Smt A.Padma

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

Present: Smt. A. Padma, B.A., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2013

Calendar Case No.968/ 2009

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Drugs Inspector, Srikakulam … Complainant.

And

1.Dr. Sesham Babu Rao, age 47 years, S/o Thrimoorty, Managing Partner, M/s Snehitha Medical and General Stores, Assessment No.605, Opp. Forest Office, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district

2.Mr. Panku Kumara Swamy, s/o Rajappadu, Sales Man, M/s Snehitha Medical and General Stores, Assessment No.605, Opp. Forest Office, Srikakula, Srikakulam district … Accused.

This case coming on 22.04.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.S. Gandhi, the learned Advocate for the accused and 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

The Drugs Inspector, Srikakulam filed a complaint against the 1.

accused No.1 and 2 for the contravention of rules 65(2), 65(4)(3), 65(3)(1) and (4)(1) r/w section 18 A VI punishable u/sec. 27(d) of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. The brief fact of the complainant are that M. Narasimha charyulu is the Drugs Inspector appointed u/sec. 21 of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940 and he was authorized to launch prosecution u/sec. 32 of the said Act. By the time of filing of the complaint, he was working as 2

Assistant Director and Drugs Inspector incharge Srikakulam District w.e.f.28.02.2009 F.N.

a) Accused No.1 is the managing partner of M/s Snehitha medical and General stores under assessment No.605. He was having drug licence in form No.20 and 21 bearing No.726 by Andhra Pradesh

Government/sk/2005/R valid up to 22.11.2010. He was conducting business of drugs in the absence of pharmacist from 03.09.2008 with the help of accused No.2. The accused No.2 is the incharge of the shop of accused no.1 conducting day to day business in the shop.

b) On 23.03.2009 accused No.1 has applied for change of

Pharmacist for their shop M/s Snehitha medical and General Stores with a new pharmacist by name P. Kamala. R.P.No.040697. After perusal of the application on 25.03.2009, the complainant addressed a letter to accused

No.1 shop and requested him to inform the present and previous pharmacist of the accused No.1 shop. The letter was received by accused No.2 on the same day under acknowledgment. There was no reply from accused upto 29.09.2009.

c) On 30.05.2009, accused No.1 gave a reply to the complainant

Drugs Inspector stating that their previous pharmacist M/s. M. Malathi,

R.p.No.6155 expired on 03.09.2008 and it came to their knowledge only after three months of her death in the month of November.

d) With the above information on 30.05.2009, the complainant along with LWs 2 and 3 Gembali Subrahmanyam and Sanapala

Ramanammrty, inspected the premises of M/s Snehitha medical and General

Stores and noticed that Accused No.1 shop was conducting business in the 3 absence of Pharmacist w.e.f. 03.09.2008. The complainant has seized two sale bill books, one yellow slip containing the sale of certain drugs in the absence of pharmacist and without issuing sale bills on 30.05.2009 from the premises of accused No.1 shop in the presence of accused No.1 and mediators under cover of panchanama as per the provisions of Drugs Act, 1940. There was no pharmacist in their shop at the time of inspection in the presence. After completion of his enquiry, he filed complaint against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.18(a)(vi) r/w rule 65(2), rule 65(4)(3), rule 65(3)(1) and rule 65(4)(i) of Drugs and

Cosmetic Rules punishable u/sec.27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

against the accused on 31.08.2010.

3. After the accused made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them, as required under Section 207 Cr.

P.C.

4. On 05.07.2011 the accused were examined under Section 251

Cr. P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against the accused for the offence u/sec. 18(a)(vi) r/w rule 65(2), rule 65(4)(3), rule 65(3)(1) and rule 65(4)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules punishable u/sec.27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P1 to 25. On behalf of defence DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

4

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence adduced against him, he denied the same and reported that they have defence evidence and got examined DW.1.

7. Heard both sides.

a) The learned APP submitted her arguments that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that accused

No.1 was conducting the business i.e. the sale of medicines without appointing new pharmacist after death of his old pharmacist and the accused failed to produce the purchase particulars and the bill books when they were sought by the Drugs Inspector and as such the accused are liable for punishment as contemplated by law.

b) The learned counsel for the accused argued as follows:

1.No independent witness was examined to prove the offence against the accused and that all the prosecution witnesses are under the control of Drugs Inspector.

2.Accused No.2 is not working under accused No.1 as alleged by the prosecution. If at all accused No.2 is the working under Accused

No.1, the Drug Inspector might have seized the Labour Registered and produced the same before the court.

5

3.As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 and one Vijaykumar and one G. Apparao are the partners of Snehitha medicals but the prosecution did not file any case against the other partners though it is mentioned in the second page of panchanama that accused No.2 stated that M. Vijaykumar only is looking after the affairs of the medical shop business.

4.There is no explanation from the prosecution as to why they did not file case against the other partners of Snehitha medicals. It is the contention of the accused No.1 that he is not the local person and that the other partners of Snehitha medicals i.e. G. Apparao and M.

Vijaykumar are the local persons and to avoid the liability of

Vijaykumar who is looking after the affairs of the medical shop, accused No.1 was implicated in this case.

5.All the bills filed by the prosecution are not computer generated, they are manual bills and that they are managed by the Drugs Inspector.

