Smt A Nirmala

1C.C. No. 266 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. A.Nirmala, Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

C.C.NO. 266 OF 2018

Between:-

The State of Telangana, Through Police Station Sadashivapet

...Complainant

A N D

Talema Pandu, S/o. Eashwar Goud, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Business, R/o. Raikode (V), Now residing at Sadashivapet.

...Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 26.8.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M. Shashi Kumar Learned Counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Sadhashivapet, has filed charge sheet in

Crime No.32 of 2017 against accused alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that :-

The LW.1/complainant name Ch. Srinivas Goud came to PS lodged a report 2C.C. No. 266 OF 2018 stating that, since from last 5 years, he has been doing toddy business at Toddy shop No.1 of Sadashivapet, and used to visit at the surrounding villages, in the society 20 people were attending labour works, 35 people of Geetha Karmika workers working as suppliers, cleaners, drivers and 5 people working as conductors about 80 peoples were working in toddy society, every month they have paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the salaries to the workers, since from last 20 years one Talelma Pandu Eshwar Goud has been working as Manager in the toddy depot as cashier min sincere manner, due to which trusted him and handover the toddy depot management and cash since from last four years, for the month of November/December the salaries to the works as not been paid due to low benefits in the toddy business, as such took the hand loan an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- from the known person as hand loan and handover the same cash to T. Pandu besides an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- pertains to the society members and the collection amount was given to T. Pandu, in presence of co-workers namely Sudhakar, Manikyam, Shankaraiah Goud, while handover the cash informed that all the cash should be returned on the day of 22nd January 2017, yet on the personal work the petitioner left to Hyderabad and returned from Hyderabad on the very next day i.e., on 20.01.2017 later he came to know that the said T.

Pandu has left the toddy shop without informing and his whereabouts are not known, and the phone of Pandu has put as switched off. The petitioner suspected that the said T. Pandu has leapt away somewhere else with the total amount of 3C.C. No. 266 OF 2018

Rs.15,00,000/- for the means of cheating and thus, he lodged the complaint before the police, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report lodged by the defacto complainant, LW.10 registered a case in Cr.No.32/2017 under section 420 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, on 24.01.2017, he examined and recorded the statement of LW.1 to LW.3, Later on 24.01.2017, he visited the toddy depot of LW.1, where caused inquires and examined and recorded the statements of LW.4 and

LW.7 and he observed the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW.8 and LW.9. Later the LW.11 took up further investigation of the case, verified the investigation done by LW.10, and found to be on proper lines. He issued notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused. After completion of investigation, LW.10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against him and they denied the same. A charge for the offence punishable

U/Sec.420 of IPC was framed and the same is read over and explained to accused 4C.C. No. 266 OF 2018 in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 8 and the prosecution got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The prosecution had given up the evidence of LW.3, LW.7, Lw.11.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APPO and counsel for accused.

10. Now the points for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts?

11. POINT No’:-

The prosecution herein examined PW.1 to PW.8 and the prosecution had got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and has given up the evidence of LW.3, LW.7,

Lw.11.

The prosecution case is as here under in brief:

12.The LW.1/complainant name Ch. Srinivas Goud came to PS lodged a report stating that, since from last 5 years, he has been doing toddy business at Toddy 5C.C. No. 266 OF 2018 shop No.1 of Sadashivapet, and used to visit at the surrounding villages, in the society 20 people were attending labour works, 35 people of Geetha Karmika workers working as suppliers, cleaners, drivers and 5 people working as conductors about 80 peoples were working in toddy society, every month they have paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the salaries to the workers, since from last 20 years one Talelma Pandu Eshwar Goud has been working as Manager in the toddy depot as cashier min sincere manner, due to which trusted him and handover the toddy depot management and cash since from last four years, for the month of

November/December the salaries to the works as not been paid due to low benefits in the toddy business, as such took the hand loan an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the known person as hand loan and handover the same cash to T. Pandu besides an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- pertains to the society members and the collection amount was given to T. Pandu, in presence of co-workers namely Sudhakar,

Manikyam, Shankaraiah Goud, while handover the cash informed that all the cash should be returned on the day of 22nd January 2017, yet on the personal work the petitioner left to Hyderabad and returned from Hyderabad on the very next day i.e., on 20.01.2017 later he came to know that the said T. Pandu has left the toddy shop without informing and his whereabouts are not known, and the phone of Pandu has put as switched off. The petitioner suspected that the said T. Pandu has leapt away somewhere else with the total amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the means of cheating

Hence, the complaint.

