A.anitha

C.C.No.03/20251Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

APKR210000062025

Presented on : 13-08-2021 Registered on : 13-08-2021 Decided on : 31-10-2025 Duration : 4 years, 2 months, 18 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES

RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 31st day of October, 2025.

C.C.No. 03/2025

Between:

The State; Inspector of Police, Suryarao Pet Police Station, Vijayawada City. …Complainant

And

1. Gadde Rammohanarao, S/o. Subbaiah, 61 years, R/o. Sri Data Towers, SS Street, Governerpet, Vijayawada. … Accused No.1

C.C.No.03/20252Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

2. Naraharisetti Narasimha Rao, S/o. Rama Krishnaiah, 58 years, R/o. D.No.11-5-29, Rangannavari Street, Vijayawada.

3.Bommasani Ravi Kumar, S/o. Rama Tulasirao, 53 years, R/o. 38-8-48/2, GF-3, Near Passport Office Soundarya Apartment, Punnamma Thota, Vijayawada.

4.Yedupasi Ramayya, S/o. Subbarayudu, Ex-Corporator, D.No.76-14-147, Bhavanipuram, Police Quarters, Vijayawada.

5.Potluri Sivasai Prasad, S/o. Venkateswararao, 69 years, D.No.74-2-5A, Ashok Nagar, Vijayawada.

6.Vemuri Vishnu Teja, S/o. Venkatarao, 27 years, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

7.Kadiyala Rakesh, S/o. Venkatarao, 35 years, Ashok Nagar, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada.

8.Ch. Vijaya, W/o. Suresh, 36 years, D.No.74-12-13/1, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

9.M. Nirmala, W/o. Venkat, 38 years, I Town, Old temple road, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20253Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

10. C. Vijaya, W/o. Santhosh, 50 years, Kalangar, Benz circle, Vijayawada.

11. A. Santhi, W/o. Nani, 40 years, Raithu bazar road, Vijayawada.

12. N. Pooja, W/o. Ravi, 35 years, Kalangar, Benz circle, Vijayawada.

13. Velagapudi Lakshmi Kamala, W/o. Prasad, 45 years, R/o. Srinagar colony, Vijayawada.

14. A. Padmaja, W/o. Srinivasarao, 53 years, R/o. Srinagar colony, Vijayawada City.

15. G. Padma, W/o. Late Raja, 52 years, R/o. Bhavani Nagar, Vijayawada.

16. K. Radhika, W/o. Krishna, 46 years, R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada.

17. T. Saroja, W/o. Buddi, 38 years, R/o. Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

18. Y. Bharathi, W/o. Narasimha Rao, 48 years, R/o. I Town, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20254Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

19. Muppavarapu Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Nagendra, 61 years, Tadigadapa, Vijayawada.

20. Chintha Chandhana, W/o. Mukesh, 32 years, Kanuru, Vijayawada.

21. Kalagara Sowjanya, D/o. Srinivasarao late, 21 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

22. Vallabhaneni Suguna, W/o. Ajay Kumar, 40 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

23. Thippilineni Devi, W/o. Prasad, 35 years, High School Road, Patamata, Vijayawada.

24. Cherukuri Vanaja, W/o. Vital Babu, 65 years, Patamata High School Road, Vijayawada.

25. Mallaneni Jyothi, W/o. KV Rao, 60 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

26. Muppavarapu Keerthi, W/o. Subrahmanyam, 26 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

27. Koneru Preethi, W/o. Ramesh, 41 years, Benz Circle, Vijayawada.

28. Mannem Dhurga, W/o. Late Rambabu, 43 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20255Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

29. Koneru Ammadu, W/o. Baburao, 65 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

30. Satyavathi, W/o. Kumar, 61 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

31. A. Prameela, W/o. Santosh, 50 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

32. N. Rani, W/o. Rama Krishna, 40 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

33. M. Madhavi, W/o. Rambabu, 43 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

34. G. Suguna, W/o. Nageswara Rao, 50 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

35. Shaik Shareef, S/o. Mansoor, 22 years, D.No.19-10-24A, Singh street, I Town, Vijayawada.

36. Abbineni Venkata Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o. Rama Krishna, 46 years, D.No.40-1-118, Chandrababu Naidu colony, Benz circle, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20256Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

37. Nadella Srinivas, S/o. Sivajirao, 45 years, D.No.50-1-14, Near Kapu Ramalyam street, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

38. Garapati Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Bhadrarao, 52 years, 36-11-7, Jammichettu centre, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

39. Ponnam Kalyani, W/o. Sriram Prasad, 56 years, D.No.29-14-82, Dornakal road, Vijayawada.

40. Ponnam Chandar Prabha, W/o. PVS Prasad, 52 years, D.No.24-19-82, Dornakal road, Vijayawada.

41. Ponnam Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Rambabu, 64 years, Dornakal road, Vijayawada.

42. Vemuri Manasa, D/o. Ramesh Babu, 35 years, F.No.3, Bharathi Nagar, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada.

43. Kommuri Sadhana, W/o. Ravi Kumar, 36 years, Bharathi Nagar, F.No.3, D.No.54-14/8-35-1, Vijayawada.

44. Madala Neelima, W/o. Siva Rama Prasad, 42 years, D.No.1-344, Agiripalli, Gannavaram, Krishna.

C.C.No.03/20257Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

45. Namburi Jhanshi, W/o. Rambabu, 42 years, Vijaya Lakshmi Residency, Vijayawada.

46. Cherukuri Padmaja, W/o. Venkateswararao, 57 years, Opp. Nirmala Convent, Vivekananda towers, Vijayawada.

47. Potuluri Sneha, W/o. Ravi, 50 years, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada.

48. Gollapudi Subbamma, W/o. Subbaiah, 60 years, Nagulupaadu village, Prakasam District.

49. Polavaram Madhuri, W/o. Murali, 34 years, Suvarna Residency, Gurunanak colony, Vijayawada.

50. Marella Lakshmi, W/o. Anjaneyulu, 50 years, Keerthi Apartment, 201, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada. … Accused Nos.2 to 50

(Accused Nos.2 to 50 are acquitted on 21.07.2025 as the prosecution

is permitted to withdraw the case against them vide Order dated

21.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.01/2025 filed under Section 321 of Cr.P.C).

This Case having come up for final hearing on 27.10.2025 before me in the presence of, Smt. M.K. Vijaya Lakshmi, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri N. Durga Prasad and C. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for A1 and the case against A2 to A50 ended in acquittal on withdrawal of prosecution, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

C.C.No.03/20258Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 is tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861, of Crime

No.07/2020 of Suryarao Pet police station, Vijayawada City, on the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police of Suryarao Pet police station, Vijayawada City.

2.The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:

(i) On 10.01.2020 L.W.1-M. Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Suryaraopeta Police Station, Vijayawada City, along with L.Ws.2 and 3-R.

Sujatha, WHC 1488 and D. Bhavani, WPC 3744 and other staff was entrusted bandobust duties near Sub-Collector Office, Bandar Road in connection with the proposed women rally with the agenda “Save

Amaravathi – Save Andhra Pradesh”. At about 04.45 p.m., A1 along with

A2 to A50 and other persons about 100 to 150 in number, who formed into an unlawful assembly, were proceeding towards RTA Junction from

Raghavaiah Park on Bandar Road. On that, L.W.1-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police, intervened and informed A1 and others that

Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and 32 of Police Act are in force, and as there is no permission to conduct their rally, asked them to disperse and leave.

But, A1 and others ignored the words of L.W.1-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police and abused L.Ws.1 to 3-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Sujatha, WHC 1488 and D. Bhavani, WPC 3744, pushed them aside and sat on the Bandar Road at Sub Collector’s

Office, staged dharna and stopped the vehicular traffic. Then L.W.1-M.

C.C.No.03/20259Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of Police, with the assistance of her staff, shifted

A1 and others to police station. Thereafter, L.W.1-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police, presented a report in the complainant police station.

(ii) Basing on the report of L.W.1-M. Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of

Police, L.W.9-Y. Durgarao, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as FIR in Crime No.07/2020 under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861. Further, L.W.10-N.V.S.

Suryanarayana, Inspector of Police, took up investigation, in the course of which, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene, prepared rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 8-M.

Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Sujatha, WHC 1488, D. Bhavani,

WPC 3744, Volla Appalanayudu, Gade Lakshmanarao, Aajella Krishna

Murthy, Boggula Srinivasa Reddy and Mohammed Rafi respectively under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and served notice under section 41-A of

Cr.P.C. on A1 and other accused.

(iii) After completion of investigation, L.W.10-N.V.S. Suryanarayana,

Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet, along with the Orders dated 28.12.2019 under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police

Act issued by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District

Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, against A1 to A50 for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of

IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861.

3.After filing of charge sheet, on 08.07.2021, the then learned

I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 341 and 353 r/w 149

C.C.No.03/202510Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

of IPC and Section 32 of Police Act against A1 to A50 and registered the case as C.C.948/2021.

4.As per the docket proceedings in C.C.948/2021 on the file of

I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, summons are issued to A1 to A50 for their appearance before the I Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada.

5.Thereafter, the record is submitted to this court as A1 is an elected

MLA of Vijayawada East Constituency as on the date of commission of the offence on 10.01.2020. After receiving the record, this court returned the record for compliance of objections and for conducting of pre-trial procedure.

6.Subsequently, it is borne by record that in C.C.948/2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, the Additional

Public Prosecutor filed petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. along with memo issued by the Commissioner of Police, NTR Commissionerate,

Vijayawada, dated 26.10.2024, for withdrawal of the prosecution case against A2 to A50 and the same is registered as Crl.M.P.01/2025, and the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, allowed and closed the said Crl.M.P.01/2025 and acquitted A2 to A50 on 21.07.2025.

7.Further, as per the docket proceedings in C.C.948/2021 on the file of

I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, on appearance of

A1, copies are furnished to A1 on 01.08.2025 and on the same day i.e., on 01.08.2025, A1 is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and

C.C.No.03/202511Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Section 32 of Police Act, 1861, to which A1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Vijayawada resubmitted the entire record to this court, for

trial.

8.After receiving the entire record as per the proceedings of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in ROC.No.105/E1/2018,

dated 12.04.2018 for trial and disposal of the case in accordance to law,

this court re-numbered this case as C.C.03/2025 and issued summons to

A1.

9.On appearance of A1, after hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, fixed the schedule for trial of the case.

10.In the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined and the Exs.P1 to

P9 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Amongst them, P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, while P.Ws.2 to 5 are examined as the eye witnesses to the commission of alleged acts by A1 and the investigating officers are examined as P.Ws.6 and 7.

11.On 14.10.2025, A1 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence that has come on record against him, to which, A1 denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

12.In the course of arguments, heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for A1.

13.Now the points for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of

A1 for the accusation leveled against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and

C.C.No.03/202512Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. To what result ?

14. Point No.1:

To bring home the guilt of A1, the prosecution examined as many as seven (07) witnesses and got marked the Exs.P1 to P9. The defacto-complainant examined as P.W.1, testified that she worked as

Sub-Inspector of Police of Suryaraopet P.S. from 03.05.2019 to 21.06.2021, that on 10.01.2020 from 04.00 p.m. onwards, she along with

P.Ws.2 and 3 attended bandobust duty at Sub-Collector Office, Bandar

Road, Vijayawada, in view of Women Rally conducted in the name of “Save Andhra Pradesh”, that at about 04.45 p.m, A1 and about 100 to 150 persons came in a rally from Raghavaiah Park towards the

Sub-Collector Office, that she informed to A1 and other persons who came in the rally that Section 144 of Cr.P.C. is in force and they cannot come in a mob, but, they tried to intrude into the Sub-Collector Office, that when they objected, A1 and others sat on the Bandar road, obstructing the passage of public over that road, that then she with the support of her staff arrested A1 and 49 others who participated in the rally and shifted them to the complainant police station and that she presented the

Ex.P1/report as A1 and others obstructed her while discharging her duties and also obstructed the passage of public through Bandar road.

15.To corroborate the testimony of P.W.1, prosecution examined

P.Ws.2 to 5. P.W.2 deposed that she worked as Head Constable of

Suryaraopet P.S., Vijayawada City from February, 2019 till March, 2025,

C.C.No.03/202513Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

that on 10.01.2020, P.W.1, P.W.3 and herself attended bandobust duty at

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., in view of rally conducted in the name of “Save Andhra Pradesh - Save Amaravati”, that at about 04.45 p.m., a rally of about 100 to 150 persons reached

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, that at that juncture, P.W.1 obstructed for proceeding of the rally stating that they did not obtain any permission for conducting rally, but, the persons in the rally did not heed to the words of P.W.1 and obstructed them from discharging of duties, pushed them and sat on Bandar road opposite to Sub-Collector Office, that the P.W.1 arrested about 50 persons who participated in the rally and shifted them to the complainant police station and presented report. As P.W.2 did not choose to support the case of prosecution as to the alleged participation of A1 in the rally, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor got marked the relevant portions in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the Exs.P2 and P3.

16.Next to her, P.W.3 deposed that she worked as Police Constable of complainant police station from 05.05.2018 till 23.10.2023, that on 10.01.2020, she along with P.Ws.1 and 2 attended bandobust duties at

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., in view of women rally conducted in the name of “Save Andhra”, that at about 04.45 p.m., A1 and others of about 100 to 150 persons reached Sub-Collector Office,

Vijayawada as a rally, that at that point, P.W.1 obstructed for proceeding of the rally towards the Bus stand, stating that they did not obtain any permission for conducting rally and Section 144 CrPC is in force, but, A1 and others did not heed to the words of P.W.1, that as A1 and others were obstructed from proceeding further, they sat on Bandar road

C.C.No.03/202514Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

opposite to Sub-Collector Office, that then P.W.1 arrested about 50 persons who participated in the rally and shifted them to police station as they caused obstruction to public for passing through the Bandar road.

