Smt.A.Geetha Vani, AJCJ

1

In the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anantapuramu

Present: Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Thursday the 23 rd day of November, 2017

C.C.NO. 395/2014

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station. …Complainant.

AND A1: Yerraguntla Chandra Shekar, aged 39 years, S/o Narayana Reddy. A2 : Muddi Reddy Nagalinga Reddy, S/o Subbarayudu. Both are N/o Somuladoddi village, Anantapuramu Rural Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 20-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of

Sri. M. Nagaraja Bhupathi and Sri. V.V.S. Murali Krishna,

Advocates for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record and this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G E M E N T : :

1)The sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.170/2013 for the offences punishable Under section 171-E, 188 IPC.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

That on 30.07.2013 at 10.30pm, at four line bridge near culvert,

Somuladoddi village, Anantapuramu Mandal wheein the Accused A1 and A2 who are staunch followers of contesting candidate Mantri

Thirupalamma for 6th ward member of Somuladoddi village found disbusring cash and ballot model papers to public to cast their votes in 2 favour of their brother. The Accused were taken into custody and seized cash of Rs.24,800/-, six model ballot papers under the cover of police proceedings. Thus, accused committed offence punishable U/S 171-E, 188 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3)After careful perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section U/S 171-E

IPC.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)The accused were examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence U/S 171-E IPC as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6)The prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1 and MO2 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind evidence except depending upon the loopholes of prosecution.

7)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record :

Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/S 171-E IPC beyond all

3 reasonable doubts?

POINT:

8)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that prosecution examined PW1 and PW2, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 and MO2.

Both the witnesses supported the case of prosecution, thereby the prosecution established its case for the offence charged against

Accused and prayed to convict the Accused.

9)On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that prosecution examined PW1 and PW2, both are police officers. The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in this case and the Accused are innocent and they are nothing to do with offence.

Hence, the Accused are entitled for acquittal.

10)In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1-M. Mujbeer Rehaman, police constable, he deposed that on 30.07.2013 around 10.00pm, PW2-G.V. Nagesh, Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, received credible information about distributing amounts to voters in Somuladoddi village, Anantapuramu.

Immediately, PW2 called the head constable Sri. A. Nagappa and other staff including PW1 and they proceeded to Somuladoddi village around 10.15pm, by that time they reached to the scene of offence, the

Accused A1 and A2 were distributing the money to the voters and the mob was gathered around them. On seeing police party, the said mob ran way from that place and the also tried to ran away but police caught hold them. PW2 enquired the Accused and the Accused confessed that they were distributing amount of Rs.200/- to each voter 4 to fetch cotes in favour of Thirupalamma who is the contesting candidate for 6th ward of Somuladoddi village. Then, PW2 seized cash of Rs.16,500/- from A1 and Rs.8,000/- from A2 and also ballot papers and arrested the Accused under the cover of police proceedings under

Ex.P1. PW1 scribed the police proceedings on the dictation of PW2.

The Accused and the case property brought to the Police Station. In the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that PW2 tried to secure nearby mediators from the scene of offence but none came forward.

11)The prosecution examined PW2-G.V. Nagesh, Sub Inspector of Police he deposed that previously, he worked as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, in Anantapuramu Rural Police Station from 05.10.2012 to 29.08.2016.

On 30.07.2013 at 10.00pm, while he was present in the Police Station, he received credible information about distributing of amount to the public to fetch votes in favour of 6th ward contesting member. Himself along with his staff proceeded to scene of offence, there PW2 arrested the Accused and seized case property. PW2 also deposed in his cross examination that he tried to secure nearby mediators but none came forward. On perusal of Ex.P1 police proceedings, it is mentioned that as none came forward to act as mediators in the said locality at the time of alleged arrest of Accused and seizure of case property from the possession of Accused.

12)On perusal of the entire case on hand, admittedly the investigating officer failed to secure nearby mediators in the locality at the time of alleged arrest and seizure of the case property. As per

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of seizure of case property, two respectable inhabitants of the locality must be secured by the police 5 but in the present case, police failed to comply Section 100(4) Cr.P.C.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C mandates that at the time of seizure of the case property two respectable inhabitants must be present, but in the present case though there was an ample time, the investigating officer is failed to secure independent witnesses as mahazardars at the time of alleged arrest and seizure of the case property. On perusal of

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C.

