Evidence exhibits, including the 'Big Blue Lavender Bay', during the Whiteley fake art court case at the Supreme Court in Melbourne. Picture: Stuart McEvoy

Prosecutors on Thursday unexpectedly conceded the appeals against convictions by art restorer Mohamed Aman Siddique, 68, and dealer Peter Stanley Gant, 61.

“There is a significant possibility that innocent men have been convicted and each of them should accordingly be acquitted,” Daniel Gurvich QC, representing the Crown, told the Court of Appeal.

Gant and Siddique were found guilty by a Victorian Supreme Court jury in May 2016 of obtaining and attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception by selling some Whiteley paintings.

Brett Whiteley’s widow Wendy is “completely stunned” by the acquittal. Ms Whiteley called the decision “extraordinary” and “absolutely ludicrous”.

“These are not original Whiteleys,” she told AAP.

“I can’t believe this has happened.

“I’m no expert in legal proceedings, and I have no idea what went on in court when I wasn’t there, but I do not understand this decision.”

Evidence exhibits, including the 'Big Blue Lavender Bay', during the Whiteley fake art court case at the Supreme Court in Melbourne. Picture: Stuart McEvoySource:News Corp Australia

'Orange Lavender Bay' is presented during the Whiteley fake art court case at the Supreme Court in Melbourne. Picture: Stuart McEvoySource:News Corp Australia

The men were sentenced in November but a stay was put on sending them to prison because the trial judge believed the guilty verdicts could be quashed on appeal.

Justice Michael Croucher sentenced Gant to five years in prison with a minimum of two and a half years.

Siddique was jailed for three years, with 10 months to be served immediately and 26 months suspended for three years.

Ms Whiteley gave evidence during the trial that the paintings weren’t original works and she maintains that view.

“Do [the court] know enough about art to make this decision?” she said on Thursday.

“I’m literally stunned.

“I feel sorry for the people who bought the artworks in good faith and I feel sorry for the whole Australian art world.”

Peter Gant leaves the Melbourne Supreme court after being sentenced to 5 years jail. Picture: Aaron FrancisSource:News Corp Australia

Mohamed Aman Siddique leaves the Melbourne Supreme court after being sentenced to jail for 3 years. Picture: Aaron FrancisSource:News Corp Australia

The pair were accused of making millions by creating and selling forged paintings purported to be by famous Australian artist Brett Whiteley.Source:Supplied

But Justice Croucher also noted there was “cogent evidence” that supported Gant’s account that he’d purchased all three paintings in 1988.

Whiteley, one of Australia’s most celebrated artists, died in 1992 aged 53.

At trial, prosecutors alleged Siddique created three fake Whiteley paintings in his Collingwood studio between 2007 and 2009 and that Gant facilitated the sale of two of them.

1975: Brett Whiteley and his wife Wendy stand in front of the painting 'Evening Coming In On Sydney Harbour, 1975'. It won the $5000 Sir William Angliss Art Prize, one of Australia's richest art prizes.Source:Herald Sun

But on Thursday, prosecutors said they had considered the grounds of appeal, which referred to the evidence of former gallery assistant Rosemary Milburn and Jeremy James.

Both gave evidence that the defence say contradicted the prosecution case.

“Each of the grounds in each of the applications would be conceded,” Mr Gurvich said.

“The matter was given serious consideration over a number of weeks.” Justice Mark Weinberg said the Court of Appeal was not bound by the Crown’s concession.

But having analysed the appeal and its submissions, the court accepted the Crown’s position that the guilty verdicts were unsafe and should be quashed.

“The Crown’s concession is of course welcome,” Justice Weinberg said.

The appeal judge also said he, Justice Phillip Priest, and Justice Stephen McLeish would not comment on the prosecution case against Gant and Siddique.

“We do not propose at this time to express any criticism about the decision to pursue these charges,” Justice Weinberg said.