17.Further, P.Ws.4 and 5, whom the prosecution examined as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, testified in one voice that they are petty vendors at Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, that in 2020 at about 04.30 to 05.00 p.m., there was a rally conducted by 100 to 150 persons and they staged dharna at Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada and that the police came to control the mob and took them. P.Ws.4 and 5 unanimously stated that they cannot say or identify the persons who participated in the rally. Alike P.W.2, as P.Ws.4 and 5 did not reinforce the case of prosecution as to the alleged participation of A1 in the rally, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor got marked the relevant portions in their

respective statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the Exs.P4 and P5 respectively. However, the Exs.P4 and P5 constitute neither substantive nor corroborative piece of evidence.

18.In the further course, the police officer who registered the Ex.P1 as the First Information Report is examined as P.W.6 and he testified that on 10.01.2020, at about 6.00 pm, while he was on duty in the police station,

P.W.1 presented the Ex.P1/report and he registered the same as the

Ex.P6/FIR in Crime No.07/2020 for the offences punishable under

Section 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the

Police Act and that as the offences are grave in nature, he handed over the case for investigation to P.W.7.

19.At last, P.W.7 deposed that on 10.01.2020, at about 06.30 p.m., after he received copy of the Ex.P6 from P.W.6, he took up investigation

C.C.No.03/202515Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

of the case, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, that P.W.2 stated before him as in the Exs.P2 and P3, while P.Ws.4 and 5 stated before him as in the Exs.P4 and P5 respectively, that he got issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A1 and 49 other accused, that he prepared the Ex.P7/rough sketch of the scene of offence and that after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet along with the Exs.P8 and P9/proceedings of the Commissioner of

Police and Additional District Magistrate, dated 28.12.2019 under Section 30 of the Police Act and Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C respectively.

20.P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 when suggested in the course of their respective cross-examinations that the present case is foisted against A1 by P.W.7 at the instance of the then Government as A1 was in opposition as on the date of alleged offence and used to criticize the then

Government, they all denied unconditionally. Further, P.Ws.1 and 7 when suggested that A1 did not commit any of the alleged acts and they are deposing false, and P.W.7 when suggested that P.Ws.2 to 5 are all planted witnesses for the purpose of the case and prepared their alleged statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. suitable to the alleged case against A1, they two denied sternly.

21.However, it is very much glaring that there is no denial at all of the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 that as on the date of alleged offence, they were working in the complainant police station in their respective cadres and the same remained undisputed. No doubt, P.Ws.1 to 3 are suggested that their respective versions that on 10.01.2020, all the three were enstrusted bandobust duties at Sub-Collector Office, Bandar road, Vijayawada, and they attended their bandobust duty from 04.00 p.m., onwards is false, but

C.C.No.03/202516Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

they three denied unconditionally. But, the testimony of the independent witness, P.W.5 that in the year 2020 at about 04.30 to 05.00 p.m., he saw a rally of 100 to 150 persons and after the rally reached Sub-Collector

Office, Vijayawada, they staged dharna there, remained totally unchallenged.

22.Upon overall reading of the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 on the aspects as referred in the preceding paragraph, as there is no dispute in the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 to have been working in the complainant police station as on the date of alleged offence, the court finds their testimonies to have attended the bandobust duties at Sub-Collector’s Office,

Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., onwards, as very much convincing. More particularly, when the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada falls within the jurisdiction of the complainant police station only and the undenied testimony of P.W.5 is that on 10.01.2020 a rally was conducted by persons of about 100 to 150 in number and the same reached the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada by 04.45 p.m., and there, they staged dharna, the same lend credibility to the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they were enstrusted bandobust duties at Sub-Collector’s Office,

Vijayawada in view of the said rally.

23.Further, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 on the aspect of attending bandobust duties on 10.01.2020 from 04.00 p.m. onwards at the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada and conducting of a rally by persons of about 100 to 150 in number and reaching of the said rally to the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada at about 04.45 p.m, remained consistent and coherent without any admissions in favour of the defence, despite thorough cross-examination. Even otherwise, A1 in the course of

C.C.No.03/202517Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when explained the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that on 10.01.2020, while P.Ws.1 to 3 were attending bandobust duties at the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, at about 04.45 p.m., a rally was conducted by persons about 100 to 150 in number, A1 pleaded ignorant.

24.In the light of the above reasoning, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, substantially corroborated by the unchallenged testimony of P.W.5, that on 10.01.2020 P.Ws.1 to 3 were entrusted bandobust duties at the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada in anticipation of rally with the theme, “Save Amaravathi - Save Andhra Pradesh” and they attended their respective duties at the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., and at about 04.45 p.m, 100 to 150 persons came in a rally to the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, inspire the confidence of the court as truthful and believable.

25.Hence, the court is of the finding that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, coupled with the testimony of P.W.5, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.01.2020 P.Ws.1 to 3 were entrusted bandobust duties at the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada in anticipation of rally with the theme, “Save Amaravathi - Save Andhra Pradesh” and P.Ws.1 to 3 attended their respective duties at the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m. onwards, and at about 04.45 p.m, the rally consisting of 100 to 150 persons reached the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada.

26.Now coming to the participation of A1 in the proved rally conducted on 10.01.2020 with the theme, “Save Amaravathi - Save Andhra

Pradesh”, P.W.1 categorically deposed in her examination-in-chief that

A1 is one among the persons who participated in the rally and sat on the

C.C.No.03/202518Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Bandar road and the said version remained totally undisputed, but for the arrest of A1. Even otherwise, the earliest documented version of P.W.1 i.e., the Ex.P1/report that has set the criminal law into motion, discloses in clear terms the participation of A1 in the proved rally.

27.However, P.W.2 deposed that she cannot identify the persons who participated in the rally, even if present in the court hall. Further, P.W.2 despite being a Public Servant and her testimony being in the course of discharge of her official duties, blatantly denied in the course of her examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, that she stated before P.W.7 that A1 and others participated in the rally (Ex.P2), which P.W.7 admitted to has been stated by P.W.2.

28.But, although P.W.3 stated in her examination-in-chief that she cannot identify any of the persons who participated in the rally, however in the course of her examination under Section 154 of the Indian

Evidence Act, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.3 admitted that she stated before P.W.7 that A1 and others participated in the rally. The said version of P.W.3 is unquestioned by the defence.

Further, though A1 volunteered novel version in the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was under house arrest since 24 hours prior to the alleged incident, neither the same is suggested to any of P.Ws. nor any evidence in proof of the same to falsify the case of prosecution is placed on record.

29.Thus, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to the participation of A1 in the proved rally, are not only consistent and corroborative, but also unchallenged, but for the suggestion denying arrest of A1 and that false

C.C.No.03/202519Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

case is foisted against A1. As the said suggestions to P.Ws.1 and 3 denying arrest of A1 and that false case is foisted against A1, which indeed, they denied, neither surmount nor improbablize the undisputed testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 substantiating the case of prosecution that

A1 participated in the proved rally, the said version of P.Ws.1 and 3 impress the court as believable. Hence, the court is of the finding that the testimony of P.W.1, corroborated by P.W.3, which remained undisputed and coupled with the Ex.P1, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the evidence on record establish that A1 participated in the proved rally.

30.Now, coming to the accusations leveled against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and

Section 32 of the Police Act, the foundation of the said accusations is on proof of formation of an unlawful assembly and A1 being a member of that unlawful assembly. But, here in the case on hand, although A1 is leveled the substance of accusations for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 188 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police

Act, it is conspicuous that A1 alone is tried and A2 to A50 against whom cognizance is taken, are acquitted in consequence to allowing of

Crl.M.P.01/2025 filed under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., for withdrawal of the

prosecution against them. In this context, a perusal of the petition in

Crl.M.P.01/2025 and the Order dated 26.10.2024 of Commissioner of

Police, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, the ground on which the prosecution sought withdrawal of proceedings against A2 to A50 is on the premise that there is no specific identity proof and other particulars of the accused, except A1.

C.C.No.03/202520Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

31.Thus, the prosecution has given a go-bye and tilted its version as to the identity of A2 to A50 and has withdrawn the case against them, but not on any technical grounds. Despite the fact that when A1 is roped with the other accused A2 to A50 under 149 of IPC and cognizance being taken for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of

IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act against A1 to A50, for the reason of which the case against A2 to A50 is not severable for withdrawal of prosecution against A2 to A50 by leaving A1 alone, who being MLA as on the date of the alleged offences and in the light of the Order of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashwini Kumar

Upadhyay Vs. Union Of India, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.699/2016 dated 10.08.2021, permission of the Hon’ble High Court is required for withdrawal of prosecution against A1, as this court is headed with the task of trial of the case, but not a revisional authority to appraise the Order of the trial court in allowing Crl.M.P.01/2025 for withdrawal of prosecution against A2 to A50 and consequently, acquitting A2 to A50, this court shall confine to marshaling of the evidence on record for the substance of allegations leveled against A1.

32.So, what remains is that there is no evidence at all as to the identity of the persons who participated in the rally along with A1. When so, in the absence of any evidence as to the persons who participated in the proved rally, it is highly incomprehensible to cull out what the common object of those persons in the rally, including A1. To put in other words, although it can be said that there was an assembly of persons consisting of 100 to 150 members, as the evidence on record proves the proceeding of a rally consisting of 100 to 150 members and of which A1 is a participant, in the

C.C.No.03/202521Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

absence of any evidence as who those other members of that assembly are, besides A1 and the specific act/acts by any member/members using criminal force or commit mischief or criminal trespass etc., it is irrational to read the minds or infer from the deeds of those persons to assess what their common object is.

33.When so, it is improbable to designate the proved assembly of 100 to 150 members, including A1, as an unlawful assembly. Hence, the only course left to the court is to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the formation of an unlawful assembly consisting of A1 as a member, attracting the accusation for the offence punishable under Section 143 of

IPC. As a corollary, the finding of the court is that the accusation leveled against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC, are bound to collapse, however only as a member of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of IPC, but not as an individual.

Hence, as the substance of charge leveled against A1 for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC imposes constructive liability and the substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 IPC is minor to the substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC, and the finding of the court that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations leveled against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and does not exonerate A1 from his personal criminal liability for the substance of accusations for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 of IPC, the court shall assess the evidence against A1 with respect to the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 of IPC and Section 32 of

C.C.No.03/202522Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the Police Act, independent to Section 149 of IPC.

34.With respect to the substance of accusation against A1 for the offence under Section 353 of IPC, P.W.1 deposed that she cannot specify the acts committed by A1 while in the said rally, but for the persons in the rally abusing her, pushing her aside, obstructing her from discharging her official duties and obstructing the traffic by sitting on the Bandar road, opposite to the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence against A1 of committing assault or using criminal force against P.W.1 or any other Public Servant and thereby deterring or obstructing from discharge of P.W.1’s or any other Public Servant’s official duties, in the course of A1’s participation in the rally conducted on 10.01.2020, attracting the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.

35.Further, with respect to the substance of accusation against A1 for the offence under Section 341 of IPC, there is no evidence springing up from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to any specific act committed by

A1 causing wrongful restraint by preventing any person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, but for the abstract version that the persons who participated in the rally sat on

Bandar road, obstructing the traffic. Further, no victim/victims of the alleged offence of 341 of IPC is neither examined by P.W.7 nor at least the description of the alleged victim/victims has seen the light of the day, who according to the prosecution were obstructed by A1. Eventually, the evidence on record falls short in proving the prime ingredient of whom A1 obstructed or prevented proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Hence, the only finding that can be arrived at is that the prosecution also failed to prove the substance of accusation

C.C.No.03/202523Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

leveled against A1 for the offence under Section 341 of IPC.

36.Further, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 188 of

IPC, it is quite appropriate to refer to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for A1, that as there is no proclamation of the Order promulgated vide the Ex.P9 and as cognizance of the said offence can be taken only on complaint by the concerned Public Servant before the court, the accusation leveled against A1 for the alleged offence under

Section 188 of IPC is irregular and bound to fail. To buttress the said argument, the learned defence counsel placed reliance upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in a case between Shri Bhoop

Singh Tyagi Vs. State, reported as 2002 CRILJ 2872 and Order of

Hon’ble High Court Madras, in a case between Jeevanandham Vs.

State, reported as 2018 (2) L.W. Crl. 606.

37.As rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel, there is no proof filed by the prosecution as to promulgation of the Ex.P9 Order by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate,

Vijayawada Metropolitan Area. Even otherwise, on close scrutiny of the

Ex.P9 Order, the said Order discloses the roads within the jurisdictional limits of the complainant police station, other than Bandar road/Mahatma

Gandhi road, the alleged scene of offence. When so, it cannot be said to any stretch of imagination that the Ex.P9 Order covers the alleged scene of offence.

38.Further, in the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu, reported as (2010) 9 SCC 567, which is also referred in the Order cited supra and still holds the field, there is bar to take cognizance for the

C.C.No.03/202524Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

offence under Sections 188 of IPC, but for on complaint in writing by the concerned Public Servant, under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. It is not out of place to extract the relevant portion in the said Judgment, which is as follows:

“20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person.……...”