6C.C. No. 266 OF 2018

13.PW1 who deposed before this court that in the year November, 2016, he got loss in his business. Therefore, he borrowed money of Rs.7,00,000/- from somebody and handed over to you accused/pandu before one Sudhakar Goud, Manikyam

Goud, Shankaraiah Goud and Shabbir and other Rs.8,00,000/- i.e., collection from business also with you accused. On 19.01.2017 you accused escaped by taking all

Rs.15,00,000/- after knowing that they searched for him for two or three days and later on 24.01.2017 he got registered a case.

14.PW.2 who deposed before this court that Pandu/accused had not given salaries to us. after three months Pw.1 brought Rs. Seven lakhs and gave to accused, on the same day you accused gave salaries. On the next day he/accused did not trace, he switched off his phone, they all searched for him and did not find him, later they all gave report to the police.

15.Pw.7 who deposed before this court that he was worker at PW.1 since 10 years in the year 2017 they did not get salaries for two months, therefore Pw.1 got borrowed money from somebody and hand over to you accused to give salaries to worker, but you accused did not give salaries to us and he fled away by locking his house.

16.Pw.8 is SI of of police PS Zaheerabad, who deposed before this court that on 24.01.2017 at 2100 hrs, PW.1 came to PS and lodged written report stating that the accused fled away with Rs.5,00,000/- lakhs from his toddy shop, basing on that complaint he registered a case in Cr.No.32/2017, U/sec. 420 of IPC, on the same day 7C.C. No. 266 OF 2018 he examined LW.1 to Lw.3 and recorded their statements. On 25.01.2017 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

PW.5 and Pw.6 and drafted rough sketch. Later he handed over the CD file to LW.11 for further investigation. Subsequently Lw.11 issued section 41-(A) Cr.P.C to the accused and he filed charge sheet.

17.This is a case of cheating covered under section 420 of IPC, the accused/Pandu who was working under Pw.1 fled away by taking an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- of PW.1.

18.The prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.8 out of LW.1 to LW.11 and has given up the evidence of Lw.2, LW.7, LW.11, PW.4 is the complainant cum aggrieved person in this case and he deposed that in the year 2016 he borrowed

Rs.7,00,000/- to give salaries to the worker working in his toddy compound and he handed over said money to accused who has working under Pw.1 and dealing with amount, the accused has not given salaries and fled away with total amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- + Rs.8,00,000/-= Rs.15,00,000/- lakhs, he also deposed that accused is his relative and on happening of incident he gave report to the police on 24.01.2017 i.e., with 5 days delay to the support of evidence of Pw.1 PW.2 who is also worker under PW.1 stated that after the next day of PW.1 borrowing money accused gave salaries to them, his evidence is gloomy and not clear to corroborate with the evidence of Pw.1 because Pw.2 is saying the accused gave salaries but

Pw.1 saying accused fled away with money without giving salaries, the evidence of 8C.C. No. 266 OF 2018 these two witnesses is almost contrast, hence no reliance can be put on their evidence. Further Pw.3 and PW.5 are hostile witnesses and at no point of their evidence they have chosen to support for prosecution case. In the same way PW.4 is circumstantial witness and his evidence is hear say, this can not be considered.

PW.7 who is also worker under Pw.1 stated as Pw.2 but he said some different course of action that accused had not given salaries and fled away with said amount, but he was not eye witness. Further Pw.6 is panch witness for scene of offence, yet further the remaining witness on record is PW.8 who is investigating officer, and who has miserably failed to do investigation in absolute way.

19.The evidence came from the mouth of all prosecution witnesses failed to fix the accused, that he himself committed these offence. Yet further the investigating officer failed to examine the one, from whom PW.1 borrowed amount, further they did not choose to check CC TV footage and did not file before this court, the circumstantial evidence also not helpful to prosecution case as there is no strength in their evidence. Therefore for the reasons discussed above it can be hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused it entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 420 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall stands 9C.C. No. 266 OF 2018 canceled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property involved in this case shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of August, 2022.

Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Ch. Srinvias GoudNIL PW.2: Sudhakar Goud PW.3: Abdul Raheem PW.4: Md. Shabbir PW.5: B. Pandari PW.6: D. Shanker PW.7: Shanker Goud PW.8: B. Parmeshwar Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P.3: signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.4: signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.5: FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

1C.C. No.1462 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. A.Nirmala, Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

C.C.NO.1462 OF 2021

Between:-

The State of Telangana, Through Police Station Munipally

...Complainant

A N D

Edigi Suman Goud, S/o. Thukaram Goud, Aged: 23 years, Cast: Gouds, Occ: Student, R/o. Sangapur village, Raikode Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 23.08.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and M/S.B. Bhoopal Reddy, Learned Counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Munipally, has filed charge sheet in Crime