6.Panchanama is not a valid one, since there were only two mediators.

7.Accused No.1 has taken partnership in the medical store business but

Vijaykumar is only conducting the business and as such the accused is no way concerned with the offence and that there is no necessity 6

for accused No.1 to conduct any other business in view of his

practice as Doctor.

8.The Drugs Inspector who conducted inspection died before his cross examination and as such the indefeasible right of the accused in cross-examining the Drugs Inspector and in eliciting the material facts of the inspection is defeated and as such the inspection report i.e. Ex.P.2 and panchanama Ex.P.1 can not be used against the accused.

8. The point for determination is:

1.Whether the accused sold or stocked or exhibited any drugs for sale in contravention of provisions of rule 65 of Drugs and Cosmetic rules 1945 without having registered pharmacist?

2.Whether the accused failed to produce purchase details under rule 65(4)(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics rules

3.Whether the schedule register required to be maintained for the prescription of drugs under rule 65(3)(1) of Drugs and Cosmetics rule 1945?

4.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10. The Drugs Inspector who conducted inspection was examined as PW.1 in chief rendered before the court and before his cross examination, it is informed to the court that he died. His chief examination was eschewed. PW.2 is one of the mediators for panchanama. PWs 3 to 7 are the persons running whole sale medicine business who supplied medicine to the accused No.1 medical stores during the period 23.09.2008 to 7 30.03.2009. PW.8 is the Daughter of Smt. M. Malathi who worked as pharmacist in Snehitha medicals and expired on 03.09.2008. PW.9 is the pharmacist working at Snehitha medicals on record by the time of inspection on record. PW.10 is the Assistant Director of Drugs, he identified the signature of the Drugs Inspector who conducted inspection and prepared inspection report.

In order to disprove the case of the prosecution, the accused got examined one Chintala Balaraju to be DW.1.

10. Point No.1 to 3: In order to avoid repetition, these two points are answered together.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused can be considered that the inspection report on the Inspection as mentioned in

Ex.P.1 panchanama can not be viewed since the inspection who inspected the accused medical shop died during the trial. No person who accompanied the Inspector during his inspection, was examined before the court only to prove the contents of the inspection report and panchanama.

a) Though, PW.2 who drafted the panchanama was examined to be the prosecution witnesses, he deposed during his cross examination that he does not have any personal knowledge with regard to the aspects mentioned in the panchanama and that he mentioned the same in the panchanama as stated by the Drugs Inspector. Since, the Drugs inspector who conducted the inspection died during the trial, the indefeasible right of the accused to cross examine the Inspecting officer could not be exercised.

The facts regarding the inspection of the Drugs Inspector could not be elicited through him by exercising the right of cross examination.

8

b) There is no evidence on record to show that accused No.2 is working under Accused No.1. No document was filed before the court to show that the accused is working in shop of accused No.1. If the prosecution would have seized the labour register, whether the fact accused

No.2 is working under Accused No.1 would have come out on record.

c) There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for non registering case against the other partners of Snehitha medicals i.e.

Vijaykumar and G. Apparao. All the partners are responsible for the malpractice committed by the accused shop as per the case of the prosecution. The prosecution shall offer as to why a case has not been registered against the other partners. More particularly when it is mentioned in the panchanama that one Vijayakumar is responsible for the transactions of the medical shop.

d) In order to prove that Snehitha medicals sold the drugs in the absence of pharmacist under rule 65(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics rules, the prosecution has to establish the sale transactions between the period 23.09.2008 and 30.03.2009. But, the prosecution did not file any of the bills during that period in order to show the sale transactions of Snehitha medicals.

e) The contention of the prosecution is that the accused did not maintain the schedule registers i.e. the medicine for which the prescription is required and that the Drugs inspector seized two bill books from the shop of

Snehitha medicals. Those, two books were handedover to the accused during the pendency of the case, that were not produced before the court at the time of trial. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused has 9 conducted business transactions and that he sold the drugs in contravention of rules 65(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics rules.

(f) The prosecution examined the whole sale drug dealers PWs 3 to

7. All of them deposed that they have supplied medicines to Snehitha medicals. The proof of supply of medicine to Snehitha medicals is not the proof that the snehitha medicals sold drugs without having any pharmacist.

In fact, the letters addressed to the drugs inspector by the whole sale dealers i.e. PWs 3 to 7 are pertaining to a dates much prior to the death of previous pharmacist of snehitha medicals. Unless, the sale of the drugs is proved through the clinching evidence, the prosecution can not said to prove the offence under rule 65(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics rules.