Section 100 (4) and (5) is as follows :

100 Cr.P.C : Persons in charge of closed place to allow search:-

Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or

other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

It has to be seen that the legislature in their wisdom have used the words "two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality".

At this juncture, this Court relied upon the decision reported in :

6 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 134 (A.P)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT

HYDERABAD.

R.KANTHA RAO, J.

Crl.A.No.534 of 2004 - Decided on 31-07-2009.

Tadigiri Rambabu @ Bulli and another

Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh.

and argued that failure to secure independent witnesses is

fatal to the case of the Prosecution.

In the above citation the honourable High Court opined in

Para No. 9 ---------- If really, the circumstances indicate that it was not possible for the arresting police officer to secure the mediators at the given time, the Court cannot find fault with the arresting police officer in not securing the mediators. However when there is ample opportunity for the police officer to secure the presence of mediators and he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency. In the instant case, the appellants were arrested in a busy locality and on the Christmas day.

In the present case also, police failed to secure independent witnesses at the time of seizure of case property. No doubt, evidence of the police officer cannot be brushed out merely because of police.

But it is not the case of the police that there was no ample time to secure mediators. As such this Court is of the opinion that police failed to comply Section 100(4) Cr.P.C, hence the Accused are acquitted under benefit of doubt.

13)In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the 7 offence punishable U/S 171-E IPC and the accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

MO1 shall be confiscated to state after appeal time is over and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Senior stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 23rd day of November, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Geetha Vani

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Anatapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined Prosecution Defence PW1 : M. Mujbeer Rehaman. Nil PW2 : G.V. Nagesh.

Exhibits marked

prosecution. Defence Ex.P1 : police proceedings. Nil Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence MO1 : Cash of Rs.24,800/- deposited in Andhra Bank Nil Vide A/c.No.142820100103030, dt.08.12.2016. MO2 : Six model ballot papers.

Sd/-

AJFCM True Copy

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

8

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehens Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint ion of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

30.07.201330.07.201331.07.201331.07.201312.10.201725.10.201723.11.2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No.395/2014 on the file of Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station.

Cr.No.170/2013

A1: Yerraguntla Chandra Shekar, aged 39 years, S/o Narayana Reddy. A2 : Muddi Reddy Nagalinga Reddy, S/o Subbarayudu. Both are N/o Somuladoddi village, Anantapuramu Rural Mandal.

Offence :-Under section 171-E IPC.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 171-E IPC and the accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be confiscated to state after appeal time is over and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

DIS.No._____________, Dt._________________.

1

In the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anantapuramu

Present: Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Wednesday the 22 nd day of November, 2017

C.C.NO. 999 / 2014

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station. …Complainant.

AND M. Sudarshana Babu, aged 47 years, S/o M. Hanumanthaiah, D.No.17/4, Tilak Road, Near post office, Anantapuramu. Now R/o D.No.17/173, Neeruganthi Street, Anantapuramu. …Accused.

This case is coming on 13-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of

Sri. A. Sreekantha Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record and this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G E M E N T : :

1)The sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.208/2013 for the offences punishable Under section 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

That on 27.10.2013 at about 5.30pm, basing on the credible information, P. Jakir Hussain Khan, Sub Inspector of Police along with mediators proceeded to D.No.17-4, Tilak Road, Anantapuramu and found the Accused in the said premises. Then, Sub Inspector of Police interrogated in the presence of mediators and during the course of 2 investigation, they voluntarily confessed that they are not having any valid license or concerned permission from the authorities. On search of said building, Sub Inspector of Police found 135 card board boxes filled with crackers of different categories and then Sub Inspector of

Police opened all the boxes in the presence of mediators and calculated all varietis of crackers and seized them under the cover of

Mahazar in the presence of mediators and arrested the Accused under the cover of Mahazar and further he sent Accused to judicial custody after observing all mandatory provisions of law. Thus, accused committed offence punishable U/S 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884.

Hence, the charge.

3)After careful perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section U/S 9(1) (B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offence U/S 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884, as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P8 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind evidence except depending upon the loopholes of prosecution.

3

7)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record :

Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/S 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive

Act 1884 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

8)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked. All the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution. Thereby the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the Accused is liable for conviction.