No.32 of 2021 against accused alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and section 196 of MV Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that :- 2C.C. No.1462 OF 2021

On 21.04.2021 at 10.30 hrs, LW.1/Manne Ashwin Kumar came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that on 20.04.2021 at about 21.30 hrs, the complainant received telephonic information from his villager by name Gunthala Narsimulu, that one unknown pedestrian proceeded to Singitham side, on the way he reached

Singitham side BT road at Tatipally village outskirts of Munipally mandal, meanwhile on motorcycle bearing No.AP-13-AA-1567 rider was drove his motorcycle rash and negligent manner and dashed to from back side, due to which he fell down on the road, he received severe head injury, immediately he shifted to government hospital Zaheerabad, while the next day on 21.04.2021 at morning 8.00 the complainant received information that the known persons died while undergoing treatment at night 23.30 hrs, at government hospital Zaheerabad, at the same day the complainant rushed to government hospital Zaheerabad and visited to mortuary and the known person was found died and thus, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report lodged by the defacto complainant, LW.10 registered a case in Cr.No.32 of 2021 under section 304-A of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined the LW.1 and recorded his statement. Later he visited the scene of offence, conducted panchanama and drafted rough sketch in the presence of LW.4 and LW.5. during the course of investigation on 27.04.2021 LW.10 has rushed to government hospital Zaheerabad and visited mortuary and secured two mediators the panchans LW.6 and LW.7 and 3C.C. No.1462 OF 2021 held inquest over the dead body of the unknown person, during the inquest the

LW.10 has examined the LW.2 and LW.3 recorded their statements, LW.9/medical officer as held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. While the investigation is in progress on 05.06.2021 the accused came to police station and surrendered

before the LW.10 and also handed over the documents of crime vehicle i.e., RC and

DL of the accused driver and they have no valid insurance certificate. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed his guilty. As such LW.10 included section 196 of MV Act. later LW.10 issued a notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused. LW.9 who held autopsy over the dead body of the unknown male deceased opined that the cause of death due to head injury was suspended hemorrage to death. LW.8 who inspected the crime vehicle has given her opinion in her MVI report by stating that accident did not occurred due to any mechanical defects. After completion of investigation, LW.10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and section 196 of

MV Act.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

IPC and section 196 of MV Act. against the accused.

5. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

6. The accused is examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence 4C.C. No.1462 OF 2021 punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and section 196 of MV ACt and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him, in his known language for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APPO and counsel for accused.

10. Now the points for consideration are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and section 196 of MV Act  beyond all reasonable doubt?. 

11. POINT:-

The prosecution herein examined as PW.1 to PW.9 got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 .

The prosecution case is as here under:-

12. On 21.04.2021 at 10.30 hrs, LW.1/Manne Ashwin Kumar came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that on 20.04.2021 at about 21.30 hrs, the complainant received telephonic information from his villager by name Gunthala Narsimulu, that 5C.C. No.1462 OF 2021 one unknown pedestrian proceeded to Singitham side, on the way he reached

Singitham side BT road at Tatipally village outskirts of Munipally mandal, meanwhile on motorcycle bearing No.AP-13-AA-1567 rider was drove his motorcycle rash and negligent manner and dashed to from back side, due to which he fell down on the road, he received severe head injury, immediately he shifted to government hospital

Zaheerabad, while the next day on 21.04.2021 at morning 8.00 the complainant received information that the known persons died while undergoing treatment at night 23.30 hrs, at government hospital Zaheerabad, at the same day the complainant rushed to government hospital Zaheerabad and visited to mortuary and the known person was found died.

13. In this case prosecution has examined total 7 witnesses out of ten witnesses and this is a case covered under section 304-A of IPC and 196 of MV Act, the accused/E.Suman Goud committed/caused death of deceased person with his rash and negligent driving (with motor vehicle).

14. While doing investigation the investigating officer cite done eye witness and other witness in list of witnesses, and recorded their statement under section 161

Cr.P.C in such a way that Pw.2 has seen the accident, but while he was deposing

before this court he stated that he reached to the scene offecnce, after the

happening of incident hence Pw.2 can be said that he was no way eye witness to the incident, according to his evidence.