11. Coming to the registers supposed to be maintained under rule 65(4)(3) and rule 65(3)(1) it is also a fact to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The non availability of Drugs Inspector for cross examination, would certainly effect the case of the accused, if the panchanama and inspection report are considered by the court.

a) The prosecution did not mention clearly as to the drugs which are required to be sold in the supervision of the pharmacist and what are the medicines sold by the Snehitha medicals without having pharmacist during the period 23.09.2008 to 30.03.2009 in travention on rule 65(2).

b) The evidence of PW.2 shows that DW.1 was also there at the time of inspection. He supported the version of the accused. The accused got examined DW.1 to prove that DW.1 was working in Snehitha medicals by the time of inspection and that accused No.2 was not working in Snehitha medicals by that time. The evidence of DW.1 shows that on 30.05.2009, 10 the drugs inspector visited the Snehitha medicals and that accused No.2 was working in their neighbouring shop by that time. The drugs inspector got opened the shop of accused No.1 through accused No.2 and obtained his signatures and that the accused No.2 was working under Doctor Bora Prasad by that time. This evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.2.

c) Since, there is no documentary evidence in order to prove the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 under the name and style of snehitha medicals sold schedule drugs without having pharmacist during the period from 23.09.2008 to 30.03.2009 and that he did not maintained the registers of schedule drugs. The non availability of drugs inspector who conducted the inspection and non examination of any independent witnesses, the court is not inclined to believe the version of the prosecution. In fact, all the prosecution witnesses are some how or the other under the control of

Drugs Inspectors. PW.2 is running the medical shop under the name and style of New Sai Teja medicals at Day & Night junction, Srikakulam. PW.3 is running the medical shop in the name and style of M/s Maruthi Medical

Agencies at 7 road junction, Srikakulam. PW.4 is running his whole sale medical business under the name and style of Sri Shiridi Sai Enterprises at

Chittaranjan street, Srikakulam. PW.5 is running wholesale medical business under the name and style of BGR medical Agency at Champagalli veedhi, Srikakulam. PW.6 is running wholesale medical business under the name and style of Sri kameswar Enterprises, New colony, Srikakulam.

Pw.7 is running whole sale medical business under the name and style of Sri

Srinivasa medical Syndicate. PW.8 is the daughter of M. Malathi that is previous pharmacist of Snehitha medicals. PW.9 is the pharmacist of 11

Snehitha medicals by the time of inspection by the Drugs Inspector. None of the prosecution witnesses is an independent witness. In fact, death of previous pharmacist M. Malathi on 23.09.2008 is not a disputed fact.

f) What is required to be proved in this case is that the accused sold schedule drugs without appointing the new pharmacist after the death of previous pharmacist M. Malathi during the period 23.09.2008 to 30.03.2009.

In order to prove that fact the prosecution did not file any of the evidence

before the court and did not examine any of the witnesses before the court.

Hence, the court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under rule 65(4)(1) and 65(3)(1) of Drugs and Cosmetics rules 1940. Accordingly, these points are decided against the case of prosecution.

12. Point No.4

In the light of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 18(a)(vi) r/w rule 65(2), rule 65(4)(3), rule 65(3)(1) and rule 65(4)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules punishable u/sec.27(d) of Drugs and

Cosmetic Act, 1940 against the accused.

13. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 18(a)(vi) r/w rule 65(2), rule 65(4)(3), rule 65(3)(1) and rule 65(4)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules punishable u/sec.27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr. P.C.

Dictated to the Record Assistant, who has qualified in shorthand

writing, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by in open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2013.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

12

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW.1 : M. Narasimhachari PW.2 : Gembali Subramanyam PW.3 : Gorrela Mohanarao PW.4 : Naramsetti Appalaraju PW.5 : Jami Ramanamurthy PW.6 : Baratam Haranadh PW.7 : Andhavarau Srinivas PW.8 : B. Usha Kalpana PW.9 : Pydisetti Kamala PW.10 : Y.V.V. Satyanarayana For Defence: DW.1 : Chinthala Balaraju

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Panchanama Ex.P2 : Inspection Report Ex.P3 : Sale slip by the date of inspection, dated 30.05.2009 Ex.P4 : Form XVI Ex.P5 : Original purchase bills 8 in number Ex.P6 : The requisition given by Drugs inspector, Srikakulam to we Ex.P7 : The covering letter addressed to Drugs Inspector, Srikakula Ex.P.8 : License Ex.P.9 : The requisition sent to M/s Sri Shiridi Enterprises Ex.P10 : The covering letter addressed to Drugs Inspector, Srikakulam Ex.P11 : Drug licence Ex.P12 : Requisition received from Drug Inspector, Srikakula Ex.P13 : The Covering of JBR medical agencies Ex.P14 : Drug licence Ex.P15 : The requisition received from Drug inspector, Srikakulam Ex.P16 : The covering letter from Sri Kameswara Enterprises Ex.P17 : Drug licence Ex.P18 : The requisition received from Drug Inspector, Srikakulam Ex.P19 : The covering letter from M/s Srinivasa Medical Syndicate. Ex.P20 : Drug licence Ex.P21 : Attested copy of Death certificate of M. Malathi Ex.P22 : The letter addressed by Drugs Inspector to PW.8 Ex.P23 : The reply letter addressed to Drugs Inspector, dated 18.08.2009 Ex.P24 : Letter addressed to PW.9 by Drugs Inspector Ex.P25 : The reply letter, dated 25.09.2009 For defence: Ex.D1 : Copy of licence

Material Objects: Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Date of Offence : prior to 29.09.2009 Date of Report or Complaint : 29.09.2009 Date of Apprehension of Accused : … Date of Release on Bail : … Date of Commencement of Trial : 19.08.2011 Date of Close of Trial : 22.01.2013 Date of Sentence or Order : 23.04.2013 Place of Offence : M/s Snehitha Medicals and General Stores, Srikakulam

Explanation for Delay: Due to non-production of witnesses in time by the prosecution.