9)On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness in this case. PW1 Village Revenue Officer was examined by the prosecution and he is the interested witness to the police, he deposed falsely at the instance of police.

10)In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1-N.C. Radhakrishna, Village Revenue Officer, he deposed that on 27.10.2013 at about 5.30pm, Tahsildar instructed PW1 to go to

Anantapuramu I Town Police Station. Then, PW1 and K. Siva Prasad

Sharma, Village Revenue Officer went to Anantapuramu I Town Police

Station and from there, they accompanied to police and reached the house bearing No.17/4, near postoffice, Tilak Road, Anantapuramu.

4 There, they found three persons in the shop. PW3 informed to the said persons that he has received information about the illegal possession of crackers and requested to permit search. On search, police found different varieties of crackers in the boxes and gunny bags.

Accordingly, PW3 seized 131 gunny bags under the cover of Mahazar, dt.27.10.2013 under Ex.P1.

11)In the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that he also acted as mediator in 10 to 15 case, he did not verify the ownership particulars of the shop. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Village Revenue Officer is a stock witness and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. But it is settled legal position that official witness cannot be treated as a stock witness but his evidence has to be scrutinised carefully. In the present case, PW1 deposed that “it is true they did not open the gunny bags and found the contents of the gunny bags”. “I do not know the varieties of the crackers that were in the gunny bags”. So, this Court is of the opinion that his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

12) The prosecution examined PW2-P. Prabakar, he deposed that he gave his house to the Accused for running a fancy store under the lease agreement under Ex.P2. On perusal of the evidence of PW2, he did not depose any incriminating evidence against the Accused.

13)The prosecution examined PW3-K. Gorantla Madhav, Inspector of police, he deposed that around 5.15pm, himself along with his staff and mediators proceeded to D.No.17-4, Tilak Road in the police jeep and found one person who is the Accused herein sat in the shop of fancy store. On enquiry, the Accused disclosed his name and identity 5 particulars as noted in the charge sheet and permitted to search his house. Then, PW3 and his staff along with mediators went inside the house and found in the first three rooms fancy material and remaining three rooms, found crackers kept in the polythene bags. PW3 weighed all the card board boxes containing different varieties of crackers in the present case and he arrested the Accused under the cover of Mahazar under Ex.P1, dt.27.10.2013 at 9.00pm. Then, police shifted the said crackers to the godown situated in D.No.17/2B under ground, locked and sealed the same. Then, PW3 brought the Accused to the Police

Station and registered the present case under Ex.P3 and the Accused sent for remand. During the course of investigation, he obtained permission from the Court for conducting auction orders vide

Dis.No.1490, dt.20.09.2014 under Ex.P6. Then, PW3 addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned to conduct auction under

Ex.P7 and accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer fixed auction on 07.10.2014 for public auction. On 02.07.2014, PW3 seized Ex.P2 from

PW2 under Ex.P8, dt.02.07.2014.

14)On perusal of the evidence of PW3, he deposed that he arrested the Accused and seized the crackers from the illegal possession of

Accused under Ex.P1. Admittedly, PW3 did not obtain search proceedings at the time of alleged arrest of Accused. The Law mandates police must obtain search warrant at the time of search from the concerned Court. But in the present case, PW3 failed to obtain search warrant U/S 100(1) Cr.P.C. No doubt, Law also provides when there is no sufficient time to get search orders from the concerned

Court, the police officer can record the reasons and search the same.

6 On perusal of Ex.P1, the arrest of Accused and seizure Mahazar, reasons were mentioned. PW3 failed to record any reasons why he failed to obtain search warrant from the concerned Court, hence this

Court is of the opinion that PW3 failed to follow the procedure laid down U/S 165 Cr.P.C.

15)On perusal of the entire case on hand, PW1 is the Village Revenue

Officer, his evidence is not reasonable. The investigating officer is failed to follow the search proceedings mentioned U/S 100(1) Cr.P.C.

this Court is of the opinion that the Accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. At the time of pronouncing judgement, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memo along with copy of this Court order forwarded to the Manager, Syndicate Bank,

Anantapuramu in Dis.No.740, dt.31.05.2016 for revalidation of DDs including the DD for Rs.38,500/- in the present crime. Hence, the auction amount of Rs.38,500/- deposited in Syndicate Bank,

Anantapuramu vide DD.No.312013052776, dt.16.10.2014 shall be confiscated to state.