6C.C. No.1462 OF 2021

15. Further Pw.3 is also not an eye witness and he is circumstantial witness and

Pw.1 is also not eye witness on receiving the information he visited seen. The remaining witness i.e., Pw.4 to PW.7 who are panch witnesses for scene of offence and inquest completely turned as hostile and they dissolved the prosecution case to their extent PW.8 to Pw.10 are official witnesses who can also said to have circumstantial witnesses, without the corroboration of other material evidence the evidence of PW.8 to PW.10 makes no use to the prosecution case as their evidence proves the death of deceased person but it does not prove the accused committed, these particular offence. Therefore all the reasons discussed above talk about that the accused himself may not caused the death of deceased, thus, this court can hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against accused under section 304-A of IPC and coming to the section 196 of MV Act no document marked, to prove the same and investigation officer also failed to state

before this court. For the foregoing reasons this court held that prosecution failed to

prove this case, and accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of IPC and section 196 of MV Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property involved in this case shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

7C.C. No.1462 OF 2021

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of August, 2022.

Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Ashwin Kumar NIL PW.2: G. Narsimulu PW.3: D. Maruthi PW.4: Y. Sangameshwar PW.5: B. Bhasker PW.6: K. Narsimulu PW.7: P. Ambaiah PW.8: Dr. K.V.V Ramjee PW.9: K. Srinivasulu

EXHIBITS MARED

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: complaint NIL Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P.3: is signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.4: rough sketch Ex.P.5: is signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.6: Rough sketch Ex.P.7: is signature on inquest panchanama Ex.P.8: is signature on inquest panchanama Ex.P.9: PME Ex.P.10: MVI report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

1C.C. No. 276 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. A.Nirmala, Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

MONDAY, THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

C.C.NO. 276 OF 2018

Between:-

The State of Telangana, Through Police Station Sadashivapet

...Complainant

A N D

Talelma Pandu, S/o. Eashwar Goud, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Business, R/o. Raikode village and Mandal, Now residing at Sadashivapet

...Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 23.8.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. A. Ravinder Reddy, M. Shashi Kumar Learned Counsels for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Sadhashivapet, has filed charge sheet in

Crime No.305 of 2017 against accused alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that :- 2C.C. No. 276 OF 2018

On 17.10.2017 at 11.00 hrs, the LW.1/complainant name Chanchalpet

Krishna Goud came to PS lodged a report stating that, since 10 years, one Talelma

Pandu has working as manager and casher in his elder brother’s toddy depot, the said Pandu has working very sincerely from the long back, due to which, his elder brother and the complainant has trusted him and handover the toddy depot management and cash to him since, on 03.01.2017 , due to business said Pandu asked to give him Rs.15 laksh and he promised to repay in one month. On which the complainant has trusted said Pandu for paying the amount and he had paid an amount of Rs.15 lakhs rupees to him through on line transfer. The complainant has paid him with his account bank of Baroda, Sangareddy and transferred to Said

Pandu’s account Indus-Ind Bank, Sadashivapet through R.T.G.S but he did not repay his amount, on 20.01.2019, said Pandu has fled away wit his family members by taking an amount Rs.15 lakhs rupees belongs to his elder brother’s toddy depot and also cheated the complainant by not paying his credit amount, which was taken through R.T.G.S from the complainant, later the complainant has searched about him, but he did not trace. and thus, he lodged the complaint before the police, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report lodged by the defacto complainant, LW.9 registered a case in Cr.No.305/2017 under section 420 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of

LW.1 and the witnesses LW.2 to LW.8 under 161 Cr.P.C. Later on 18.10.2017, he 3C.C. No. 276 OF 2018 issued notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused, Now residing at

Sadashivapet and sought the compliance to the notice for his innocence beyond the offence, but the alleged accused admitted his guilt of the offenc. After completion of investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the9 offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against him and they denied the same. A charge for the offence punishable

U/Sec.420 of IPC was framed and the same is read over and explained to accused in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and the prosecution got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APPO and counsel for accused.

4C.C. No. 276 OF 2018

10. Now the points for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts?

11. POINT No’:-

The prosecution herein examined PW.1 to PW.6 and the prosecution had got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.

12.On 17.10.2017 at 11.00 hrs, the LW.1/complainant name Chanchalpet

Krishna Goud came to PS lodged a report stating that, since 10 years, one Talelma

Pandu has working as manager and casher in his elder brother’s toddy depot, the said Pandu has working very sincerely from the long back, due to which, his elder brother and the complainant has trusted him and handover the toddy depot management and cash to him since, on 03.01.2017 , due to business said Pandu asked to give him Rs.15 laksh and he promised to repay in one month. On which the complainant has trusted said Pandu for paying the amount and he had paid an amount of Rs.15 lakhs rupees to him through on line transfer. The complainant has paid him with his account bank of Baroda, Sangareddy and transferred to Said

Pandu’s account Indus-Ind Bank, Sadashivapet through R.T.G.S but he did not repay his amount, on 20.01.2019, said Pandu has fled away wit his family members by taking an amount Rs.15 lakhs rupees belongs to his elder brother’s toddy depot and also cheated the complainant by not paying his credit amount, which was taken 5C.C. No. 276 OF 2018 through R.T.G.S from the complainant, later the complainant has searched about him, but he did not trace.

