ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The police sent up for trial Surapaneni Purna Prasad (A-1), D. Subba Rao (A-2) and Chanti Ankala Reddy (A-3) for offences under Section 420, 120B and 477A, I.P.C. It was alleged that A-1 had appeared for III year B.Com Statistics Examination in April 1981 and had failed in that examination, having obtained only 20 marks in the examination. He thereupon applied for revaluation of the marks to the University after following due procedure. A-2 was at the relevant time working as U.D.C. and A-3 as the Selection Superintendent in the Confidential Section of the revaluation branch of the University. A-1 absconded and was later on tried separately. A-2 and A-3 were tried and found guilty by the trial court of offences under Section 477A, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. They were awarded a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each of the counts and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 477A.

3. Against their conviction and sentence, A-2 and A-3 preferred Appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The Appeals were dismissed and their conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were confirmed. A-2 and A-3, thereafter, filed Revision Petitions in the High Court. During the pendency of the Revision Petitions A-2 died. The widow of A-2, thereupon filed an application seeking permission to continue the proceedings in the Revision Petition on the ground that in the event of acquittal of A-2, the family of deceased A-2 would be entitled to receive pensionary benefits. Permission was granted to her to promote the revision. The High Court heard the Revision Petitions and vide order dated 26th October, 1998, set aside the conviction and sentence of A-3 while maintaining, that of A-2. This Appeal, by Special Leave, has been preferred by the widow of deceased A-2.

4. During the pendency of proceedings in this Court, an inquiry was made from the State through its learned counsel about the fate of trial insofar as A-1 is concerned. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that A-1 has since been acquitted by the trial Court and that no appeal has been filed against the acquittal of A-1.

5. The position which emerges at present is that A-1 and A-3 stand acquitted. The gravamen of the charge, against A-1 to A-3, was that A-2 and A-3, with fraudulent intention to do favour to A-1, sent the answer script of another student for the purposes of revaluation instead of the original answer script of A-1 and as a result of revaluation A-1 was declared to have passed the examination and had, thus, been benefitted.

6. There is ample evidence to show that so far as A-2 is concerned, he was the dealing Clerk at the relevant time and that the answer script (of another student PW-6), which was sent for revaluation in place of the script of A-1, was put up by him before A-3 and thereafter before PW-4. That it was A-2 who had given the confidential code on the answer script which was sent for revaluation. This aspect has, however, to be considered alongwith the issue as to whether A-1 had entered into any conspiracy with A-2 to seek benefit fraudulently which A-2 provided to him as a co-conspirator. With the acquittal of A-1 and against which acquittal the State has not preferred any appeal, it is not possible to say that A-1 obtained any benefit, much less fraudulently and if that be the position, it would be difficult to say that there was any mens-rea involved insofar as A-2 is concerned in sending the answer script of PW-6 for revaluation instead of the answer script of A-1. In any event, with the acquittal of A-1, the entire case has become rather doubtful. Under these circumstances, it appears to us that it may not be prudent to uphold that conviction of A-2 when A-1 and A-3 stand acquitted and against whose acquittal the State has taken no steps to file any appeal. A-2 deserves to be given benefit of doubt and which so accordin