16)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884 and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The auction amount of Rs.38,500/- deposited in Syndicate Bank

Anantapuramu vide DD.No.312013052776, dt.16.10.2014 shall be confiscated to state after appeal time is over.

7

Dictated to Senior stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 22nd day of November, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Geetha Vani

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Anatapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined Prosecution Defence PW1 : N.C. Radhakrishna. Nil PW2 : P. Prabhakar. PW3 : K. Gorantla Madhav, Inspector of police.

Exhibits marked

prosecution. Defence Ex.P1 : Mahazar, dt.27.10.2013. Nil Ex.P2 : Lease Agreement, dt.02.08.2010. Ex.P3 : First Information Report. Ex.P4 : property form. Ex.P5 : Orders vide No.1505, dt.08.11.2013. Ex.P6 : Orders vide Dis.No.1490, 20.09.2014. Ex.P7 : RC.No.C/6940/2014, dt.01.10.2014 for public auction. Ex.P8 : police proceedings.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

Sd/-

AJFCM True Copy

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

8

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehens Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint ion of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

27.10.201327.10.201327.10.201328.10.201330.11.201617.10.201722.11.2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No.999/2014 on the file of Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station

Cr.No.208/2013

M. Sudarshana Babu, aged 47 years, S/o M. Hanumanthaiah, D.No.17/4, Tilak Road, Near post office, Anantapuramu. Now R/o D.No.17/173, Neeruganthi Street, Anantapuramu.

Offence :-Under section 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 9(1)(B)(b) of Explosive Act 1884 and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The auction amount of Rs.38,500/- deposited in Syndicate Bank Anantapuramu vide DD.No.312013052776, dt.16.10.2014 shall be confiscated to state after appeal time is over.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

DIS.No._____________, Dt._________________.

1

In the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anantapuramu

Present: Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday the 21 st day of November, 2017

C.C.NO.1313 / 2014

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station. …Complainant.

AND A1: Guvvala Venkatesh, aged 47 years, S/o Mallesh, Door. No.6/41/178, Maruthi Nagar, Anantapuramu, 38th YSRCP Contesting Candidate. A2: Kuruba Ramesh, aged 28 years, S/o Naganna, Door.No.2/299, Vidyaranyanagar, Anantapuramu. Driver of auto bearing No.AP-02-TA-5880. …Accused.

This case is coming on 13-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of

Sri. B. Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record and this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G E M E N T : :

1)The sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.157/2014 for the offences punishable Under section 171-H IPC and Section 133 RP Act.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

That prior to 21.03.2014, A1 contesting candidate of 35th division,

Anantapuramu Municipal Corporation on behalf of YSR CP party bagn election campaign beginning from Municipal Election notification issued, dt.03.03.2014 and without permission started canvassing by 2 hiring auto bearing No.AP-02-TA-5880 driven by A2 by fixing flexi of A1 which is violation of election code of conduct. Thus, accused committed offence punishable U/S 171-H IPC and Section 133 RP Act.

Hence, the charge.

3)After careful perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section U/S 171-E

IPC.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)The accused were examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence U/S 171-E IPC as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P9 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind evidence except depending upon the loopholes of prosecution.

7)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record :

Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/S 171-E IPC beyond all

reasonable doubts?

3

POINT:

8)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 marked. All the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and the

Accused are liable for conviction.

9)On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who are interested witnesses, the

Accused are not liable for conviction and prayed to the acquit the

Accused.

10)In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1-P. Chandramouliswara Reddy. He deposed that he is working as Municipal Commissioner, Kadapa, previously worked as such at Anantapuramu from 20.02.2014 to December, 2014. The State commission has issued notification for Municipal Elections on 03.03.2014 since the date of issuance of notice, the election code will come into force. According to the model code of conduct, no one has to publicize or use the vehicles without prior permission from the election authority concerned. On 24.03.2014, PW1 received phone call that the contesting candidate of 35th Division on behalf of YSRCP was using the vehicle for publishing without having vehicle permission. Then, PW1 deputed his staff to know the truth of said information and they have intimated that the candidate of 35th Division was using the vehicle without permission. On the basis of said information, PW1 sent a complaint to the Station House Officer, 4 Anantapuramu II Town Police Station and the same was marked as

Ex.P1.

