay, learned Additional

Solicitor General of India contends that the Proceedings, dated

16.03.2022 itself indicate that the copies of the documents were

furnished to the accused. It also indicates in the Proceedings, dated

06.01.2025 that when A.6 was questioned about the receipt of

documents, he answered in an affirmative that he received all the

documents except the statements of protected witnesses. Learned

Additional Solicitor General of India further contends that he cannot

improve the case, as the proceeding sheets and the orders passed by

the learned Special Judge dismissing the discharge applications

specifically recites the non-supply of statements of protected witnesses

to the accused before framing of charges. Learned Additional Solicitor

General of India further contends that as per the provisions of Section

250 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused has to

prefer an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the

date of commitment of the case under Section 232. He further

contends that the present application for discharge was filed on

16.12.2024 after Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, came into

force. As such, the applications filed by the appellants were not

maintainable. He further opposed by contending that the present

applications for discharge were filed under the provisions of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also contends that as per the provisions

11

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

of Section 531 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

appellants ought to have filed the applications under the provisions of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but not under the

provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

12. We have perused the entire material on record.

13. Before going into the merits and demerits of the case, it is

relevant to extract the provisions of Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, which reads as under :-

“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and

other documents.

In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a

police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to

the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following;

i. the police report;

ii. the first information report recorded under

section 154;

iii. the statements recorded under Sub-Section

(3) of section 161 of all persons whom the

prosecution proposes to examine as its

witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in

regard to which a request for such exclusion

has been made by the police officer under

Sub-Section (6) of section 173;

iv. the confessions and statements, if any,

recorded under section 164;

v. any other document or relevant extract thereof

forwarded to the Magistrate with the police

report under Sub-Section (5) of section 173;

Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such

pan of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and

considering the reasons given by the police officer for the

request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of

such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall

be furnished to the accused;

12

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any

document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall,

instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct

that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or

through pleader in Court.”

14. It is an admitted fact that from 1

st

July, 2024 onwards, Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, replaced the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The relevant provision to Section 207 of Cr.P.C. in

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is Section 230. For better

appreciation, Sections 230 and 531(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, read as under :-

“230. Supply to accused of copy of police report and

other documents.

In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a

police report, the Magistrate shall without delay, and in no

case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or

appearance of the accused, furnish to the accused and the

victim (if represented by an advocate) free of cost, a copy of

each of the following:-

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report recorded under section

173;

(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of

section 180 of all persons whom the prosecution

proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding

therefrom any part in regard to which a request for

such exclusion has been made by the police

officer under sub-section (7) of section 193;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded

under section 183;

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof

forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report

under sub-section (6) of section 193:

Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such

part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and

considering the reasons given by the police officer for the

13

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of

such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be

furnished to the accused:

Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any

such document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing

the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate)

with a copy thereof, may furnish the copies through electronic

means or direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either

personally or through an advocate in Court:

Provided also that supply of documents in electronic form

shall be considered as duly furnished.

“531. (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

is hereby repealed.

(2)Notwithstanding such repeal –

(a) if, immediately before the date on which this

Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal,

application, trial, inquiry or investigation

pending, then, such appeal, application, trial,

inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of,

continued, held or made, as the case may be,

in accordance with the provisions of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as in

force immediately before such

commencement (hereinafter referred to as the

said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come

into force;

(b) all notifications published, proclamations

issued, powers conferred, forms provided by

rules, local jurisdictions defined, sentences

passed and orders, rules and appointments,

not being appointments as Special

Magistrates, made under the said Code and

which are in force immediately before the

commencement of this Sanhita, shall be

deemed, respectively, to have been published,

issued, conferred, specified, defined, passed

or made under the corresponding provisions of

this Sanhita;

14

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

(c) any sanction accorded or consent given under

the said Code in pursuance of which no

proceeding was commenced under that Code,

shall be deemed to have been accorded or

given under the corresponding provisions of

this Sanhita and proceedings may be

commenced under this Sanhita in pursuance

of such sanction or consent.

(3)Where the period specified for an application or other

proceeding under the said Code had expired on or before the

commencement of this Sanhita, nothing in this Sanhita shall

be construed as enabling any such application to be made or

proceeding to be commenced under this Sanhita by reason

only of the fact that a longer period therefor is specified by

this Sanhita or provisions are made in this Sanhita for the

extension of time.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of Waheed-ur-

Rehman Parra’s (3

rd

Supra) held at Paras 20, 25 and 27 as follows:-

“20. On the aspect of a review power being exercised by the

trial court, which was not within its jurisdiction, it was urged

that the first direction to designate certain witnesses as

protected witnesses was in the absence of the accused. That

was a distinct nature of proceedings. Those proceedings

could not take away the right of an accused to be supplied

with witness statements as the objective was only to protect

the witnesses and not to take out the whole statement out of

the purview of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The second order

dated 11.9.2021 was to fulfill the mandate of Section 207 of

the Cr.P.C., subject to the precautions to be taken in that

behalf.