Calendar & Judgment :C.C No.968of 2009 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Name of the Complainant: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Drugs Inspector, Srikakulam

Name of the Fathers name Age & Village Mandal Accused Religion

1.Dr. Sesham Babu Rao, age 47 years, S/o Thrimoorty, Managing Partner, M/s Snehitha Medical and General Stores, Assessment No.605, Opp. Forest Office, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district

2.Mr. Panku Kumara Swamy, s/o Rajappadu, Sales Man, M/s Snehitha Medical and General Stores, Assessment No.605, Opp. Forest Office, Srikakula, Srikakulam district

Offence: U/sec.18(a)(vi) r/w rule 65(2), rule 65(4)(3), rule 65(3)(1) and rule 65(4)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules punishable u/sec.27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 18(a)(vi) r/w rule 65(2), rule 65(4)(3), rule 65(3)(1) and rule 65(4)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules punishable u/sec.27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr. P.C.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, SRIKAKULAM

Present: Smt. A. Padma, B.A., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2013

Calendar Case No.545 / 2012

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Srikakulam Police station … Complainant. And: Ippili Sairaju, s/o late Surayya, age 50 years, Kapu by caste, Kanugulavanipeta village, Srikakulam Rural mandal, Srikakulam district … Accused.

This case coming on 17.04.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.M. Mohanarao, learned Advocate for the Accused and 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, Srikakulam Rural police station has filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code herein after called as I.P.C. in Cr.No.190/2012 of Srikakulam Rural Police station.

2. The brief facts of charge sheet are that on 17.08.2012, at 16.00 hours, while the defacto complainant was erecting fencing with bamboo sticks around his site, the accused came to the spot and beat him with stick on his head. But the defacto complainant escaped from the blow of the accused by placing his right hand. But he received bleeding injury, swelling and scratch injuries on his right hand. The accused beat the defacto complainant with stick on his right shoulder and knee. As a result, the defacto complainant received injury on his right shoulder and knee.

Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, a case in

Cr.No.190/2012 was registered u/sec. 324 of IPC and was investigated into.

On 20.09.2012, at 10.30 hours, the investigating officer, arrested the accused and sent him to court for judicial remand. After completion of 2 investigation, the S.I. of police rural police station filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. On 29.09.2012, the case was taken on file for the offence under

Section U/s 324 of IPC against the accused.

3. After the accused made was appearance on 07.11.2012, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him, as required under

Section 207 Cr. P.C.

4. On 15.11.2012, the accused was examined under Section 239

Cr. P.C. and charges u/sec. 324 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of defence none were examined and no documents marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence adduced against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; he denied the same and reported no defence evidence; hence the defence evidence is accordingly closed.

7. Heard both sides.

a) The learned APP argued that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution corroborated the case of the prosecution, and the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution is establishing the fact that the accused voluntarily caused injury to the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons and hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the said offence.

b) The learned counsel for the accused argued as follows:

I.There is an abnormal delay of 25 days in lodging the First Information

Report.

II.The eye witnesses could not give the descriptions of the stick with which the accused alleged to beat the defact complainant.

3

III.In fact, one of the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW.5 turned hostile to the case of prosecution by stating that he does not know the facts of this case.

IV.The injuries alleged to be sustained by the defacto complainant at the time of incident are not corroborated in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

V.The names of the elders before whom the matter was placed were not mentioned either in the report or in the charge sheet or in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the same assumes importance in view of delay in lodging the report.

VI.There is a contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the scene observation report with regard to the scene of ffence.

VII.PW.4 did not mention in his chief examination affidavit that he admonished the accused and taken him to his house when the accused abused the sister and mother of the defacto complainant. It is a developed version of the prosecution.

In view of the above discrepancies, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

8. The points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused voluntarily caused injuries to the defacto complainant with dangerous weapon?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured. PW.2 is wife of PW.1, PW.3 is the brother of PW.1. PW.4 is one of the relatives of

PW.1. PWs.5 is one of the eye witnesses, PWs 6 and 7 are the emdiators for scene observation by the police. PW.8 is the medical officer. PW.9 and 10 are the investigating officer.

10. Point No.1:

It is seen from the report Ex.P.1 that the defendant is having vacant site adjacent to his house and that the accused is raising dispute with 4 regard to that site and that on 17.08.2012 at about 4.00 p.m. while the defacto complainant was erecting the fencing in the said site, the accused came there while abusing the defacto complainant in filthy language, beat him on his head with a stick and that the defacto complainant escaped from the blow by placing his right hand between the stick and his head and that he sustained bleeding injuries.

a) The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not that the accused came to the site situated adjacent to the house of PW.1 and that he beat PW1 when PW.1 was erecting the fencing. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 shows that while PW.1 was coming from the house of his parents to his house along with his daughter, when he reached near the house of Simmanna, the accused came there and beat him with stout stick and PW.1 sustained injuries on his right hand and on his leg. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused beat PW.1 while he was erecting the fencing. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not corroborated either with Ex.P.1 report or with 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of prosecution witnesses. It is seen from the above evidence that there is a difference in place of offence and the incident in which the accused alleged to beat the defacto complainant.

b) In fact, the scene of offence is in front of house of one

Simmanna as per the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, but Ex.P.1 report and the 161

Cr.P.C. statements are showing that the scene of offence is vacant site situated adjacent to the hosue of PW.1. It is seen from the rough sketch

Ex.P.7 that there is much distance between the house of Simmanna and the vacant space adjacent to the house of PW.1. It is also seen from the Rough sketch that the scene of offence is neither the vacant place adjacent to the house of PW.1 or the site situated in front of house of Simmanna. The scene of offence is shown in front of the house of one Kanugula Venkata

Ramana in the Rough sketch.

c) During the cross examination of PW.1, he could not say the motive for accused beating PW.1. The motive for beating PW.1 is neither mentioned in the report Ex.P.1 or in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement. During the 5 cross examination, PW.1 admitted that he does not know why the accused beat him with the stick. He also denied the fact that he stated before the police that he sustained injuries while he was erecting the fencing.