11)The prosecution examined PW2-Ganganna, Head constable, he deposed that on 27.03.2014 at 5.00pm, while he was present in the

Police Station, he received a tapal containing the complaint of PW1.

Basing on which, he registered the present case and submitted First

Information Report under Ex.P2 to the concerned. Then, he handed over the CD file to I. Ravi Shankar reddy, Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation.

12)The prosecution examined PW3-I. Ravi Shankar Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police, he deposed that on 27.03.2014, he received CD from PW2 and verified the investigation done by PW2 and found it on correct lines and took up further investigation. On the same day,

Accused 1 and 2 came to the Police Station and surrendered before

PW3. Then, he released the Accused on obtaining sureties. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Section 188 IPC was deleted as per the orders of Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Anantapuramu under Ex.P3. In cross examination of PW3, he deposed that he did not mention in which street or exact location of the alleged offence took place.

13)On perusal of the entire case on hand, PW1 to PW3 witnesses are not eye witnesses. The investigating officer failed to examine any independent witnesses in this case. Further, no witness was examined that the Accused was using the crime vehicle for publicizing without 5 permission. There is no eye witness in this case and police failed to follow the proceedure established U/S 100 Cr.P.C. It was alleged that the offence took place on 24.03.2014 and First Information Report was registered on 27.03.2014. on perusal of the evidence of PW2, complaint received on 27.03.2017 through tapal. The investigating officer failed to depose why the immediate action was not taken on the date of alleged incident itself.

14)As seen from the entire case on hand, the investigating officer is faled to follow the procedure established U/S 100 Cr.P.C and this Court is of the opinion that the benefit of doubt goes to the Accused.

15)In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 171-E IPC and the accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Senior stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 21st day of November, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Geetha Vani

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Anatapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined Prosecution Defence PW1 : P. Chandramouliswara Reddy. Nil PW2 : P. Ganganna. PW3 : I. Ravi Shankar Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police.

Exhibits marked

prosecution. Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Orders of Sub Divisional Police Officer, dt.27.10.2014. Ex.P4 : Order copy U/S 30 of police act.

6 Ex.P5 : Copy of memo issued Chief Electoral Officer, dt.31.03.2014. Ex.P6 : Election Notification, dt.12.04.2014. Ex.P7 : Attested copy of notification, dt.10.03.2014. Ex.P8 : Attested copy of notification, dt.03.03.2014. Ex.P9 : Attested copy of proceedings of District Collector, dt.15.02.2014.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

Sd/-

AJFCM True Copy

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

7

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehens Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint ion of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

21.03.201421.03.201427.03.201427.03.201419.09.201724.10.201721.11.2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No.1313/2014 on the file of Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station.

Cr.No.157/2014

A1: Guvvala Venkatesh, aged 47 years, S/o Mallesh, Door. No.6/41/178, Maruthi Nagar, Anantapuramu, 38th YSRCP Contesting Candidate. A2: Kuruba Ramesh, aged 28 years, S/o Naganna, Door.No.2/299, Vidyaranyanagar, Anantapuramu. Driver of auto bearing No.AP-02-TA-5880.

Offence :-Under section 171-E IPC .

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 171-E IPC and the accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

DIS.No._____________, Dt._________________.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present : Smt. A. GEETHA VANI, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuram.

Tuesday, the 12th day of December, 2017.

M.C.No.18/2016

Between:-

P. Lavanya Bai W/o M. Ravi Naik, aged 21 years, Hindu, Sinecure, R/o Nagalaguddam Thanda Village, Singanamala Mandal. Petitioner. AND

M. Ravi Naik S/o M. Peeku Naik, aged 28 years, Hindu, R/o Beluguppa Thanda Village, Beluguppa Mandal. Respondent

This Petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of “Sri T. Ranga Reddy,” Advocate for Petitioner and no representation of Advocate on behalf of the Respondent and upon hearing on both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is the petition filed U/sec.125 Cr.P.C by first petitioner on her behalf for seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for from the respondent.