39.But, in the case on hand, the cognizance taken for the offences, inter alia, under Section 188 of IPC is on the charge sheet filed by

P.W.7/investigating officer and there is no complaint by the concerned

Public Servant whose order is alleged to has been violated by A1. Hence, in the light of the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited supra, which is squarely applicable to the case on hand, as there is no complaint raised by the Public Servant whose order is alleged to has

C.C.No.03/202525Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

been violated, the concerned Magistrate Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC and the same being an incurable defect, making the further proceedings irregular, the substance of accusation leveled against A1 for the offence under Section 188 of IPC is liable to collapse, on law and facts too.

40.Lastly, with respect to the substance of accusation leveled against

A1 for the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act, P.W.7 filed the

Ex.P8 Order dated 28.12.2019 issued by the Commissioner of Police and

Additional District Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area under

Section 30 of the Police Act. As per the Ex.P8, no procession should be taken out or meeting be held in Vijayawada City Police Commissionerate limits without prior permission of the Commissioner of Police. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for A1, although Section 30 of the

Police Act contemplates issue of general or special notice to any person or class of persons intending to convene or collect an assembly, to apply for a license before convening or collecting assembly or promoting procession, the prosecution failed to file iota of evidence as to the general or special notice issued under Section 30 of the Police Act, but for the

Ex.P8 Order filed along with the charge sheet.

41.Further, a perusal of the Ex.P8 discloses the date of Order as 28.12.2019, while the date of alleged offence is on 10.01.2020. Conjoint reading of the date of Ex.P8 Order and date of alleged offence, speaks of availability of ample time for service of the Ex.P8 Order. But, it is neither the case of prosecution that A1 intended to convene or collect an assembly or promote a procession nor that the prosecution served general or special notice on A1 with respect to the Ex.P8 Order, to infer

C.C.No.03/202526Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the knowledge of A1 of the Ex.P8 Order, so as to imply its disobedience, attracting the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act. Thus, there is no evidence at all that A1, though admittedly is MLA of Vijayawada East

Constituency and the same speaks of not only being a public personality, but also his leadership, has intended to convene or collect an assembly or promote a procession and even if so, was put in notice of the Ex.P8

Order and violated the same, attracting the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act. Therefore, as there is glaring non-compliance of the statutory mandate contemplated under Section 30(2) of the Police Act and consequential disobedience of the Ex.P8 Order, the court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the substance of accusation leveled against A1 for the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act.

42.Therefore, upon evaluation of the evidence on record and in the light of above reasoning, the only finding that can be arrived is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 for the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act and under

Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 of IPC, either. Accordingly, this point is determined.

43. Point No.2:

Inthe light of finding of the court on point No.1 for determination, that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 for the accusations leveled against him for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, A1 is entitled for acquittal.

44.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of

C.C.No.03/202527Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the Police Act and accordingly, is acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of A1 shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 31st day of October, 2025.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 : M. Prasanthi. P.W.2 : Ravuri Sujatha. P.W.3 : D. Bhavani. P.W.4 : Volla Appalanayudu. P.W.5 : Boggula Srinivasa Reddy. P.W.6 : Y. Durga Rao. P.W.7 : N.V.S. Suryanarayana.

For the Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 10.01.2020 - Report.

Ex.P2 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P3 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

C.C.No.03/202528Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Ex.P4 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P5 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P6 : 10.01.2020 - FIR in Crime No.07/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act.

Ex.P7 : 10.01.2020 - Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P8 : 28.12.2019 - Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate under Section 30 of the Police Act.

Ex.P9 : 28.12.2019 - Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C.

For the Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: Nil.

For the Defence: Nil.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20251Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

APKR210000062025

Presented on : 13-08-2021 Registered on : 13-08-2021 Decided on : 31-10-2025 Duration : 4 years, 2 months, 18 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES

RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 31st day of October, 2025.

C.C.No. 03/2025

Between:

The State; Inspector of Police, Suryarao Pet Police Station, Vijayawada City. …Complainant

And

1. Gadde Rammohanarao, S/o. Subbaiah, 61 years, R/o. Sri Data Towers, SS Street, Governerpet, Vijayawada. … Accused No.1

C.C.No.03/20252Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

2. Naraharisetti Narasimha Rao, S/o. Rama Krishnaiah, 58 years, R/o. D.No.11-5-29, Rangannavari Street, Vijayawada.

3.Bommasani Ravi Kumar, S/o. Rama Tulasirao, 53 years, R/o. 38-8-48/2, GF-3, Near Passport Office Soundarya Apartment, Punnamma Thota, Vijayawada.

4.Yedupasi Ramayya, S/o. Subbarayudu, Ex-Corporator, D.No.76-14-147, Bhavanipuram, Police Quarters, Vijayawada.

5.Potluri Sivasai Prasad, S/o. Venkateswararao, 69 years, D.No.74-2-5A, Ashok Nagar, Vijayawada.

6.Vemuri Vishnu Teja, S/o. Venkatarao, 27 years, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

7.Kadiyala Rakesh, S/o. Venkatarao, 35 years, Ashok Nagar, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada.

8.Ch. Vijaya, W/o. Suresh, 36 years, D.No.74-12-13/1, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

9.M. Nirmala, W/o. Venkat, 38 years, I Town, Old temple road, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20253Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

10. C. Vijaya, W/o. Santhosh, 50 years, Kalangar, Benz circle, Vijayawada.

11. A. Santhi, W/o. Nani, 40 years, Raithu bazar road, Vijayawada.

12. N. Pooja, W/o. Ravi, 35 years, Kalangar, Benz circle, Vijayawada.

13. Velagapudi Lakshmi Kamala, W/o. Prasad, 45 years, R/o. Srinagar colony, Vijayawada.

14. A. Padmaja, W/o. Srinivasarao, 53 years, R/o. Srinagar colony, Vijayawada City.

15. G. Padma, W/o. Late Raja, 52 years, R/o. Bhavani Nagar, Vijayawada.

16. K. Radhika, W/o. Krishna, 46 years, R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada.

17. T. Saroja, W/o. Buddi, 38 years, R/o. Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

18. Y. Bharathi, W/o. Narasimha Rao, 48 years, R/o. I Town, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20254Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

19. Muppavarapu Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Nagendra, 61 years, Tadigadapa, Vijayawada.

20. Chintha Chandhana, W/o. Mukesh, 32 years, Kanuru, Vijayawada.

21. Kalagara Sowjanya, D/o. Srinivasarao late, 21 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

22. Vallabhaneni Suguna, W/o. Ajay Kumar, 40 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

23. Thippilineni Devi, W/o. Prasad, 35 years, High School Road, Patamata, Vijayawada.

24. Cherukuri Vanaja, W/o. Vital Babu, 65 years, Patamata High School Road, Vijayawada.

25. Mallaneni Jyothi, W/o. KV Rao, 60 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

26. Muppavarapu Keerthi, W/o. Subrahmanyam, 26 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

27. Koneru Preethi, W/o. Ramesh, 41 years, Benz Circle, Vijayawada.

28. Mannem Dhurga, W/o. Late Rambabu, 43 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20255Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

29. Koneru Ammadu, W/o. Baburao, 65 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

30. Satyavathi, W/o. Kumar, 61 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

31. A. Prameela, W/o. Santosh, 50 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

32. N. Rani, W/o. Rama Krishna, 40 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

33. M. Madhavi, W/o. Rambabu, 43 years, Moghalraj puram, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

34. G. Suguna, W/o. Nageswara Rao, 50 years, Patamata, Vijayawada.

35. Shaik Shareef, S/o. Mansoor, 22 years, D.No.19-10-24A, Singh street, I Town, Vijayawada.

36. Abbineni Venkata Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o. Rama Krishna, 46 years, D.No.40-1-118, Chandrababu Naidu colony, Benz circle, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.03/20256Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

37. Nadella Srinivas, S/o. Sivajirao, 45 years, D.No.50-1-14, Near Kapu Ramalyam street, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

38. Garapati Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Bhadrarao, 52 years, 36-11-7, Jammichettu centre, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

39. Ponnam Kalyani, W/o. Sriram Prasad, 56 years, D.No.29-14-82, Dornakal road, Vijayawada.

40. Ponnam Chandar Prabha, W/o. PVS Prasad, 52 years, D.No.24-19-82, Dornakal road, Vijayawada.

41. Ponnam Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Rambabu, 64 years, Dornakal road, Vijayawada.

42. Vemuri Manasa, D/o. Ramesh Babu, 35 years, F.No.3, Bharathi Nagar, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada.

43. Kommuri Sadhana, W/o. Ravi Kumar, 36 years, Bharathi Nagar, F.No.3, D.No.54-14/8-35-1, Vijayawada.

44. Madala Neelima, W/o. Siva Rama Prasad, 42 years, D.No.1-344, Agiripalli, Gannavaram, Krishna.

C.C.No.03/20257Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

45. Namburi Jhanshi, W/o. Rambabu, 42 years, Vijaya Lakshmi Residency, Vijayawada.

46. Cherukuri Padmaja, W/o. Venkateswararao, 57 years, Opp. Nirmala Convent, Vivekananda towers, Vijayawada.

47. Potuluri Sneha, W/o. Ravi, 50 years, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada.

48. Gollapudi Subbamma, W/o. Subbaiah, 60 years, Nagulupaadu village, Prakasam District.

49. Polavaram Madhuri, W/o. Murali, 34 years, Suvarna Residency, Gurunanak colony, Vijayawada.

50. Marella Lakshmi, W/o. Anjaneyulu, 50 years, Keerthi Apartment, 201, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada. … Accused Nos.2 to 50

(Accused Nos.2 to 50 are acquitted on 21.07.2025 as the prosecution

is permitted to withdraw the case against them vide Order dated

21.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.01/2025 filed under Section 321 of Cr.P.C).

This Case having come up for final hearing on 27.10.2025 before me in the presence of, Smt. M.K. Vijaya Lakshmi, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri N. Durga Prasad and C. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for A1 and the case against A2 to A50 ended in acquittal on withdrawal of prosecution, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

C.C.No.03/20258Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 is tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861, of Crime

No.07/2020 of Suryarao Pet police station, Vijayawada City, on the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police of Suryarao Pet police station, Vijayawada City.

2.The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:

(i) On 10.01.2020 L.W.1-M. Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Suryaraopeta Police Station, Vijayawada City, along with L.Ws.2 and 3-R.

Sujatha, WHC 1488 and D. Bhavani, WPC 3744 and other staff was entrusted bandobust duties near Sub-Collector Office, Bandar Road in connection with the proposed women rally with the agenda “Save

Amaravathi – Save Andhra Pradesh”. At about 04.45 p.m., A1 along with

A2 to A50 and other persons about 100 to 150 in number, who formed into an unlawful assembly, were proceeding towards RTA Junction from

Raghavaiah Park on Bandar Road. On that, L.W.1-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police, intervened and informed A1 and others that

Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and 32 of Police Act are in force, and as there is no permission to conduct their rally, asked them to disperse and leave.

But, A1 and others ignored the words of L.W.1-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police and abused L.Ws.1 to 3-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Sujatha, WHC 1488 and D. Bhavani, WPC 3744, pushed them aside and sat on the Bandar Road at Sub Collector’s

Office, staged dharna and stopped the vehicular traffic. Then L.W.1-M.

C.C.No.03/20259Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of Police, with the assistance of her staff, shifted

A1 and others to police station. Thereafter, L.W.1-M. Prasanthi,

Sub-Inspector of Police, presented a report in the complainant police station.

(ii) Basing on the report of L.W.1-M. Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of

Police, L.W.9-Y. Durgarao, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as FIR in Crime No.07/2020 under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861. Further, L.W.10-N.V.S.

Suryanarayana, Inspector of Police, took up investigation, in the course of which, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene, prepared rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 8-M.

Prasanthi, Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Sujatha, WHC 1488, D. Bhavani,

WPC 3744, Volla Appalanayudu, Gade Lakshmanarao, Aajella Krishna

Murthy, Boggula Srinivasa Reddy and Mohammed Rafi respectively under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and served notice under section 41-A of

Cr.P.C. on A1 and other accused.

(iii) After completion of investigation, L.W.10-N.V.S. Suryanarayana,

Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet, along with the Orders dated 28.12.2019 under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C. and Section 30 of the Police

Act issued by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District

Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, against A1 to A50 for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of

IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861.

3.After filing of charge sheet, on 08.07.2021, the then learned

I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 341 and 353 r/w 149

C.C.No.03/202510Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

of IPC and Section 32 of Police Act against A1 to A50 and registered the case as C.C.948/2021.

4.As per the docket proceedings in C.C.948/2021 on the file of

I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, summons are issued to A1 to A50 for their appearance before the I Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada.

5.Thereafter, the record is submitted to this court as A1 is an elected

MLA of Vijayawada East Constituency as on the date of commission of the offence on 10.01.2020. After receiving the record, this court returned the record for compliance of objections and for conducting of pre-trial procedure.

6.Subsequently, it is borne by record that in C.C.948/2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, the Additional

Public Prosecutor filed petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. along with memo issued by the Commissioner of Police, NTR Commissionerate,

Vijayawada, dated 26.10.2024, for withdrawal of the prosecution case against A2 to A50 and the same is registered as Crl.M.P.01/2025, and the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, allowed and closed the said Crl.M.P.01/2025 and acquitted A2 to A50 on 21.07.2025.