Admittedly, PWs 2 to 4 are the relatives of PW.1. PW.2 is wife of PW.1.

PW.3 is sister of PW.1. P.W.4 deposed that PW.1 is his uncle by courtesy.

d) In these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the evidence of all the witnesses shall be weighed under strict scrutiny. There is a possibility of deposing all the prosecution witnesses against the accused as they naturally would have interest in getting conviction of the accused in view of their relationship with PW.1. Another important point is that the independent eye witness Kanugula Tirupathirao turned hostile to the case of prosecution by saying that he does not know what happened in this case.

e) The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that

PW.1 sustained injuries while erecting the fencing. He suggested the same to PW.1 during his cross examination but the same was denied by PW.1.

The learned counsel for the accused also suggested the same question to the medical officer PW.8. The medical officer admitted that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.1 would certificate are possible at the time of doing agricultural operations and doing fencing work.

f) The learned counsel for the accused elicited during the cross examination of investigating officer that there is a delay in 25 days in giving report to the police and that he has not examined the elders before him the matter was placed prior to giving report and that their names were also not mentioned either in the report or in the charge sheet. He also admitted that as per the rough sketch, the incident took place on the road in front of the hosue of Kanugula Venkatarao and that it is not shown in the rough sketch that PW.1 has site near the scene of offence. He also admitted that PWs 1 and 2 did not state before the court that the incident took place in front of house of Simmanna and that PW.4 did not state before him that the accused was abusing PW.1 and that PW.1 has taken the accused to his house and

PW.1 to the hospital.

6

g) In view of the un-explained discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the abnormal delay in lodging the FIR and non examination of the elder person before whom the matter was placed prior to giving report and the discrepancies in the evidence with regard to the scene of offence and the injuries alleged to be sustained by PW.1 as discussed above and in view of the discrepancies crept in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, and in view of independent eye witnesses turning hostile, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, this point is decided against the case of prosecution.

11. In the light of above discussed evidence, facts circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused caused hurt to PW.1 with dangerous weapon beyond all reasonable doubt and in view of the above discussion, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 324 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.248(1)

Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Record Assistant, who has qualified in shorthand

writing, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2013.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW.1 : Kanugula Bujingarao PW.2 : Kanugula Chinnammadu PW.3 : Gonti Lakshmi PW.4 : Ippili Lakshminarayana PW.5 : Kanugula Tirupathirao PW.6 : Kanugula Apparao PW.7 : Sadu Srinivasarao PW.8 : Dr. S. Vijayalaxmi, Tutor PW.9 : J. Srinivasarao, H.C. PW.10 : M. Avatharam, S.I. of police, Srikakulam Rural P.S. For Defence: None 7

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 Ex.P2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P3 : Signature of PW.6 on scene observation report Ex.P4 : Scene observation report Ex.P5 : Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P6 : First Information Report Ex.P7 : Rough sketch For defence: Nil Material Objects: Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

8

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, SRIKAKULAM

C.C.NO. 545/2012

Date of offence : 17.08.2012 Date of Complaint : 12.09.2012 Apprehension of Accused : 20.09.2012 Release on Bail : 20.09.2012 Commencement of Trial : 10.01.2013 Closure of Trial : 04.04.2013 Sentence or Order : 22.04.2013 Explanation for delay : Due to heavy pendency of cases and due to non production of witness

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Srikakulam Rural Police station in Cr.No.190/2012 of Srikakulam Rural police station.

Name of the Fathers name Age & Religion Village Mandal Accused Ippili Sairaju, s/o late Surayya, age 50 years, Kapu by caste, Kanugulavanipeta village, Srikakulam Rural mandal, Srikakulam district

Offence : U/sec.324 of IPC Sec. 324 IPC : Voluntarily causing hurt by means of weapons

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 324 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr. P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

Present: Smt. A. Padma, B.A., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2013

Calendar Case No.605/ 2010

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Laveru Police station … Complainant.

And

Gandemani Appanna, s/o late Pentayya, 35 years, Yadava, Kapu veedhi, Pittapalem village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Driver of Tractor No.AP 30 U 8747, D.L.No.AP030121832008, LMV Non-transport vehicles valid till: 16.07.2028 … Accused.

This case coming on 16.04.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P. Rangababu, the learned Advocate for the accused and 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, Laveru police station has filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec. 304A of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as IPC) in Cr.No.76/2010 of Laveru Police station.