2.The averments of the petition are as follows :

The petitioner submits that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was preformed on 11.05.2011 at

Nagalaguddam tanda Village, as per the customs prevailing in the community. At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner paid cash of Rs.35,000/- and one tula of gold to the respondent. After the marriage, petitioner joined respondent to lead marital life. The 2 petitioner and respondent lead happy marital life for some time at

Beluguppa tanda Village. Later Respondent, his mother, father and sisters began to harass the petitioner for one reasons or the other. The petitioner submits that the respondent and his family members harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally and also harassing and to get Rs.2,00,000/- towards additional dowry from her family members otherwise, the Respondent will go for second marriage. The petitioner tolerated all the harassment meted by respondent with fond hope, as the respondent will mend his attitude and all the efforts made by the petitioner to mend the attitude of the respondent proved futile and also several panchayats were conducted but in vain.

3.The petitioner that at about 5 months back, the Respondent and his family members beat the petitioner and drove her away from their house since then the petitioner is living with her family members at

Nagalaguddam Tanda Village. In June, 2016, the petitioner came to know that the Respondent’s parents performed 2nd marriage to the

Respondent with one one Suvarna Bai of Veerapuram Village. In this regard, a case is also registered in Cr.No.47/2016 U/S 498-A R/W 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act by Singanamala Police Station.

4.The petitioner further submits that she is not in a position to maintain herself and it is the duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioner being the husband of her. In this regard, the petitioner made number of demands and requests on the respondent to pay maintenance but the respondent has not cared to pay the same. The petitioner is suffering a lot for her day to day food.

3

5.The petitioner further submits that the respondent is having both movable and immovable properties and the Respondent is getting income more than Rs.8,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner is not able to maintain herself but the respondent though having sufficient means neglected the petitioner, as such the petitioner is claiming maintenance Rs.10,000/- per month.

6.The respondent remained exparte.

7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A1 wedding card marked on her behalf. On the other hand, the respondent remained set exparte.

8. Heard the petitioner counsel. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Pw.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The wedding card proving their marriage. She further argued that the respondent and his family members harassed both physically and mentally and also performed 2nd marriage to the Respondent and also neglected the petitioner, as such the petitioner require maintenance from the respondent. She further argued that the respondent has got immovable properties i.e., lands and houses and earning

Rs.8,00,000/- per annum and prays the court to grant such monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- petitioner per month.

9. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent remained set exparte as such there is no resistance from the respondent side.

4

Perused the record.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the

maintenance of Rs.10,000/­ per month from

the respondent as prayed for?

Point :-

11. Since the claim of the petitioner is that incorporated in the petition as well as in the chief affidavit proved by the Pw1 by way of adducing her evidence on oath by getting confirmed the chief affidavit contents and also by way of wedding card, she probabilise her ordeals, incapability to maintain herself and capability of respondent and existing relationship of petitioner with the respondent for which there is no resistance from the respondent for the reason that he is set exparte. There is no representation from him, he remained set exparte.

So there is no resistance from the respondent sought for the claim of the petitioner.

12. By affirmation and by adducing wedding card, the petitioner proves relationship with the respondent as wife and husband. Hence the relationship of the petitioner with the respondent as narrated above is found to be well established.

13. Regarding the desertion of petitioner by the respondent and even not treated the petitioner and subsequently respondent intensifying the harassment which proved the ordeal and respondent put the petitioner at peril which clearly proved by the petitioner.

Further the petitioner claims that she is helpless lady and stretched her hands to her parents for alms in order to feed herself which factor 5 clearly proves that she is not able to maintain herself and she has not got any capacity to maintain herself and entitle for maintenance.

14. Regarding the respondent capability is concerned, it is averred in the chief affidavit that the respondent has got movable and immovable properties and earning Rs.8,00,000/- per annum. The object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect to his wife, children, and parents. The maintenance granted to that said provision should be neither luxurious nor penurious. Therefore the quantum must have necessarily a relation to the capacity of husband and need and necessary of the wife. The petitioner claiming maintenance on the promise that the respondent is earning Rs.8,00,000/- per annum and he has movable and immovable properties but the petitioner did not file any documentary proof to prove the same. Under the above circumstances, the petition is allowed by directing the respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- to petitioner per month towards maintenance.

15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupee Six thousand only) per month as maintenance to the petitioner from the date of its Order. Further, the respondent is directed to pay maintenance amount to the petitioner on or before 10th of every month.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 12th day of December, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner Respondent

PW1-P. Lavanya Bai. None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITONER

EX.A1 : Wedding card.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Nil.

A.J.F.C.M.