7.Further, as per the docket proceedings in C.C.948/2021 on the file of

I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, on appearance of

A1, copies are furnished to A1 on 01.08.2025 and on the same day i.e., on 01.08.2025, A1 is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and

C.C.No.03/202511Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Section 32 of Police Act, 1861, to which A1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Vijayawada resubmitted the entire record to this court, for

trial.

8.After receiving the entire record as per the proceedings of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in ROC.No.105/E1/2018,

dated 12.04.2018 for trial and disposal of the case in accordance to law,

this court re-numbered this case as C.C.03/2025 and issued summons to

A1.

9.On appearance of A1, after hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, fixed the schedule for trial of the case.

10.In the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined and the Exs.P1 to

P9 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Amongst them, P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, while P.Ws.2 to 5 are examined as the eye witnesses to the commission of alleged acts by A1 and the investigating officers are examined as P.Ws.6 and 7.

11.On 14.10.2025, A1 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence that has come on record against him, to which, A1 denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

12.In the course of arguments, heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for A1.

13.Now the points for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of

A1 for the accusation leveled against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and

C.C.No.03/202512Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. To what result ?

14. Point No.1:

To bring home the guilt of A1, the prosecution examined as many as seven (07) witnesses and got marked the Exs.P1 to P9. The defacto-complainant examined as P.W.1, testified that she worked as

Sub-Inspector of Police of Suryaraopet P.S. from 03.05.2019 to 21.06.2021, that on 10.01.2020 from 04.00 p.m. onwards, she along with

P.Ws.2 and 3 attended bandobust duty at Sub-Collector Office, Bandar

Road, Vijayawada, in view of Women Rally conducted in the name of “Save Andhra Pradesh”, that at about 04.45 p.m, A1 and about 100 to 150 persons came in a rally from Raghavaiah Park towards the

Sub-Collector Office, that she informed to A1 and other persons who came in the rally that Section 144 of Cr.P.C. is in force and they cannot come in a mob, but, they tried to intrude into the Sub-Collector Office, that when they objected, A1 and others sat on the Bandar road, obstructing the passage of public over that road, that then she with the support of her staff arrested A1 and 49 others who participated in the rally and shifted them to the complainant police station and that she presented the

Ex.P1/report as A1 and others obstructed her while discharging her duties and also obstructed the passage of public through Bandar road.

15.To corroborate the testimony of P.W.1, prosecution examined

P.Ws.2 to 5. P.W.2 deposed that she worked as Head Constable of

Suryaraopet P.S., Vijayawada City from February, 2019 till March, 2025,

C.C.No.03/202513Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

that on 10.01.2020, P.W.1, P.W.3 and herself attended bandobust duty at

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., in view of rally conducted in the name of “Save Andhra Pradesh - Save Amaravati”, that at about 04.45 p.m., a rally of about 100 to 150 persons reached

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, that at that juncture, P.W.1 obstructed for proceeding of the rally stating that they did not obtain any permission for conducting rally, but, the persons in the rally did not heed to the words of P.W.1 and obstructed them from discharging of duties, pushed them and sat on Bandar road opposite to Sub-Collector Office, that the P.W.1 arrested about 50 persons who participated in the rally and shifted them to the complainant police station and presented report. As P.W.2 did not choose to support the case of prosecution as to the alleged participation of A1 in the rally, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor got marked the relevant portions in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the Exs.P2 and P3.

16.Next to her, P.W.3 deposed that she worked as Police Constable of complainant police station from 05.05.2018 till 23.10.2023, that on 10.01.2020, she along with P.Ws.1 and 2 attended bandobust duties at

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., in view of women rally conducted in the name of “Save Andhra”, that at about 04.45 p.m., A1 and others of about 100 to 150 persons reached Sub-Collector Office,

Vijayawada as a rally, that at that point, P.W.1 obstructed for proceeding of the rally towards the Bus stand, stating that they did not obtain any permission for conducting rally and Section 144 CrPC is in force, but, A1 and others did not heed to the words of P.W.1, that as A1 and others were obstructed from proceeding further, they sat on Bandar road

C.C.No.03/202514Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

opposite to Sub-Collector Office, that then P.W.1 arrested about 50 persons who participated in the rally and shifted them to police station as they caused obstruction to public for passing through the Bandar road.

17.Further, P.Ws.4 and 5, whom the prosecution examined as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, testified in one voice that they are petty vendors at Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, that in 2020 at about 04.30 to 05.00 p.m., there was a rally conducted by 100 to 150 persons and they staged dharna at Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada and that the police came to control the mob and took them. P.Ws.4 and 5 unanimously stated that they cannot say or identify the persons who participated in the rally. Alike P.W.2, as P.Ws.4 and 5 did not reinforce the case of prosecution as to the alleged participation of A1 in the rally, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor got marked the relevant portions in their

respective statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the Exs.P4 and P5 respectively. However, the Exs.P4 and P5 constitute neither substantive nor corroborative piece of evidence.

18.In the further course, the police officer who registered the Ex.P1 as the First Information Report is examined as P.W.6 and he testified that on 10.01.2020, at about 6.00 pm, while he was on duty in the police station,

P.W.1 presented the Ex.P1/report and he registered the same as the

Ex.P6/FIR in Crime No.07/2020 for the offences punishable under

Section 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the

Police Act and that as the offences are grave in nature, he handed over the case for investigation to P.W.7.

19.At last, P.W.7 deposed that on 10.01.2020, at about 06.30 p.m., after he received copy of the Ex.P6 from P.W.6, he took up investigation

C.C.No.03/202515Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

of the case, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, that P.W.2 stated before him as in the Exs.P2 and P3, while P.Ws.4 and 5 stated before him as in the Exs.P4 and P5 respectively, that he got issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A1 and 49 other accused, that he prepared the Ex.P7/rough sketch of the scene of offence and that after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet along with the Exs.P8 and P9/proceedings of the Commissioner of

Police and Additional District Magistrate, dated 28.12.2019 under Section 30 of the Police Act and Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C respectively.

20.P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 when suggested in the course of their respective cross-examinations that the present case is foisted against A1 by P.W.7 at the instance of the then Government as A1 was in opposition as on the date of alleged offence and used to criticize the then

Government, they all denied unconditionally. Further, P.Ws.1 and 7 when suggested that A1 did not commit any of the alleged acts and they are deposing false, and P.W.7 when suggested that P.Ws.2 to 5 are all planted witnesses for the purpose of the case and prepared their alleged statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. suitable to the alleged case against A1, they two denied sternly.

21.However, it is very much glaring that there is no denial at all of the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 that as on the date of alleged offence, they were working in the complainant police station in their respective cadres and the same remained undisputed. No doubt, P.Ws.1 to 3 are suggested that their respective versions that on 10.01.2020, all the three were enstrusted bandobust duties at Sub-Collector Office, Bandar road, Vijayawada, and they attended their bandobust duty from 04.00 p.m., onwards is false, but

C.C.No.03/202516Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

they three denied unconditionally. But, the testimony of the independent witness, P.W.5 that in the year 2020 at about 04.30 to 05.00 p.m., he saw a rally of 100 to 150 persons and after the rally reached Sub-Collector

Office, Vijayawada, they staged dharna there, remained totally unchallenged.

22.Upon overall reading of the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 on the aspects as referred in the preceding paragraph, as there is no dispute in the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 to have been working in the complainant police station as on the date of alleged offence, the court finds their testimonies to have attended the bandobust duties at Sub-Collector’s Office,

Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., onwards, as very much convincing. More particularly, when the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada falls within the jurisdiction of the complainant police station only and the undenied testimony of P.W.5 is that on 10.01.2020 a rally was conducted by persons of about 100 to 150 in number and the same reached the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada by 04.45 p.m., and there, they staged dharna, the same lend credibility to the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they were enstrusted bandobust duties at Sub-Collector’s Office,

Vijayawada in view of the said rally.

23.Further, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 on the aspect of attending bandobust duties on 10.01.2020 from 04.00 p.m. onwards at the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada and conducting of a rally by persons of about 100 to 150 in number and reaching of the said rally to the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada at about 04.45 p.m, remained consistent and coherent without any admissions in favour of the defence, despite thorough cross-examination. Even otherwise, A1 in the course of

C.C.No.03/202517Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when explained the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that on 10.01.2020, while P.Ws.1 to 3 were attending bandobust duties at the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, at about 04.45 p.m., a rally was conducted by persons about 100 to 150 in number, A1 pleaded ignorant.

24.In the light of the above reasoning, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, substantially corroborated by the unchallenged testimony of P.W.5, that on 10.01.2020 P.Ws.1 to 3 were entrusted bandobust duties at the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada in anticipation of rally with the theme, “Save Amaravathi - Save Andhra Pradesh” and they attended their respective duties at the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m., and at about 04.45 p.m, 100 to 150 persons came in a rally to the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, inspire the confidence of the court as truthful and believable.

25.Hence, the court is of the finding that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, coupled with the testimony of P.W.5, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.01.2020 P.Ws.1 to 3 were entrusted bandobust duties at the

Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada in anticipation of rally with the theme, “Save Amaravathi - Save Andhra Pradesh” and P.Ws.1 to 3 attended their respective duties at the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada from 04.00 p.m. onwards, and at about 04.45 p.m, the rally consisting of 100 to 150 persons reached the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada.

26.Now coming to the participation of A1 in the proved rally conducted on 10.01.2020 with the theme, “Save Amaravathi - Save Andhra

Pradesh”, P.W.1 categorically deposed in her examination-in-chief that

A1 is one among the persons who participated in the rally and sat on the

C.C.No.03/202518Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Bandar road and the said version remained totally undisputed, but for the arrest of A1. Even otherwise, the earliest documented version of P.W.1 i.e., the Ex.P1/report that has set the criminal law into motion, discloses in clear terms the participation of A1 in the proved rally.

27.However, P.W.2 deposed that she cannot identify the persons who participated in the rally, even if present in the court hall. Further, P.W.2 despite being a Public Servant and her testimony being in the course of discharge of her official duties, blatantly denied in the course of her examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, that she stated before P.W.7 that A1 and others participated in the rally (Ex.P2), which P.W.7 admitted to has been stated by P.W.2.

28.But, although P.W.3 stated in her examination-in-chief that she cannot identify any of the persons who participated in the rally, however in the course of her examination under Section 154 of the Indian

Evidence Act, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.3 admitted that she stated before P.W.7 that A1 and others participated in the rally. The said version of P.W.3 is unquestioned by the defence.

Further, though A1 volunteered novel version in the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was under house arrest since 24 hours prior to the alleged incident, neither the same is suggested to any of P.Ws. nor any evidence in proof of the same to falsify the case of prosecution is placed on record.

29.Thus, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to the participation of A1 in the proved rally, are not only consistent and corroborative, but also unchallenged, but for the suggestion denying arrest of A1 and that false

C.C.No.03/202519Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

case is foisted against A1. As the said suggestions to P.Ws.1 and 3 denying arrest of A1 and that false case is foisted against A1, which indeed, they denied, neither surmount nor improbablize the undisputed testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 substantiating the case of prosecution that

A1 participated in the proved rally, the said version of P.Ws.1 and 3 impress the court as believable. Hence, the court is of the finding that the testimony of P.W.1, corroborated by P.W.3, which remained undisputed and coupled with the Ex.P1, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the evidence on record establish that A1 participated in the proved rally.

30.Now, coming to the accusations leveled against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and

Section 32 of the Police Act, the foundation of the said accusations is on proof of formation of an unlawful assembly and A1 being a member of that unlawful assembly. But, here in the case on hand, although A1 is leveled the substance of accusations for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 188 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police

Act, it is conspicuous that A1 alone is tried and A2 to A50 against whom cognizance is taken, are acquitted in consequence to allowing of

Crl.M.P.01/2025 filed under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., for withdrawal of the

prosecution against them. In this context, a perusal of the petition in

Crl.M.P.01/2025 and the Order dated 26.10.2024 of Commissioner of

Police, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, the ground on which the prosecution sought withdrawal of proceedings against A2 to A50 is on the premise that there is no specific identity proof and other particulars of the accused, except A1.

C.C.No.03/202520Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

31.Thus, the prosecution has given a go-bye and tilted its version as to the identity of A2 to A50 and has withdrawn the case against them, but not on any technical grounds. Despite the fact that when A1 is roped with the other accused A2 to A50 under 149 of IPC and cognizance being taken for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of

IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act against A1 to A50, for the reason of which the case against A2 to A50 is not severable for withdrawal of prosecution against A2 to A50 by leaving A1 alone, who being MLA as on the date of the alleged offences and in the light of the Order of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashwini Kumar

Upadhyay Vs. Union Of India, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.699/2016 dated 10.08.2021, permission of the Hon’ble High Court is required for withdrawal of prosecution against A1, as this court is headed with the task of trial of the case, but not a revisional authority to appraise the Order of the trial court in allowing Crl.M.P.01/2025 for withdrawal of prosecution against A2 to A50 and consequently, acquitting A2 to A50, this court shall confine to marshaling of the evidence on record for the substance of allegations leveled against A1.

32.So, what remains is that there is no evidence at all as to the identity of the persons who participated in the rally along with A1. When so, in the absence of any evidence as to the persons who participated in the proved rally, it is highly incomprehensible to cull out what the common object of those persons in the rally, including A1. To put in other words, although it can be said that there was an assembly of persons consisting of 100 to 150 members, as the evidence on record proves the proceeding of a rally consisting of 100 to 150 members and of which A1 is a participant, in the

C.C.No.03/202521Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

absence of any evidence as who those other members of that assembly are, besides A1 and the specific act/acts by any member/members using criminal force or commit mischief or criminal trespass etc., it is irrational to read the minds or infer from the deeds of those persons to assess what their common object is.