2. The brief facts of charge sheet are that on 26.05.2010, the defacto complainant gave report to the Station House Officer, Laveru police station stating that on 24.06.2010, morning himself and LWs 2 to 5 Alapana

Ramarao, Alapana Ramu, Kotta Rama Jogi and Alapana Appanna and the deceased engaged the auto of LW.6 Duvvada Umamaheswara Rao from their village to attend a marriage alliance of the daughter of LW.2 Alapana

Ramarao at Surapu Agraharam of Ranastalam mandal. After completion of function, they all boarded the same auto, on the way at about 15.00 hours 2 and the auto reached opposite to Vuracheruvu tank near Patharouthupeta.

The driver of the tractor bearing Reg.No.AP 30 U 8747 while transporting sand crushing machine tried to avert the live electric wire at turning point, drove the tractor negligently and dashed the auto with the tractor portion, as a result, the deceased Kota Suryanarayana fallen on the B.T. road and the crushing machine will run over the deceased and the deceased sustained severe injuries on his legs and scalp. He was shifted to RIMS general hospital and on 25.06.2010 at 06.00 hours, he succumbed to injuries in the hospital.

Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, the crime was registered and investigated into. On 15.07.2010 at 12.00 hours, LW.14 S.

Satyanarayana arrested the accused in Laveru police station on his surrender and sent him to the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the S.I. of police Laveru police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/sec. 304A IPC, for causing death by rash and negligent act.

2. The case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.304 A of IPC against the accused on 31.08.2010.

3. After the accused made his appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him, as required under Section 207 Cr.

P.C.

4. On 22.08.2012 the accused was examined under Section 251

Cr. P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against the accused for the offence u/sec. 304A of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5. The prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P1 to 9. In view of evidence of PWs 4,5 and 11 Kotta Rama Jogi,

Alapana Appanna and Basava Ramanareddy were given up by the learned

APP. On 06.12.2012 the summons of LW.9 Kotragadda Hariprasad returned along with V.R. report, hence his evidence was closed. On behalf of defence none were examined and no documents marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence adduced against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Accordingly, the evidence on defence was closed.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point for determination is:

1.Whether the death of Kotta Srinivasarao in a vehicular accident on 25.06.2010 is proved?

2.Whether the rash or negligent act of the accused is proved?

3.Whether the identity of the accused is proved?

4.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. In order to prove the death of Kotta Suryanarayana, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4, 6 and 8. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PWs 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses for the incident. PW.4 is the wife of the deceased, PWs 1 to 4 deposed that Kotta Suryanarayana died in the auto accident at Surapu Agraharam. The inquest report and the Post

Mortem report is also corroborating the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. PW.8 is the forensic expert who conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

Kotta Suryanarayana. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4, 6 and 8 and Ex.P.1 4 report, Ex.P.2 inquest report and Ex.P.5 postmortem certificate and Ex.P.9 photographs are evidencing that the Kotta Suryanarayana died in a vehicular accident on 25.06.2010. Hence, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved the death of the deceased Kotta Suryanarayana and as such, this point is decided in favour of the prosecution.

10. Point No.2:

In order to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 eye witnesses, PW.9 is Assistant Motor vehicle Inspector. Ex.P.1 report shows that the driver of tractor bearing

Reg.No.AP 30 U 8747 drove his tractor in a speed manner and negligently and the sand crushing machine contacted the live electrical wire, while turning the tractor he dashed the auto with the back portion of the tractor and as such Kotta Suryanarayana who was sitting in the auto fell down from the auto and the tractor wheel went upon his legs. But, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is otherwise. The evidence of PW.1 is that the sand tractor was proceeding in front of their auto. The driver of the sand tractor, to avert the contact with live electrical wire, drove the tractor back suddenly, in the result, he dashed the auto by that time. They have already got down from the auto and the deceased was still in the auto. As a result of dash, the deceased was thrown out from the auto and tractor went over the body of the deceased. The evidence of other two witnesses i.e. PWs 2 and 3 is corroborating the evidence of PW.1. They stated that the driver of tractor drove the tractor towards its back side to avert the contact with electric live wires and dashed their auto. These witnesses no where stated that the 5 accused drove the tractor in either rash or negligent manner. Their evidence is that to avert electric wire contact, he drove the vehicle in reverse.

a) With regard to driving the tractor in reverse is not mentioned in

Ex.P.1 report or in 161 Cr.P.C. statements of any of the prosecution witnesses. It is seen from Ex.P.1 report and the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that the incident took place when the accused tried to avert the contact with the electric live wire. In such a case, it can not be said that the accused was either rash or negligent act at the time of incident.

b) The decision reported in 2009(2) ALT Criminal, 298 between K. Nagaraju Vs. state of A.P. in para 12 that “ before conviction can be sustained u/sec.304A IPC a very high degree of negligence must be proved. Negligence which amount to recklessness and utter indifference to the consequences and to the rules of the road must be established. Mere driving at high speed or some sort of negligence, which is not criminal rashness or negligence may not prove the ingredients of sec. 304A IPC. Simple lack of care may result in civil liability, but by itself may not constitute criminal negligence punishable u/sec.304A IPC”

c) Relying upon the above decision, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the rashness or negligent act of the accused in causing the incident and that the death of the deceased Kotta Suryanarayana.

Hence, this point is decided against the prosecution case.