25. The occasion for the appellant/accused to come in and

seek redacted statements under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

arose when the trial was to commence and the appellant was

of the view that in order to plead an appropriate defence

there should be full disclosure minus the redacted portion so

that the testimonies of those witnesses could be utilized

without disclosing their identities or their place of residence.

This is not, in our view, an exercise of the power of review

15

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

but the exercise of powers at two different stages of

proceedings under two different provisions. The plea of the

prosecution of this being a review power is, thus misplaced.

There is no doubt that the power of review is not available

with the trial court and the question was whether the exercise

of the power by the trial court under the two separate

provisions vide orders dated 01.06.2021 and 11.09.2021 can

at all be said to be the power of review in the latter order. The

answer to this is clearly in the negative.

27. Having said so, we also come to the order passed by the

trial court on 11.09.2021 which has been cautiously worded.

The order has not only permitted redaction of the address

and particulars of the witnesses which could disclose their

identities but has further observed as noted aforesaid that

even other relevant paras in the statement which would

disclose their occupation and identity could be redacted.

Thus, a wide discretion has been given and that too for the

Special Public Prosecutor to take a call. There could thus

have hardly been a grievance raised by the prosecution in

this regard.”

16. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

judgments referred to 1

st

and 2

nd

Supra.

17. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India did not dispute the

above legal matrix.

18. In the present case on hand, the Sessions Case was numbered

as S.C.No.11 of 2023 and the new Act i.e., Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, came into force on 01.07.2024, but the

appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 139 of 2025 filed discharge

applications, under Section 227 Cr.P.C., after the new enactment came

into force i.e., on 01-07-2024. Of course, both discharge applications

were dismissed on 06.01.2025 and 31.12.2024 respectively. As per

the provisions of Section 531(2) if any appeal, application, trial, inquiry

or investigation was pending on the date of Bharatiya Nagarik

16

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, came into force, then, such appeal,

application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of,

continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the

provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

19. As already pointed out, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023, came into force on 01.07.2024, but the applications under

Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure were filed after Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, came into force. On the same

ground also, the learned Special Judge dismissed the applications as

the applications were filed beyond 60 days as envisaged in Section

250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

20. Be that as it may. We are not going into the merits and demerits

of the case, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case. Admittedly, as per the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General of India,

the statements of the protected witnesses were not supplied to the

appellants as required under Section 230 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023. Once the statements were not supplied to the accused

as per the provisions of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, the further proceedings would be vitiated. Of course, in

all these judgments referred supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has

categorically held that serious prejudice would be caused for non-

supply of the documents, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, akin to Section 207 Cr.P.C. No

doubt, the accused were seriously prejudiced by non-supply of

statements of protected witnesses to them. The learned Special

Judge, while dismissing the discharge applications, referred to the

statements of protected witnesses in his order. As such, in the

considered view of this Court that the appellants have no opportunity to

17

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

look into the statements of the protected witnesses. Therefore, in the

considered opinion of this Court that, all the appellants were prejudiced

by non-supply of the statements of the protected witnesses, as

required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

21. As already pointed out, so far as the Criminal Appeal Nos.110

and 169 of 2025 are concerned, the appellants directly filed the

Appeals challenging the framing of charges without supplying the

statements of protected witnesses, as required under Section 230 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

22. In view of the above analyses and in view of the above facts and

circumstances, the charges framed by the learned Special Judge

against appellants after dismissing the discharge applications dehors

supplying the statements of the protected witnesses as contemplated

under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are

liable to be set aside and all the matters are necessarily be remitted

back to the learned Special Judge for NIA cases-cum-III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for commencement of the

case from the stage of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

23. Accordingly, all these Criminal Appeals are disposed of, at the

stage of admission, setting aside the charges framed by the learned

Special Judge against the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.110 and 169 of 2025

as well as the orders passed on 06.01.2025 and 31.12.2024 in

Crl.M.P.No.1119 of 2024 and 301 of 2024 in S.C.No.11 of 2023 by the

learned Special Judge, dismissing the discharge applications filed by

appellants in Crl.A.Nos.138 and 139 of 2025 and the matters are

remitted back to the learned Special Judge for NIA cases-cum-III

18

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, with a

direction to supply the statements of the protected witnesses, to all the

accused in Sessions Case No.11 of 2023, pending on its file without

disclosing the identity particulars of the protected witnesses, preferably

by the date of next hearing of Sessions Case. However, it is needless

to state that the learned Special Judge is obliged to start the

commencement of the case from the stage of Section 230 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The learned Special Judge is further

directed to expedite the trial of the Sessions Case. The appellants are

also directed to cooperate with the trial court for speedy disposal of the

Sessions Case.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

_____________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Dt. 03.07.2025

LR Copy to be marked : YES

SAB / TSNR

19

Crl.A.No.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

235

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

AND

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUJATHA

COMMON JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal Nos.110, 138, 139 AND 169 of 2025

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

Date: 03.07.2025

LR Copy to be marked : YES

SAB / TSNR