13.This is a case of cheating, in this case prosecution has examined all witnesses except LW.8 and complainant/LW.1 died in this case hence his evidence closed, PW.1 to PW.4 who were cited as witnesses were failed to depose before the court to strengthen the case of prosecution, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution at no point, they stated merely about commission of offence, but they did not state that they witnessed the offence i.e., while the accused fled away with the amount of victim.

14.Yet further the investigating officer completely failed to collect the evidence

I.e, CC TV footages in any and the investigation officer also failed to cite the person from whom the aggrieved borrowed the amount, for all the reasons considered above, I can hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against accused. Therefore accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 420 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property involved in this case shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

6C.C. No. 276 OF 2018

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of August, 2022.

Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Ch. Srinivas GoudNIL PW.2: D. Sudhakarn Goud PW.3: M. Manikyam PW.4: Shabbir PW.5: Shanker Goud PW.6: G. Venkaetshwarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P.4: FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Spl., JFCM (Mobile) For trial of cases under PCR Act-Cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

TSSN040008882022

Presented on : 29-04-2022 Registered on : 29-04-2022 Decided on : 30-05-2022 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trial of cases Under PCR Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

AT SANGAREDDY

PRC/18/2022

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Kondapur PS Through Police Station Officer , Kondapur PS

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

Kondapur PS VERSUS : Mohammed Harshad Khan @ Rasheed Age: 22 Occupation : Ganesh Nagar, Near Citizen Baker Shankarpally village, N/o. Meerut Uttarpradesh 2:Jawed Chawhan Age: 21 Occupation :

3:Sharuk Ansari Age: 21 Occupation :

4:Mohd Afzal Age: 19 Occupation :

5:Mohd. Faizan Age: 19 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: app, Advocate for appearing for Mohammed Harshad Khan @ Rasheed Advocate , , , appearing for , , , , 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 395 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

ORDER

The Accused No.1 to 4 and 6 produced from Jail for committal bond. On perusal of the record, it reveals that accused No.1 to 4 and 6 have committed offences punishable under section 395 of IPC which is exclusively triable by

Hon&amp#039ble Sessions Court. Hence the case is committed to the

Hon&amp#039ble sessions court vide separate committal order under section

209 Cr.P.C. The accused persons shall be continued as contemplated U/Sec. 209 (b) of Cr.P.C. the case property if any along with the case records shall be transmitted to the Honble Prl. District and Sessions Judges Court, Medak at Sangareddy under section 209 (c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the Public Prosecutor of the Committal under Section 209 (d) of Cr.P.C. The Jail Authorities are directed to produced the accused No.1 to 4 and 6 before the Honble Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judges Court, Medak at Sangareddy on 13-06-2022 at about 10.30 A.M.

Date : 30-05-2022 Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trial of cases Under PCR Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

TSSN040044482021

Presented on : 31-07-2021 Registered on : 31-07-2021 Decided on : 28-08-2021 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 28 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trial of cases Under PCR Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

AT SANGAREDDY

CC/3004/2021

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

STATE OF TELANGANA

Through Police Station Officer MUNIPALLY-PS 31 , Munipally Police Station H.No. 4-104 Near Budera "x" Road Munipally Mandal

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

STATE OF TELANGANA

VERSUS : Mohammad Amer Age: 19 Occupation : Chidri Colony,Irani Galli,Bider,Karnataka 2:Guru Age: 22 Occupation :

3:Mohd Imran Age: 23 Occupation :

4:Akash Age: 23 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Mohammad Amer Advocate , , appearing for , , , 2, 3, 4 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

Accused produced before the Jail adalath and he is admitted the offence U/S 379 IPC. He appears to be voluntarily made and is accepted and convicted U/S 241 Cr.P.C. He is sentenced to under go S.I. for 4 months and fine of Rs. 100/-each in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days and the sentenced in each offense shall run concurrently the total fine amount of Rs. 100/- The remand period from 22-4-2021 to 28-8-2021 undergone by the accused shall be set of U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide CPR No. 100/15/2021 shall be returned to the defacto complainant/owner of the property immediately after disposal of the main case as the case may be. The Superintendent District Jail, Sangareddy is directed to release the accused forthwith, if the period of imprisonment is completed and if he is not required in any other case

Date : 28-08-2021 Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trial

of cases Under PCR Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Sangareddy