11. Point No.3:

Ex.P.1 report shows that the driver of A.P. 30 U 8747 drove the tractor in speed manner and negligently and caused the accident. PW.1 deposed before the court that he can not identify the accused. PW.6 who was the driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling deposed

before the court that he can not identify the driver and that he does not know

the accused. Though PWs 2 and 3 identified the accused to be the driver of the tractor, PW.2 deposed during his cross examination that he has not seen 6 the driver again, before coming to the court. PW.3 deposed during his chief examination that he can not say who was the tractor driver. Hence, their evidence with regard to the identity of the accused to be the driver, can not be relied upon.

The accused surrendering before the police can not be taken into consideration in determining the identity of the accused. The police have to independently prove the identity of the accused and his rash or negligent act.

a) The decision reported in 2003(2) ALT Criminal 326 between K. Nageswararao Vs. state of A.P. in para 2 that “ prosecution must prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the statement to the police, if may given by the accused, does not amount to admission of his guilt and therefore, merely because accused surrendered

before the police, it does not mean that he is guilty of rash and negligent

driving”

b) Relying upon the above decision, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is decided against the case of the prosecution.

12. Point No.4

Though the prosecution succeeded in proving the death of Kotta

Suryanarayana, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused in causing death and the identity of the accused that he was the driver of the tractor bearing Reg.No.AP 30 U 8747 at the time of accident. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the said offence.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 304A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1)

Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Record Assistant, who has qualified in shorthand

writing, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2013.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

7

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW.1 : Kotta Venkati PW.2 : Alapana Ramarao PW.3 : Alapana Ramu PW.4 : Kotta Bhulaxmi PW.5 : Senagala Sanyasirao PW.6 : Duvvada Umamaheswara Rao PW.7 : Akella Kameswararao PW.8 : Dr. K.V.Sanyasirao, Tutor PW.9 : K.N.Kishore, ASSt. Motor Vehicle Inspector PW.10 : S. Satyanarayana, S.I. of police For Defence: None Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 Ex.P2 : Inquest report Ex.P3 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P4 : Scene observation report Ex.P5 : Postmortem report Ex.P6 : Motor vehicle Inspector’s report Ex.P7 : First Information Report Ex.P.8 : Rough sketch Ex.P.9 : Photos For defence: Nil Material Objects: Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Date of Offence : 24.06.2010 Date of Report or Complaint : 25.06.2010 Date of Apprehension of Accused : 15.07.2010 Date of Release on Bail : 15.07.2010 Date of Commencement of Trial : 18.10.2012 Date of Close of Trial : 05.03.2013 Date of Sentence or Order : 22.04.2013 Place of Offence : B.T. road, Near Patharauthupeta village

Explanation for Delay: Due to non-production of witnesses in time by the prosecution.

Calendar & Judgment :C.C No.605of 2010 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Name of the Complainant: State represented by its Sub inspector of police, Laveru Police station in Cr.No.76/2010

Name of the Fathers name Age & Village Mandal Accused Religion Gandemani Appanna, s/o late Pentayya, 35 years, Yadava, Kapu veedhi, Pittapalem village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Driver of Tractor No.AP 30 U 8747, D.L.No.AP030121832008, LMV Non-transport vehicles valid till: 16.07.2028

Offence: U/sec.304A of IPC

U/sec.304A IPC: Death due to rash and negligent act

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 304A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

Present: Smt. A. Padma, B.A., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2013

Calendar Case No.733/ 2011

Between:

Sidipalli Adinarayana, s/o late Appayya, aged 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Fisherman and Business, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla Mandalam, Srikakulam district … Complainant.

And

1.Sidipalli Ramudu, s/o late Ramudu, aged 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Fisherman and Business, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, Srikakulam district

2.Sidipalli Lakshmi, w/o Ramudu, aged 50 years, Hindu, House hold duties, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, srikakulam district

3.Sidipalli Gurumurty, s/o Ramudu, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Fisherman and business, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, Srikakulam district

4.Sidipalli Sanyasamma, w/oGurumurty, aged 30 years, Hindu, House hold duties, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, Srikakulam district … Accused.

This case coming on 16.04.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri SVA Bhaskararao, the learned Advocate for the complainant and of Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, the learned Advocate for the accused and 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 complainant S. Adinarayana, s/o late Appayya filed the complaint against the accused No.1 to 4 herein for the offence u/sec.447, 147 and 506(2) IPC.

2

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the resident of Jalaru Koyyam village and the accused are also residents of the same village. The complainant and his brothers are the owners of the land in survey No.337/8 of an extent of 0.50 cents. The accused have tried to occupy the said land by force, then the complainant and his brothers resisted.

The 1st accused filed a suit in O.S.104/01 which was dismissed on 16.01.2004. The 1st accused preferred an appeal in A.S.98/2004 and the same was also dismissed on 04.08.2004 having been unsuccessful, to take the property by force, the accused taking law into his hands.

While so on 30.07.2010 at 10.00 a.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the land whether

LWs 1 to 4 i.e. Sidipalli Suryanarayana, Sidipalli Venkayya, Mylapalli

Police and Kantumargi Appalaswami were present. The accused tried to beat the complainant, then the above said witnesses chastised the accused and sent them out. The accused while going back threatened that they will see the end of the complainant. Thus, the accused have committed various offences.

3. On perusing the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, the case has been taken on file u/sec. 323 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 4 on 21.12.2011.