33.When so, it is improbable to designate the proved assembly of 100 to 150 members, including A1, as an unlawful assembly. Hence, the only course left to the court is to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the formation of an unlawful assembly consisting of A1 as a member, attracting the accusation for the offence punishable under Section 143 of

IPC. As a corollary, the finding of the court is that the accusation leveled against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC, are bound to collapse, however only as a member of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of IPC, but not as an individual.

Hence, as the substance of charge leveled against A1 for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC imposes constructive liability and the substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 IPC is minor to the substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC, and the finding of the court that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations leveled against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and does not exonerate A1 from his personal criminal liability for the substance of accusations for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 of IPC, the court shall assess the evidence against A1 with respect to the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 of IPC and Section 32 of

C.C.No.03/202522Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the Police Act, independent to Section 149 of IPC.

34.With respect to the substance of accusation against A1 for the offence under Section 353 of IPC, P.W.1 deposed that she cannot specify the acts committed by A1 while in the said rally, but for the persons in the rally abusing her, pushing her aside, obstructing her from discharging her official duties and obstructing the traffic by sitting on the Bandar road, opposite to the Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence against A1 of committing assault or using criminal force against P.W.1 or any other Public Servant and thereby deterring or obstructing from discharge of P.W.1’s or any other Public Servant’s official duties, in the course of A1’s participation in the rally conducted on 10.01.2020, attracting the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.

35.Further, with respect to the substance of accusation against A1 for the offence under Section 341 of IPC, there is no evidence springing up from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to any specific act committed by

A1 causing wrongful restraint by preventing any person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, but for the abstract version that the persons who participated in the rally sat on

Bandar road, obstructing the traffic. Further, no victim/victims of the alleged offence of 341 of IPC is neither examined by P.W.7 nor at least the description of the alleged victim/victims has seen the light of the day, who according to the prosecution were obstructed by A1. Eventually, the evidence on record falls short in proving the prime ingredient of whom A1 obstructed or prevented proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Hence, the only finding that can be arrived at is that the prosecution also failed to prove the substance of accusation

C.C.No.03/202523Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

leveled against A1 for the offence under Section 341 of IPC.

36.Further, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 188 of

IPC, it is quite appropriate to refer to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for A1, that as there is no proclamation of the Order promulgated vide the Ex.P9 and as cognizance of the said offence can be taken only on complaint by the concerned Public Servant before the court, the accusation leveled against A1 for the alleged offence under

Section 188 of IPC is irregular and bound to fail. To buttress the said argument, the learned defence counsel placed reliance upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in a case between Shri Bhoop

Singh Tyagi Vs. State, reported as 2002 CRILJ 2872 and Order of

Hon’ble High Court Madras, in a case between Jeevanandham Vs.

State, reported as 2018 (2) L.W. Crl. 606.

37.As rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel, there is no proof filed by the prosecution as to promulgation of the Ex.P9 Order by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate,

Vijayawada Metropolitan Area. Even otherwise, on close scrutiny of the

Ex.P9 Order, the said Order discloses the roads within the jurisdictional limits of the complainant police station, other than Bandar road/Mahatma

Gandhi road, the alleged scene of offence. When so, it cannot be said to any stretch of imagination that the Ex.P9 Order covers the alleged scene of offence.

38.Further, in the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu, reported as (2010) 9 SCC 567, which is also referred in the Order cited supra and still holds the field, there is bar to take cognizance for the

C.C.No.03/202524Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

offence under Sections 188 of IPC, but for on complaint in writing by the concerned Public Servant, under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. It is not out of place to extract the relevant portion in the said Judgment, which is as follows:

“20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person.……...”

39.But, in the case on hand, the cognizance taken for the offences, inter alia, under Section 188 of IPC is on the charge sheet filed by

P.W.7/investigating officer and there is no complaint by the concerned

Public Servant whose order is alleged to has been violated by A1. Hence, in the light of the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited supra, which is squarely applicable to the case on hand, as there is no complaint raised by the Public Servant whose order is alleged to has

C.C.No.03/202525Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

been violated, the concerned Magistrate Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC and the same being an incurable defect, making the further proceedings irregular, the substance of accusation leveled against A1 for the offence under Section 188 of IPC is liable to collapse, on law and facts too.

40.Lastly, with respect to the substance of accusation leveled against

A1 for the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act, P.W.7 filed the

Ex.P8 Order dated 28.12.2019 issued by the Commissioner of Police and

Additional District Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area under

Section 30 of the Police Act. As per the Ex.P8, no procession should be taken out or meeting be held in Vijayawada City Police Commissionerate limits without prior permission of the Commissioner of Police. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for A1, although Section 30 of the

Police Act contemplates issue of general or special notice to any person or class of persons intending to convene or collect an assembly, to apply for a license before convening or collecting assembly or promoting procession, the prosecution failed to file iota of evidence as to the general or special notice issued under Section 30 of the Police Act, but for the

Ex.P8 Order filed along with the charge sheet.

41.Further, a perusal of the Ex.P8 discloses the date of Order as 28.12.2019, while the date of alleged offence is on 10.01.2020. Conjoint reading of the date of Ex.P8 Order and date of alleged offence, speaks of availability of ample time for service of the Ex.P8 Order. But, it is neither the case of prosecution that A1 intended to convene or collect an assembly or promote a procession nor that the prosecution served general or special notice on A1 with respect to the Ex.P8 Order, to infer

C.C.No.03/202526Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the knowledge of A1 of the Ex.P8 Order, so as to imply its disobedience, attracting the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act. Thus, there is no evidence at all that A1, though admittedly is MLA of Vijayawada East

Constituency and the same speaks of not only being a public personality, but also his leadership, has intended to convene or collect an assembly or promote a procession and even if so, was put in notice of the Ex.P8

Order and violated the same, attracting the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act. Therefore, as there is glaring non-compliance of the statutory mandate contemplated under Section 30(2) of the Police Act and consequential disobedience of the Ex.P8 Order, the court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the substance of accusation leveled against A1 for the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act.

42.Therefore, upon evaluation of the evidence on record and in the light of above reasoning, the only finding that can be arrived is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 for the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act and under

Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 of IPC, either. Accordingly, this point is determined.

43. Point No.2:

Inthe light of finding of the court on point No.1 for determination, that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 for the accusations leveled against him for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, A1 is entitled for acquittal.

44.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of

C.C.No.03/202527Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the Police Act and accordingly, is acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of A1 shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 31st day of October, 2025.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 : M. Prasanthi. P.W.2 : Ravuri Sujatha. P.W.3 : D. Bhavani. P.W.4 : Volla Appalanayudu. P.W.5 : Boggula Srinivasa Reddy. P.W.6 : Y. Durga Rao. P.W.7 : N.V.S. Suryanarayana.

For the Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 10.01.2020 - Report.

Ex.P2 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P3 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

C.C.No.03/202528Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Ex.P4 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P5 : 10.01.2020 - Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P6 : 10.01.2020 - FIR in Crime No.07/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353 and 341 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act.

Ex.P7 : 10.01.2020 - Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P8 : 28.12.2019 - Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate under Section 30 of the Police Act.

Ex.P9 : 28.12.2019 - Copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C.

For the Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: Nil.

For the Defence: Nil.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

C.C.No.28/20231Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

APKR210000302023

Presented on : 22-07-2023 Registered on : 03-08-2023 Decided on : 17-03-2026 Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 26 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES

RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2026.

C.C.No. 28/2023

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City.

…Complainant

And

1.Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan, S/o. Ramesh Chandra, 43 years, Harathi Kalyani towers, Pent house, 5th floor, Near St. Johns High School, Davajigudem road, Gannavaram Village and Mandal.

C.C.No.28/20232Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

2. Vadlamudi Harish Krishna, S/o. Subbarao, 39 years, F.No.301, Ahana Kakatiya Apartment, Beside NAC Kalyana Mandapam, Gurunanak Colony, Vijayawada.

3.Gudavalli Narasimharao @ Narasaiah, S/o. Narayana Rao, 50 years, Opp. Andhra Bank road, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

4.Komma Koteswara Rao @ Kotlu, S/o. Panakala Rao, 45 years, D.No.8-125, Near Sai Baba Temple, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada City.

5.Gudapati Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Vishnu, 45 years, D.No.8-124, Opp. Kommakotla gari house, Sai Baba Temple road, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

6.Chennu Kumar Raj, S/o. Venkata Koteswara Rao, 33 years, D.No.4-118/1, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

7.Pinnaboyina Gopi Raju, S/o. Yesu Babu, 32 years, D.No.8-147, Yadavula bazaar, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.28/20233Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

8.Koneru Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, 38 years, KVR colony, Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

9.Patha Kiran Kumar, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, 39 years, GNR towers, P Block FF4, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada.

10. Apolu Krishna, S/o. Govind, 34 years, D.No.9-24/1, Patel Nagar, Ramavarappadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

11. Ijju Rama Rao, S/o. Chinna Rao, 38 years, Pappula Mill back side, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

12. Gudavalli Shiva Nageswara Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao, 58 years, D.No.7-85, Pala bazaar, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

13. Mamilla Palli Ramesh, S/o. Govindaiah, 45 years, Parlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District,

C.C.No.28/20234Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Now at GRB Nivas, Pala bazar, Prasadampadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

… Accused Nos.1 to 13

This Case having come up for final hearing on 03.03.2026 before me in the presence of, Smt. M.K. Vijaya Lakshmi, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri K. Sai Mohan Rao, counsel for A1, Sri T. Chiranjeevi, counsel for A2, Sri T. Kiran Babu, counsel for A3, A9 and A11 to A13, Sri S. Rajendra Prasad, counsel for A4 and Sri K. Naveen, counsel for A5 to A8 and A10, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 to A13 are tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity, Section 131 of the Representation of the

People Act, 1950, hereinafter referred as ‘R.P. Act’ for the sake of brevity and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861, of Crime No.342/2019 of

Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, on the charge sheet filed by the

Sub-Inspector of Police of Patamata police station, Vijayawada City.

2.The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:

(i) On 11.04.2019, in view of General Elections-2019, the defacto-complainant/L.W.1-Pinniboyina Venkata Subba Rao, Panchayat

Secretary of Prasadampadu Village, is nominated as Booth Level Officer of Polling Booth No.47 at Prasadampadu Village of Vijayawada Rural. In the said Polling Booth No.47, initially problem occurred in the functioning of EVM machine and on that polling was stopped for some time and later, after working of the EVM, polling resumed. In that connection, at about

C.C.No.28/20235Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

08.00 p.m., A1 along with his followers entered into the polling booth and talked with the concerned Polling Officer by saying to give chance to all the voters who were in the queue and returned from there. After some time, the Member of Legislative Assembly contesting candidate of

Gannavaram Constituent Assembly for Yuvajana Shramika Rythu

Congress Party, Sri Yarlagadda Venkata Rao, came to the polling booth at about 09.00 p.m., and told the concerned polling booth officer to close the polling and quarreled with the polling booth officer and police. On coming to know the same, at about 09.30 p.m., A1 along with his followers i.e., A2 to A13, came to the scene of offence, formed into an unlawful assembly, raised slogans, created disturbance to the polling booth officials and behaved in an intrusive manner. On that,

L.W.1-Pinniboyina Venkata Subba Rao, Panchayat Secretary of

Prasadampadu Village, nominated as Booth Level Officer of Polling Booth

No.47 at Prasadampadu Village of Vijayawada Rural, gave complaint against the accused.

(ii) Basing on the report of L.W.1-Pinniboyina Venkata Subba Rao,

Panchayat Secretary of Prasadampadu Village, L.W.3-P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, registered the same as FIR in Crime No.342/2019 under Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861, submitted FIRs to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. During the investigation, L.W.3-P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, inspected the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 and 2-Pinniboyina Venkata Subba

Rao and Pillajitti Bangaru Raju, Village Revenue Assistant respectively,

C.C.No.28/20236Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Later, on 03.05.2019, L.W.3-P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on A4 and A6 to A13 and filed charge sheet disclosing A1 to A3 and A5 as absconding.

(iii) Subsequently, on 01.04.2023, L.W.4-K.V.G.V. Satyanarayana,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, took over charge from his predecessor i.e., L.W.3-P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, and after verifying the investigation and case record, served notices on A1 to A3 and A5 under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C..

Thereafter, on completion of entire investigation, L.W.4-K.V.G.V.

Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet, against A1 to

A13 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861.

3.After filing of charge sheet on 18.05.2023, the then learned

IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 188 and 153-A r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act against A1 to A13 and registered the case as C.C.2479/2023.

4.As per the docket proceedings in C.C.2479/2023 on the file of

IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, summons were issued to A1 to A13 for their appearance before the IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Thereafter, the record is submitted to this court as A1 is an elected Member of Legislative Assembly of

Gannavaram Constituency as on the date of commission of the offence on 11.04.2019.

C.C.No.28/20237Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

5.After receiving the entire record as per the proceedings of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in ROC.No.105/E1/2018,

dated 12.04.2018 for trial and disposal of the case in accordance to law,

this court re-numbered this case as C.C.28/2023 and issued summons to

A1 to A13.

6.On appearance of A1 to A13, copies are furnished to A1 to A13 on 15.02.2024 and on the same day i.e., on 15.02.2024, A1 to A13 are examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act, to which A1 to A13 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and the Exs.P1 to

P5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Amongst them, P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, while P.W.2 is examined as the eye witness to the commission of alleged acts by A1 to A13 and the investigating officers are examined as P.Ws.3 and 4.