1

In the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anantapuramu

Present: Smt. A. Geetha Vani,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Wednesday the 22 nd day of November, 2017

C.C.NO.665 / 2016

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Narpala Police Station. …Complainant.

AND A1: Dasi Gowd Kumar, aged 28 years, S/o chinna Kullayappa. A2: Dasi Gowd Parvathamma, aged 50 years, W/o chinna Kullayappa. A3: Dasi Gowd Suresh, aged 34 years, S/o chinna Kullayappa. A4: Dasi Gowd Bhaskar, aged 28 years, S/o chinna Kullayappa All are R/o 1-4-1575, Papampeta Village, Anantapuramu Rural Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 21-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of

Sri. E. Balakrishna, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record and this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G E M E N T : :

1)The sub Inspector of police Narpala Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.41/2016 for the offences punishable

Under section 498-A R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

That on 13.05.2011, marriage of Ganta Kavitha and A1 was solemnized in Mallikarjuna Swamy temple, Srisailam village, Kurnool 2 District as per Hindu rights. At the time of marriage, her father Ganta

Tiirupathaiah gave 5 tulas gold ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/ as dowry and born marriage expenditure. She lived with A1 only for 6 months. Then A1 to A4 harassed Ganta Kavitha physically and mentally for additional dowry. As her parents were not in a position to full fill their demands, all the Accused out her from their house. Since then she is taking shelter in the house of her parents. Several panchayats held but the Accused continued to demand additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, as her parents were not in a position to given any more additional dowry, they could not full fill their demand. Since about 4 ½ years, she is taking shelder in her parents’ house. Thus, accused committed offence punishable U/S 498-A R/w 34 IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the charge.

3)After careful perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section U/S 498-A

R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)The accused were examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence U/S 498-A R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6)The prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 3 to P3 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind evidence except depending upon the loopholes of prosecution.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, examination U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed off, as there is no incriminating material found against him from the evidence of prosecution.

Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record :

Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/S 498-A R/w 34 IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable

doubts?

POINT:

8)In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1-G. Thirupathaiah, he deposed that Kavitha is his daughter. At about seven years back, marriage of Kavitha performed with A1 in Mallikarjunaswamy temple, Srisailam, Kurnool District. Since, the date of marriage, Kavitha and A1 are living happily. PW1 further deposed that the Accused never harassed Kavitha either physically or mentally and never demanded additional dowry from him. He did not gave any complaint to the police, when he went to the Police Station on his personal work, police took his signature and he did not know the contents of complaint.

9)The prosecution examined PW2-G. Kavitha, she deposed that At about seven years back, her marriage was performed with A1 in

Mallikarjunaswamy temple, Srisailam, Kurnool District. Since, the date of marriage, herself and A1 are living happily. PW2 further deposed that the Accused never harassed her either physically or mentally and 4 never demanded additional dowry.

10)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1 and

PW2 with the permission of the Court but they did not reveal anything against Accused and any incriminating evidence, as such the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor given up examining remaining witnesses.

11)On perusal of the entire case on hand, the prosecution failed to prove the its case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the Accused are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

12)In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 498-A R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and the accused A1 to A4 acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Senior stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of November, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Geetha Vani

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Anatapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined Prosecution Defence PW1 : G. Thirupathaiah. Nil PW2 : G. Kavitha.

Exhibits marked

prosecution. Defence Ex.P1 : PW1 signature on complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw2.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

Sd/-

AJFCM True Copy

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

5 6

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehens Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint ion of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

Prior to14.04.201601.11.201601.11.201621.11.201721.11.201722.11.2017 14.04.2016

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No.665/2016 on the file of Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Narpala Police Station.

Cr.No.41/2016

A1: Dasi Gowd Kumar, aged 28 years, S/o chinna Kullayappa. A2: Dasi Gowd Parvathamma, aged 50 years, W/o chinna Kullayappa. A3: Dasi Gowd Suresh, aged 34 years, S/o chinna Kullayappa. A4: Dasi Gowd Bhaskar, aged 28 years, S/o chinna Kullayappa All are R/o 1-4-1575, Papampeta Village, Anantapuramu Rural Mandal.

Offence :-Under section .

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 498-A R/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the accused A1 to A4 acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuramu. Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

DIS.No._____________, Dt._________________.