8.On 28.10.2024, A1 to A11 and A13 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., while A12 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 28.02.2025, explaining the incriminating evidence that has come on record against them, to which, A1 to A13 denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.In the course of arguments, heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned respective defence counsel for A1 to A13.

C.C.No.28/20238Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

10.Now the points for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of

A1 to A13 for the accusation leveled against them for

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145 and

188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and

Section 32 of the Police Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt ?

2. To what result ?

11. Point No.1:

At the very outset, the court finds it appropriate to refer to the submission by the learned defence counsel on the technical aspect of limitation. The learned defence counsel submitted that as Section 42 of the Police Act contemplates that all actions and prosecutions against any person for anything done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Police Act shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed, and as none of the alleged offences is punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years and filing of charge sheet by P.W.4 is after three years from the date of alleged offences, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the alleged offences has expired and hence, the court is barred from taking cognizance of the alleged offences against A1 to A13.

12.To answer the same, the court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrs. Sarah

Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, Rep. by its

Director, Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors., reported as AIR 2014 SC 448. The said judgment is an outcome on a reference to the Constitutional Bench of Five Judges, wherein it has been held that for the purpose of

C.C.No.28/20239Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. Applying the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the present case, as the date of occurrence of the alleged incident was on 11.04.2019 and filing of the Ex.P4/report was on 12.04.2019, taking cognizance of the alleged offences by the concerned court is well within the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation for the alleged offences.

Hence, the court is of the finding that there is no force in the submission by the learned defence counsel.

13.Now coming to factual aspects, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of A1 to A13, examined as many as four (04) witnesses and got marked the Exs.P1 to P5. The defacto-complainant is examined as P.W.1 and he testified that while he worked as a Panchayat Secretary of

Prasadampadu Village, he was deputed as Booth Level Officer of polling station No.47 in view of General Elections-2019, that on 11.04.2019, the day of polling for General Elections-2019, the E.V.Ms i.e., the Electronic

Voting Machines did not function properly and after some time, they functioned well, and the polling commenced, that because of the improper functioning of E.V.Ms., there was delay in the polling and the polling was held till 09.30 p.m., that no incident took place at the polling booth on that day and he did not give any report to the police, that the police obtained his Ex.P1/signature on a written paper, informing him that his signature is obtained regarding the incident that is said to have occurred on that day and that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.

Next to P.W.1, the prosecution examined P.W.2 as one of the eye

C.C.No.28/202310Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

witnesses and he deposed that he knows P.W.1, that he does not know anything about the case and that the police did not examine him and record his statement.

14.In the further course, the investigating police officers are examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 testified that on 12.04.2019, at about 01.30 p.m.,

P.W.1 came to the police station and presented the Ex.P4/written report and he registered the same as the Ex.P5/F.I.R and took up investigation, in the course of which, he examined and recorded the Exs.P2 and

P3/statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and that on 03.05.2019, he issued notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to A4 and A6 to A13. At last,

P.W.4 deposed that he took up further investigation of this case, that he got served notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. on A1 to A3 and A5, and that after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against A1 to A13.

15.In the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 when suggested that

P.W.1 did not present the Ex.P4/report and it was prepared by the police personnel, that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state as in the Exs.P2 and P3 respectively, that A1 to A13 did not form into any unlawful assembly and did not commit any offence as alleged against them, that he did not do actual investigation, but only table investigation and that he is deposing false at the instance of his superior officers, P.W.3 denied the same.

Likewise, P.W.4 when suggested that his investigation of the crime and filing of the charge sheet is barred by limitation, he denied the same.

Thus, the testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4 remained consistent, corroborative and coherent without any admissions in favour of the defence.

C.C.No.28/202311Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

16.At this juncture, it is quite appropriate to refer to the arguments submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that although

P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, Section 161

Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 are marked as the Exs.P2 and P3 respectively and P.W.3 admitted the same and the testimonies of investigating police officers/P.Ws.3 and 4 cannot be ignored on the sole ground that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not choose to substantiate the case of prosecution.

17.To fortify the said argument, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between Ram Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported as (1999) 04 SC CK 0056. The said judgment is an outcome in a Criminal Appeal, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that the evidence of the police officer cannot be discarded on the sole ground that no independent witness is examined by the prosecution, when it is reliable, partly allowed the appeal. To apply the ratio as laid down in the above referred case to the case on hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 whom the prosecution examined as informant and eye witness respectively to the alleged incident, displayed total hostility to the case of prosecution and absolutely there is no direct/prime evidence on the occurrence of the alleged incident. Thus, the facts are very much distinguishable and hence, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited supra, is not applicable to the present case.

18.Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecution has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case between Badhavath Bhagwan Naik @ Bhagwan @ Naik Vs. The

C.C.No.28/202312Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

State, reported as (2011) 11 AP CK 0060. The said judgment is also an outcome in a Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction by the trial court and the Hon’ble High Court holding that when there are circumstances to disbelieve police officer’s evidence, the evidence of a police officer cannot be disbelieved or discarded on the only ground that he is a police officer.

To place reliance on the ratio as laid down in the above judgment, the facts in the said case are distinguishable with that of the facts in the present case. Hence, the ratio in the judgment cited supra, is not applicable to the current case.

19.Further, as rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel for A1, it is not the case of prosecution that there is no other evidence like video recording or that the alleged incident is not witnessed by no other person.

To the contra, even the case of prosecution is that the very occurrence of the alleged incident is though not in a broad day light, but in the presence of public. To put in other words, it is not the case of prosecution that the occurrence of the alleged incident is in a remote place leaving no room for any other person, other than P.Ws.1 and 2, to witness the same.

Thus, there is very much availability of evidence on the occurrence of the alleged incident, which the prosecution did not evince interest in collection and placing the same on record. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 whom the prosecution examined as informant and eye witnesses to the alleged incident, displayed total hostility to the case of prosecution. When so, there remains absolutely no evidence at all on the occurrence of the alleged incident, but for the testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4 of recording the

Exs.P2 and P3/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and filing of the charge sheet, which scarcely constitute

C.C.No.28/202313Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

direct/prime evidence to arrive at an affirmative finding on the very occurrence of the alleged incident and commission of the alleged acts by

A1 to A13.

20.Further, with respect to the substance of accusation under Section 32 of the Police Act, the very foundation of the offence is on opposing or disobeying the orders issued by District Superintendent or Assistant

District Superintendent of Police. But, neither of P.Ws.3 and 4 filed any such Order or deposed on the Orders which the prosecution urge to have been opposed or disobeyed by any of A1 to A13, attracting the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Police Act. Thus, absolutely there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of commission of any of the alleged acts by any of A1 to A13 and the testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4 fail to prove commission of any of the alleged acts by any of A1 to A13, attracting the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act.

21.Moreover, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, it is quite appropriate to refer to the arguments submitted by the learned respective counsel for A1 to A13, that as no Order promulgated by a Public Servant is filed and even if so, no complaint is filed by the said

Public Servant, as against the mandate that cognizance of the said offence can be taken only on complaint by the concerned Public Servant

before the court, taking cognizance for the said offence by the learned

Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet filed by P.W.4 is an

irregularity and consequently, the accusation leveled against A1 to A13 for the alleged offence under Section 188 of IPC is bound to fail.

C.C.No.28/202314Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

22.As rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel, there is no iota of evidence filed by prosecution as to promulgation of an Order by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing to abstain from a certain act and so also, that any of the accused committed breach or violation of such an Order, attracting Section 188 of IPC.

Adding to it, in the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu, reported as (2010) 9 SCC 567, which still holds the field, there is bar to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 188 of IPC, but for on complaint in writing by the concerned Public Servant, under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. It is not out of place to extract the relevant portion in the said Judgment, which is as follows:

“20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person.……...”

C.C.No.28/202315Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

23.But, in the case on hand, the cognizance taken for the offence, inter alia, under Section 188 of IPC is on the charge sheet filed by P.W.4 and there is no complaint by the concerned Public Servant whose order is alleged to has been violated by A1 to A13. Hence, in the light of the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited supra, which is squarely applicable to the case on hand, as there is no complaint raised by the Public Servant whose order is alleged to has been violated, the concerned Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and the same being an incurable defect, making the further proceedings irregular, the substance of accusation leveled against A1 to A13 for the offence under Section 188 of

IPC is liable to collapse, on law too.

24.Thus, upon evaluation of the evidence on record and in the light of above reasoning, the only finding that can be arrived is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A13 for the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act. Accordingly, this point is determined.

25. Point No.2:

In the light of finding of the court on point No.1 for determination, that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A13 for the accusations leveled against them for the offences under Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131 of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police

Act, A1 to A13 are entitled for acquittal.

26.In the result, A1 to A13 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC, Section 131

C.C.No.28/202316Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

of the R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act and accordingly, are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of A1 to A13 shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day, as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 : Pinniboina Venkata Subba Rao. P.W.2 : Pillajitti Bangaru Raju. P.W.3 : P. Satya Srinivas. P.W.4 : K.V.G.V. Satyanarayana.

For the Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 12.04.2019 - Signature of P.W.1 in the report.

Ex.P2 : 12.04.2019 - Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 : 12.04.2019 - Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 : 12.04.2019 - Report.

Ex.P5 : 12.04.2019 - F.I.R.

For the Defence: Nil.

C.C.No.28/202317Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: Nil.

For the Defence: Nil.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

C.C.No.29/20231Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

APKR210000202023

Presented on : 21-07-2023 Registered on : 03-08-2023 Decided on : 17-03-2026 Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 27 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES

RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2026.

C.C.No. 29/2023

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City.

…Complainant

And

1.Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan, S/o. Ramesh Chandra, 43 years, Harathi Kalyani towers, Pent house, 5th floor, Near St. Johns High School, Davajigudem road, Gannavaram Village and Mandal.

C.C.No.29/20232Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

2.Koneru Siva Ramakrishna Rao @ Peddababu, S/o. Ramarao, 65 years, D.No.8-125, Alankar Bekery, Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

3.Koneru Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Narasimharao, 42 years, KVR Colony, Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural.

4.Syed Ameer Jani, S/o. Sattar Khan, 38 years, Sai Ram Colony, Enikepadu, Vijayawada Rural.

5.Varikuti Koteswara Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, 45 years, D.N.6-41, Near Pallavi Rice Mill, Enikepadu, Vijayawada Rural.

… Accused Nos.1 to 5

This Case having come up for final hearing on 03.03.2026 before me in the presence of, Smt. M.K. Vijaya Lakshmi, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri K. Sai Mohan Rao, counsel for A1, Sri T. Kiran Babu, counsel for A2 and A5 and Sri K. Naveen, counsel for A3 and A4, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

C.C.No.29/20233Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 to A5 are tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861, of

Crime No.276/2019 of Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, on the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Patamata police station, Vijayawada City.

2.The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:

(i) On 24.03.2019, during morning hours, while L.Ws.1 to 3-Vaka

Ravi, PC 1253, A. Sarveswarao, PC 2872 and P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, were on patrolling duty and at Enikepadu Centre, Vijayawada Rural, A1 to A5 and some others assembled there against the Model Code of Conduct

Rules and held Telugu Desam Party flags on vehicles bearing Nos.AP 21

AV 0333, AP 21 BL 0333, AP 16 TC 3634, Tata JC, AP 16 TG 7421, Appi

Auto, AP 16 FE 1759, Activa, AP 16 TH 9895 Tata JC, AP 37 TC 7349 (Tata ACE) and some other vehicles, and conducted a big procession and caused breach of public peace and inconvenience to public.

However, as none has come forward to report the same, L.W.3-P. Satya

Srinivas, Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada

City prepared an occurrence report from 10.10 to 10.30 a.m.

(ii) Basing on the occurrence report, L.W.3-P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, registered the occurrence report as FIR in Crime No.276/2019 under

Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act,

C.C.No.29/20234Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

1861, and submitted copies of FIRs to all the concerned officers and took up investigation in this case. In the course of investigation, L.W.3-P.

Satya Srinivas, Sub-Inspector of Police, secured the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2-Vaka Ravi, PC 1253 and A. Sarveswarao, PC 2872, examined them and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., served notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. on A2, A3 and A5 and filed charge sheet disclosing A1 and A4 as absconding.

(iii) Subsequently, on 01.04.2023, L.W.4-K.V.G.V. Satyanarayana,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada City, took over charge from his predecessor i.e., L.W.3-P. Satya Srinivas,

Sub-Inspector of Police, and after verifying the investigation and case record, served notices on A1 and A4 under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C..

Thereafter, on completion of entire investigation, L.W.4-K.V.G.V.

Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet, against A1 to

A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of

IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861.

3.After filing of charge sheet, on 18.05.2023, the then learned

IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act against A1 to A5 and registered the case as C.C.2481/2023.

4.As per the docket proceedings in C.C.2481/2023 on the file of

IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, summons were issued to A1 to A5 for their appearance before the IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Thereafter, the record is submitted to this court as A1 is an elected Member of Legislative Assembly of

C.C.No.29/20235Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Gannavaram Constituency as on the date of commission of the offence on 24.03.2019.

5.After receiving the entire record as per the proceedings of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in ROC.No.105/E1/2018,

dated 12.04.2018 for trial and disposal of the case in accordance to law,

this court re-numbered this case as C.C.29/2023 and issued summons to

A1 to A5.

6.On appearance of A1 to A5, copies are furnished to A1 to A5 on 15.02.2024 and on the same day i.e., on 15.02.2024, A1 to A5 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, to which A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and the Exs.P1 and

P2 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

8.On 28.10.2024, A1 and A3 to A5 are examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., while A2 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 11.11.2024, explaining the incriminating evidence that has come on record against them, to which, A1 to A5 denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.In the course of arguments, heard the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned respective defence counsel for A1 to A5.

10.Now the points for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of

A1 to A5 for the accusation leveled against them for

the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188

C.C.No.29/20236Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. To what result ?

11. Point No.1:

At the very outset, the court finds it appropriate to refer to the submission by the learned defence counsel on the technical aspect of limitation. The learned defence counsel submitted that as Section 42 of the Police Act contemplates that all actions and prosecutions against any person for anything done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Police Act shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed, and as none of the alleged offences is punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years and filing of charge sheet by P.W.4 is after three years from the date of alleged offences, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the alleged offences has expired and hence, the court is barred from taking cognizance of the alleged offences against A1 to A5.

12.To answer the same, the court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrs. Sarah

Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, Rep. by its

Director, Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors., reported as AIR 2014 SC 448. The said judgment is an outcome on a reference to the Constitutional Bench of Five Judges, wherein it has been held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes

C.C.No.29/20237Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

cognizance. Applying the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the present case, as the date of occurrence of the alleged incident was on 24.03.2019 and filing of the Ex.P1/occurrence report was on the very same day i.e., on 24.03.2019, taking cognizance of the alleged offences by the concerned court is well within the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation for the alleged offences. Hence, the court is of the finding that there is no force in the submission by the learned defence counsel.

13.Now coming to factual aspects, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of A1 to A5, examined examined as many as four (04) witnesses and got marked the Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1 testified that on 24.03.2019, while

P.W.2, P.W.3 and himself were on patrolling duty on the occasion of the

General Elections, at about 10.00 a.m., at Enikepadu Centre, A1 and his followers came as a rally and gathered with their vehicles, and staged dharna, violating the Code of Conduct, and Section 30 of the Police Act, that then P.W.3 prepared the occurrence report and obtained their signatures and that thereafter, recorded his statement. To corroborate the testimony of P.W.1, prosecution examined P.W.2 and he deposed that on 24.03.2019, at about 10.00 a.m., while P.Ws.1, 3 and himself were present at Enikepadu Centre, A1, A2 and some others came there on vehicles i.e., Motor Cycles, Tata Ace vehicles and Ape Autos as a rally, by holding the flags of Telugu Desam Party and raised slogans and that

P.W.3 examined and recorded his statement.

14.In the further course, P.W.3 testified that on 24.03.2019, at about 10.00 a.m., while he was doing patrolling duty along with P.Ws.1 and 2 and by the time, they reached Enikepadu Centre, they noticed vehicles bearing Nos.AP 21 AV 0333, AP 21 BK 0333 and some other vehicles

C.C.No.29/20238Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

and at that time, A1 to A5 and some others were going as rally, that he informed them that the Model Code of Conduct and Section 30 of Police

Act are in force, but they continued the rally, that then he prepared the

Ex.P1/occurrence report at the said place and that after completion of his duty, he came back to the police station at about 10.30 p.m., and registered the occurrence report as the Ex.P2/F.I.R.

15.P.W.3 further deposed that he submitted the Ex.P2/F.I.R., along with

Ex.P1/occurrence report to the court, and took up investigation, in the course of which, on 24.03.2019, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, and that on 25.03.2019, he issued notices under Sections 41-A of Cr.P.C. to A2, A3 and A5. At last, P.W.4 deposed that on 01.04.2023, he took up further investigation of this case, that he got served notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to A1 and A4 and that after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to

A5.

16.In the course of cross-examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 when suggested that they were not at the alleged scene of offence on the date of alleged incident at all and that they are deposing false at the instance of their superior officers, they denied unconditionally. Further, P.Ws.1 to 4 when suggested in the course of their respective cross-examinations that A1 to

A5 did not violate any Rule of Model Code of Conduct and Section 30 of the Police Act, that A1 to A5 did not participate in any unlawful gathering, that false case is foisted against A1 to A5 at the instance of political rivals of A1 and that they are deposing false, P.Ws.1 to 4 unanimously denied.

17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor to fortify the case of prosecution, placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

C.C.No.29/20239Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Court of India in a case between Ram Kumar Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported as (1999) 04 SC CK 0056. The said judgment is an outcome in a Criminal Appeal, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that the evidence of the police officer cannot be discarded on the sole ground that no independent witness is examined by the prosecution, when it is reliable. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecution has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case between Badhavath Bhagwan Naik @ Bhagwan @ Naik Vs. The

State, reported as (2011) 11 AP CK 0060. The said judgment is also an outcome in a Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction by the trial court and the Hon’ble High Court holding that when there are circumstances to disbelieve police officer’s evidence, the evidence of a police officer cannot be disbelieved or discarded on the only ground that he is a police officer.

18.Adhering to the ratios’ as laid down in the cases cited supra, the court shall appreciate the evidence on record. Upon overall reading of the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4, it is very much glaring that the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, while

P.W.3 as the defacto-complainant and one of the investigating officers and P.W.4 as one of the investigating officers. Although the testimonies of

P.Ws.1 to 3 remained consistent without any admissions in favour of the defence of A1 to A5, of total denial of the alleged incident, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for A1 to A5, there is neither whisper in the Ex.P1 of the presence of the P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time of alleged incident nor P.Ws.1 and 2 are signatories to the Ex.P1. Further, P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically admitted that there is no mention in any corner of the

Ex.P1 of either of P.W.1 or P.W.2 attending duty at the alleged scene of

C.C.No.29/202310Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

offence nor P.W.1 or P.W.2 signed on the Ex.P1 either.

19.Further, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for A1 to A5, the prosecution failed to file copy of the General Diary of the complainant police station or the Beat Book or any other Duty Allotment Book disclosing the assignment of patrolling duties to P.Ws.1 and 2 on the date of the alleged incident and they attending the same along with P.W.3.

And, there is plausible explanation from P.W.3 or P.W.4 for not filing any of the above to substantiate the case of prosecution that P.Ws.1 and 2 attended patrolling duties along with P.W.3 on the date of alleged incident. Thus, absolutely there is no iota of evidence, other than the oral chanted versions of P.Ws.1 and 2, that proves the allotment of patrolling duties to P.Ws.1 and 2 on the date of alleged offence and P.Ws.1 and 2 to have attended the same along with P.W.3 at the scene of offence, to inspire the confidence of the court and place reliance upon the disputed oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 on this aspect. Hence, the court finds it difficult to overlook the submission by the learned counsel for A1 to A5 that P.Ws.1 and 2 are planted witnesses.

20.Thus, the only evidence that remains is of P.Ws.3 and 4. To place reliance upon the testimony of P.W.3, the learned counsel for A1 to A5 submitted that as P.W.3 himself is the complainant, P.W.3 is not competent to take up investigation and hence, his investigation is tainted.

The learned defence counsel to buttress the same, placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, reported as AIR 2018 SC 3853.

The said judgment is an outcome in an appeal wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that to ensure fair investigation, which is the very foundation

C.C.No.29/202311Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

for fair trial, the informant and the investigator must not be the same person and the same being an incurable infirmity, acquitted the accused therein.

21.To contradict the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between State Rep. By Inspector of Police Vs. V. Jayapaul, reported as (2004) 5 SCC 223. The said judgment is an outcome in a

Criminal Appeal filed assailing the Order of the Hon’ble High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that police officer who prepared the F.I.R. report regarding the suspected commission of certain cognizable offences on receiving of information, investigated the case and submitted the final report. The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal holding that the police officer therein did not have personal knowledge of the suspected offences and his role was that of a pure and simple investigator and thus, there is no illegality in the process of investigation by the investigating officer and submitting of the final report by him.

22.On the applicability of which of the two judgments referred by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel to the case on hand is, as per the contents of the Ex.P1 and the testimony of P.W.3 as well, P.W.3 is not mere informant, but is an eye witness to the alleged incident. When so, it can be held without any amount of hesitation that the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Rep. By Inspector of Police Vs. V. Jayapaul, on which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance is not applicable as the facts are explicitly distinguishable. And, as the facts in the case of

C.C.No.29/202312Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, on which the learned defence counsel placed reliance, are similar to that of the facts in the case on hand wherein the investigating officer/P.W.3 himself is the eye witness to the alleged offence, the ratio laid therein is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the court finds it difficult to ignore the submission by the learned defence counsel that the investigation by P.W.3 is not a fair investigation.

23.Further, with respect to the substance of accusation under Section 32 of the Police Act, the very foundation of the offence is on opposing or disobeying the orders issued by District Superintendent or Assistant

District Superintendent of Police. But, neither of P.Ws.3 and 4 filed any such Order or deposed on the Orders which the prosecution urge to have been opposed or disobeyed by any of A1 to A5, attracting the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Police Act. Thus, absolutely there is no cogent inspiring evidence of commission of any of the alleged acts by any of A1 to A5 and neither the testimony of P.W.4 prove commission of any of the alleged acts by any of A1 to A5 nor the investigation by P.W.3 inspire the confidence of the court, attracting the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police

Act.

24.Moreover, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, it is quite appropriate to refer to the arguments submitted by the learned respective counsel for A1 to A5, that as no Order promulgated by a Public Servant is filed and even if so, no complaint is filed by the said

Public Servant, as against the mandate that cognizance of the said offence can be taken only on complaint by the concerned Public Servant

C.C.No.29/202313Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

before the court, taking cognizance for the said offence by the learned

Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet filed by P.W.4 is an

irregularity and consequently, the accusation leveled against A1 to A5 for the alleged offence under Section 188 of IPC is bound to fail.

25.As rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel, there is no iota of evidence filed by prosecution as to promulgation of an Order by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing to abstain from a certain act and so also, that any of the accused committed breach or violation of such an Order, attracting Section 188 of IPC.

Adding to it, in the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu, reported as (2010) 9 SCC 567, which still holds the field, there is bar to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 188 of IPC, but for on complaint in writing by the concerned Public Servant, under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. It is not out of place to extract the relevant portion in the said Judgment, which is as follows:

“20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the

C.C.No.29/202314Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person.……...”

26.But, in the case on hand, the cognizance taken for the offence, inter alia, under Section 188 of IPC is on the charge sheet filed by P.W.4 and there is no complaint by the concerned Public Servant whose order is alleged to has been violated by A1 to A5. Hence, in the light of the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited supra, which is squarely applicable to the case on hand, as there is no complaint raised by the Public Servant whose order is alleged to has been violated, the concerned Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and the same being an incurable defect, making the further proceedings irregular, the substance of accusation leveled against A1 to A5 for the offence under Section 188 of

IPC is liable to collapse, on law and facts too.

27.Thus, upon evaluation of the evidence on record and in the light of above reasoning, the only finding that can be arrived is that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A5 for the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act.

Accordingly, this point is determined.

28. Point No.2:

In the light of finding of the court on point No.1 for determination, that

C.C.No.29/202315Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A5 for the accusations leveled against them for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, A1 to A5 are entitled for acquittal.

29.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act and accordingly, are acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of A1 to A5 shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 : Vaka Ravi. P.W.2 : A. Sarveswara Rao. P.W.3 : P. Satya Srinivas. P.W.4 : K.V.G.V. Satyanarayana.

For the Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 24.03.2019 - Occurrence report.

Ex.P2 : 24.03.2019 - F.I.R.

For the Defence: Nil.

C.C.No.29/202316Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., Vijayawada.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: Nil.

For the Defence: Nil.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 1 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

APKR210000102025

Presented on : 26-09-2025 Registered on : 26-09-2025 Decided on : 26-11-2025 Duration :0 years, 2 months, 0 days

IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES RELATING

TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt. A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of November, 2025.

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025

in

C.C.No.24/2020

Between:

Kakani Govardhana Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Ex-MLA of Sarvepalli Assembly Constituency, Resident of Podalakur Road, Near Dycus Road Center, Nellore-524004. … Petitioner/Accused

And

Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Minister for Agriculture,

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 2 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Permanent resident of Allipuram Village, Erstwhile Nellore Rural Mandal, Presently in Nellore City. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition having come up before me on 12.11.2025 for hearing in the presence of, Sri Ch. Manmadha Rao and Smt. Ch. Nirmalatha, counsel

for the petitioner/accused and Sri Kilaru Jayaram, counsel for the

respondent/complainant, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the entire material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 177 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’ for the sake of brevity, to retransmit C.C.24/2020 to the court of IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, or any other competent court of

Magistrate of First Class as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that, the respondent/complainant filed private complaint against the petitioner/accused for the alleged offence under Section 500 of IPC before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, after taking cognizance the same is transferred to this court, the main case is coming up for continuation of examination-in-chief of P.W.1 and Crl.M.Ps.344 and 345 of 2025 are pending, the alleged offence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore and the alleged offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class as per Schedule-I of Cr.P.C, which was inforce by the date of filing of the private complaint by the respondent/complaint, as this court is of the cadre

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 3 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

of District and Sessions Judge, in the event of trial of the case by this court, the petitioner/accused loses his valuable right of approaching the Sessions

Court, the distance between Nellore and Vijayawada is about 300 km, and it is expensive to the petitioner/accused to travel from Nellore to Vijayawada for court adjournments and also give necessary instructions to his counsel, and as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Vs. Union of India and Another, in Writ Petition No.699/2016 dated 24.11.2021 held that the cases against the M.Ps. and M.L.As., triable by the

Magistrate of First Class shall be tried by the Magistrates only, prays to

send back C.C.24/2020 to the court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nellore, or any other competent court of Magistrate of First

Class as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, for trial.

3.The counter of the respondent/complainant is filed refuting the material averments in the petition and contending that, this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the petitioner/accused filed this petition with an intention to drag the proceedings and delay the trial of the case, this Special Court is constituted for trial of criminal cases for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against the elected M.Ps. and

M.L.As. as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Another, and this court is fully competent and has jurisdiction to try this case irrespective of the territorial jurisdiction, the judgment dated 24.11.2021 in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India is wrongly interpreted and the contention of the petitioner/accused that this case must be tried by a Magistrate is wholly misconceived, the Special Court functions with the powers of a Magistrate/Sessions Court as per the orders under

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 4 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

which it is constituted, the right of the petitioner/accused is not taken away as any order passed by the Special Court is appealable or revisable before the Hon’ble High Court, the convenience of the parties cannot override the statutory jurisdiction vested with this Special Court by the Order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court and High Court directions, the very purpose of constituting this Court is to ensure speedy and uniform trial of criminal cases involving elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. and allowing this petition would defeat the object of establishment of Special Court and result in multiplicity of proceedings and further delay, and as there is no merit in this petition, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.In the course of enquiry, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant.

5.Now the points for consideration are,

1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this case as urged by the petitioner/accused ?

2. To what result ?

6.Point No.1 :

At the outset, the undisputable facts as evident from the record are as follows:

(i) The respondent/complainant filed private complaint against the accused alleging the commission of offence under Section 500 of IPC by the petitioner/accused, before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

(ii) On that, the then learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nellore, after recording the sworn statement of the

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 5 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

respondent/complainant and exhibiting the Exs.P1 to P11, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC against the petitioner/accused and ordered for issue of summons to the petitioner/accused, and registered the case as C.C.3109/2019.

(iii) Thereafter, the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nellore, transferred the entire case record to this court for trial, as per the Proceedings in ROC.No.105/E1/2018 dated 12.04.2018.

(iv) After receiving the case record, this court renumbered the case as

C.C.24/2020 and while the matter is coming up for further examination-in-chief of the respondent/complainant as P.W.1, the petitioner/accused has come forwarded with the present application.

7.Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the learned counsel drawing the attention of the court to the Order dated 24.11.2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.699/2016, between

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Another, that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held in its Order dated 04.12.2018 for designating

one Sessions Court and also one Magisterial Court for trial of criminal cases against elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., that there was no mandate to transfer cases triable by the Magistrates to Sessions Courts and the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court does not supplant the jurisdiction provisions contained in Cr.P.C. or in any other Special Enactment, that the Order dated 04.12.2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be construed as a directions requiring the cases triable by Magistrate to be tried by a Sessions

Court and that directed transfer of all the cases pending on the file of the

Sessions Court in view of the Circular dated 16.08.2019 of the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to the court of competent jurisdiction, the

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 6 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

trial of the present case against the petitioner/accused for the offence under

Section 500 of IPC, being triable by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class, submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to try the same and hence, is liable to be sent back to the concerned Magistrate Court for trial.

8.It is glaring that the Order dated 24.11.2021 cited supra, is an outcome in Writ Petitions (Criminal) 442 to 444 of 2021 filed by the petitioners seeking transfer of their trials from the Special Court to the concerned

Magistrate Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the prayer of the

petitioners therein, holding that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 04.12.2018 in W.P. (Civil) No.699/2016 in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Another, neither mandate for transfer of cases triable by Magistrates to the Sessions Courts nor supplant the jurisdictional provisions contained in Cr.P.C. or in any other

Special Enactments, but for assigning and allocation of criminal cases against elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., in accordance with the provisions of law as applicable, and as the notification dated 16.09.2019 of the Hon’ble High

Court of Allahabad is not inconsonance with the directions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, directed for transfer of the cases pending before the

Special Court to the concerned Magistrate Courts.

9.Before dwelling upon the contentions advanced by the petitioner/accused and denials by the respondent/complainant, the court finds it quite appropriate to extract the relevant Government Orders that paved path for establishment of this court i.e., G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 26.02.2018 and G.O.Rt.No.250 dated 03.04.2018, Law (L, LA & J-Home-

Courts-A). The first in series, G.O.Ms.26 dated 26.02.2018, is as follows:

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 7 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT

LAW DEPARTMENT

(L, LA & J - HOME - COURTS-A)

Establishment of One (1) Special Court in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada in Krishna District for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected MPs and MLAs of the State in compliance with the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and sanction of Staff & Expenditure.

[G.O.Ms.No.26, Law (L, LA & J-Home-Courts-A),

26 th February, 2018.]

NOTIFICATION

In compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Dated: 14-12-2017, in WP (Civil) No.699/2016, in re Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UoI & ANR, and in consultation with the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Government hereby, establish one (1) Special Court in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada in Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh having jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for trial of criminal cases relating to elected MPs and MLAs of the State.

xxxxx

Likewise, the subsequent G.O.Rt.250 dated 03.04.2018, is as follows:

NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT

LAW DEPARTMENT

(L, LA & J - HOME - COURTS-A)

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected MPs/MLAs, Vijayawada, specifying the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh as the local area.

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 8 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

[G.O.Rt.No.250, Law (L, LA & J-Home-Courts-A),

3 rd April, 2018.]

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 read with clause(j) of Section 2 and readwith Sections 7 and 9, (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and after consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Government of Andhra Pradesh, hereby

1) Specify the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh as the local area for the purpose of establishing a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to elected Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly as sanctioned, vide G.O.Ms.No.26, Law (L, LA & J-Home-Courts-A) Department, Dated: 26-02-2018; and

2) Establish a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class to try offences relating to elected Members

of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly and the said Court shall be known as the Court of Special Judge in the cadre of Sessions Judge for trial of criminal cases relating to elected Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly, arising out of the entire area of State of Andhra Pradesh. xxxxx

10.Upon reading together the G.O.Ms.26 dated 26.02.2018 and

G.O.Rt.250 dated 03.04.2018, it is conspicuous that the establishment of the Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to elected M.Ps. and

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 9 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

M.L.As., Vijayawada, is in the cadre of Sessions Judge with jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, coming to the nature of the cases with respect to which the Special Court is to deal with, the criminal cases against the elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.

11.Further, as to the nature of the criminal cases triable by the said

Special Court, it is patent that the establishment of the Special Court of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class in the cadre of Sessions Judge is by

exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Section 11(1) r/w

Sections 2(j), 7 and 9(1) of Cr.P.C, by the then State Government after due consultation with the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in compliance of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 14.12.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.699/2016 in the case of Ashwini Kumar

Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Another.

12.Thus, it is crystal clear that the territorial and subject matter jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge is with jurisdiction over the entire State and to try offences triable by Judicial

Magistrate of First Class and Sessions Court too. It may not be out of place

to clarify that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in its Order dated 26.09.2019 in Criminal Petition No.5741/2019, in the case of Chintamaneni Prabhakara Rao @ Prabhakar Vs. SI of

Police, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District and Another, the designated court is competent to try the offences committed by an elected M.P. or M.L.A., disclosing general offences and if some or all the offences committed by an elected M.P. or M.L.A., relate to any special

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 10 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

enactment which prescribes special procedure for taking cognizance and conducting trial, then such procedure has to be followed.

13.To sum up, it can be concluded that establishment of the Special Court vide the above G.O.Ms.26 dated 26.02.2018 and G.O.Rt.250 dated 03.04.2018, by exercise of power under the Proviso to Section 11(1) r/w

Sections 2(j), 7 and 9(1) of Cr.P.C., is to exercise the jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for trial of the criminal cases against elected

M.Ps. and M.L.As., triable by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and

Sessions Court, except the offences under Special Acts triable by Special

Courts.

14.Reverting to the contentions of the petitioner/accused, to apply the

Order dated 24.11.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, to the facts of the present case, unlike the establishment of the Special Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh for trial of criminal cases against former or sitting

Legislators, by virtue of the notification dated 16.09.2019 by the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the establishment of the Special

Court for trial of the criminal cases against elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., in the State of Andhra Pradesh is by virtue of G.O.Ms.26 and G.O.Rt.250 issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the power conferred under Proviso to Section 11(1) r/w Sections 2(j), 7 and 9(1) of

Cr.P.C. Thus, the establishment of this Special Court is in adherence to the then existing criminal procedural and not mere notification of the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, as the facts of the cases in Writ

Petitions (Criminal) 442 to 444 of 2021 are distinguishable with that of the facts in the case on hand, the ratio laid down in the Order dated 24.11.2021

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 11 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, is not applicable to the present case.

15.Even otherwise, this Special Court established by virtue of G.O.Ms.26

dated 26.02.2018 and G.O.Rt.250 dated 03.04.2018 has been functioning

by exercising its jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for trial of the criminal cases against the elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., triable by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class and Sessions Court too, since 07.03.2018,

and the establishment of this Special Court was submitted to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and the same was also noted in its Order dated 12.09.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.699/2016 in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Vs. Union of India and Another, wherein it is observed, inter alia, that complying its Order dated 14.12.2017, one Special Court each has been set up in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Karnataka,

Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and

West Bengal.

16.But, neither any direction is issued nor any clarification is sought for on establishment only one Special Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh with respect to the trial of all the criminal cases against the elected M.Ps. and

M.L.As., in any of the subsequent Orders dated 01.11.2018, 04.12.2018, 05.03.2020, 31.08.2020, 10.09.2020, 16.09.2020, 06.10.2020, 04.11.2020, 25.08.2021, 13.11.2021, 24.11.2021, 10.08.2022, 09.11.2023, 10.02.2025 and 04.03.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.699/2016.

17.So, it can be said that neither the G.O.Ms.26 dated 26.02.2018/G.O.Rt.250 dated 03.04.2018 is under challenge nor the establishment of this Special Court by virtue of the exercise of the power

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 12 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

conferred under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., is intersected by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in any of its subsequent Orders referred above.

When so, it cannot be said to any stretch of imagination that this court which is conferred with jurisdiction for trial of the criminal cases triable by

Judicial Magistrate of First Class and also Sessions Court, against the

elected M.Ps. and M.L.As., but for the offences under the Special Acts triable by Special Courts, has no jurisdiction for trial of this case, which no doubt as per Cr.P.C. is categorized as triable by a court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class.

18.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that as this Special Court is presided over by a Sessions Judge and in the event this case, which infact is triable by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, is tried by this court and if it goes adversary to the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/accused would lose his right of appeal to the Sessions Court. No doubt, this Special Court is in the cadre of Sessions Judge and as against the regular appeal of a Calendar Case to a Court of Sessions, the appeal from a Calendar Case tried by this court lies to the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh.

19.Indeed, the settled proposition is that the General Law/Procedure is subservient to the Special Law/Procedure. And, when the very establishment of this Special Court is in accordance to the Government

Orders in consonance with the then existing criminal procedural law and compliance of the directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it cannot be said from any perspective that any of the rights of the petitioner/accused to assail the Order/Judgment of this court is curtailed,

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 13 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

infringing his right. Hence, the said contention of the petitioner/accused holds no water and the said contention is bound to collapse.

20.Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that for the reason the Special Court is about 300 km away from the native place of the petitioner/accused, who resides within the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, the petitioner/accused is subjected to hardship as he has to travel from his native place, Nellore, to Vijayawada, covering a distance of about 300 km. There is no dispute that the petitioner/accused belongs to Nellore, which as per the data in Google, is 279 km. away from this court. Despite that, when the very establishment of this court is by virtue of requisite Government Orders in compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in adherence to the then prevailing procedural law, materialistic inconvenience even if any, caused to the petitioner/accused cannot surmount the jurisdiction of Special Court established under the due process of law.

21.Even otherwise, as to the inconvenience of the petitioner/accused, a close scrutiny of the docket proceedings in the present case since commencement of proceedings before this court on 07.12.2020, it is glaring that there are only two instances when the accused is personally present

before this court and it was on 29.06.2022 and 31.08.2023, while the matter

was coming up for examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner/accused has made his appearance before this court on only two occasions since 07.12.2020, which ipso facto projects of the alleged inconvenience suffered by the petitioner/accused in attending this court.

Hence, the court finds no rationality in the said contention of the petitioner/accused.

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 14 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

22.Therefore, in the light of above reasoning, the court is of the finding that there is neither tenability nor legality in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner/accused that this court has no jurisdiction for trial of this case and to be tried by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court only, and as the establishment of this Special Court is by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.26

dated 26.02.2018 and G.O.Rt.No.250 dated 03.04.2018, Law (L, LA &

J-Home-Courts-A), in exercise of power under Section 11(1) r/w Sections 2(j), 7 and 9(1) of Cr.P.C. so as to comply the directions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in its Order dated 14.12.2017 in W.P. (Civil) No.699/2016, is in the cadre of Sessions Judge with the territorial jurisdiction over the entire

State of Andhra Pradesh to try the criminal cases against the elected M.Ps.

and M.L.As. triable by Judicial Magistrate of First Class and Sessions Court too, except the offences under the Special Acts triable by the Special

Courts, this court is having jurisdiction to try this case i.e., C.C.24/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered against the petitioner/accused.

23. Point No.2 :

In the light of the finding of the court on point No.1, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

24.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

Crl.M.P.No.395/2025 in 15 Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

C.C.No.24/2020 relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Sd/- A. Anitha,

Judge,

Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases

relating to Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As.,

Vijayawada.