4. On 18.04.2012, the case copies were furnished to the accused as required u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. On 07.11.2012, the accused were examined u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C.

by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/sec.

323 of IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. The complainant got examined himself to be PW.1 and his witnesses to be PWs 2 to 4. He got marked Ex.P.1 certified copy of the judgment in Appeal Suit No.98/2004.

7. After completion of complainant’s evidence, the accused were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining them the incriminating evidence against them in the evidence of complainant, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Accordingly, the evidence on defence was closed on 25.03.2013.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Points for Determination:

1.Whether the accused No.1 to 4 beat the complainant?

2.Whether the complainant succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined

Pws 1 to 4. PW.1 is the complainant, PWs 2 to 4 are the alleged eye witnesses for the incident.

11. Point No.1:

The evidence of PW.1 shows that while he was feeding out at his coconut plants, accused No.1 came there and caught his hair and fisted him. Accused No.2 came there and she caught his waist and dragged him.

Accused No.3 also came there and also fisted the complainant. Accused

No.4 also fisted him. The evidence of other witnesses i.e. PWs 2 to 4 is corroborating to the effect that they have seen the accused beating the complainant. In fact there is no mention in the complaint that the accused beat the defacto complainant. It is mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the complainant that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly 4 and trespassed into the land where the complainant and LWs 1 to 4 were present and that the accused tried to beat the complainant and scolded him in foul and filthy language. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the accused proclaimed that they will kill the complainant and that LWs 1 to 4 i.e. PWs 2 & 3 and K. Appalaswamy chastised the accused and sent them out. None of the witnesses deposed the facts mentioned in the complaint against the accused. The fact as deposed regarding beating of complainant by the accused did not find place in the complaint filed before the court.

Farming unlawful assembly and the criminal trespass, so also the offence of the criminal intimidation by way of threatening the complainant that the accused would see the end of the complainant were not deposed by any of the witnesses that were examined on behalf of the complainant.

a) The prosecution witnesses deposed that PWs 2 to 4 rescued

PW.1 from the hands of the accused but the same is not mentioned in the complaint. The fact mentioned in the complaint is that PWs 2 to 4 chastised the accused and sent them out, but not that they rescued PW.1 from the hands of the accused. The testimony of all the witnesses for the complainant shows that the complainant sustained injuries but no certificate is filed before the court. In fact the evidence of PW.1 shows that he has taken treatment by the Doctor of their village. The medical officer who has given treatment to PW.1 was not either sited or examined before the court.

b) It was elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant during the cross examination of PW.1 that the complainant can not say the date of incident and that he does not remember as t when the incident took place and that he does not remember when he has given the report to the police and 5 that he does not remember when he filed the present complaint before the court and that he does not remember whether his statements were recorded by the police and that whether he mentioned in the complaint that the accused beat him with knife and sticks and axes. It is seen from the above evidence that the complainant could not give evidence with regard to material particulars of the case facts.

c) It is the evidence of Pw.1 that he approached Deputy

Superintendent of police when the police refused to take action against the accused. His chief examination also reveals that he has given a report to the police and that the police called the accused to the police station, but the accused did not turn up. But no document is filed before the court to show that he has given a report to the police and that the case was registered against the accused or that the police refused to take action against the accused. The complainant mentioned the S.I. of police, Etcherla Police station to be one of the witnesses for the complainant but he did not get the

S.I. of police examined before the court on his behalf.

d) Admittedly, there are disputes between the accused and the complainant. Ex.P.1 judgment in Appeal suit No.98/2004 also shows that there are civil disputes between the accused and the complainant. In the above circumstances, non corroboration of evidence of the witnesses with the complainant and none examination of S.I. of police, Echerla police station, so also the non examination of medical officer who allegedly examined the complainant and non filing of wound certificate becomes fatal to the case of the complainant.

6

e) In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances and evidence, the court is of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is decided against the case of the complainant.

12. Point No.2:

In the light of result in Point No.1, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 323 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled to be acquittal for the said offence.

13. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for theoffence punishable u/sec.323 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Record Assistant, who has qualified in shorthand

writing, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2013.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: PW.1 : S. Adinarayana PW.2 : Chidipilli Venkateswararao PW.3 : Chidipilli Suryanarayana PW.4 : Mylapalli Polesu For Defence: None Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Judgment in A.S.733/2011 For defence: Nil Material Objects: Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Date of Offence : 30.07.2010 Date of Report or Complaint : 18.07.2011 Date of Apprehension of Accused : … Date of Release on Bail : … Date of Commencement of Trial : 20.11.2012 Date of Close of Trial : 11.03.2013 Date of Sentence or Order : 22.04.2013 Place of Offence : Jalaru Koyyam

Explanation for Delay: Due to non-production of witnesses in time by the prosecution.

Calendar & Judgment :C.C No.733of 2011 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Srikakulam

Name of the Complainant: Sidipalli Adinarayana, s/o late Appayya, aged 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Fisherman and Business, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla Mandalam, Srikakulam district

Name of the Fathers name Age & Village Mandal Accused Religion

1.Sidipalli Ramudu, s/o late Ramudu, aged 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Fisherman and Business, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, Srikakulam district

2.Sidipalli Lakshmi, w/o Ramudu, aged 50 years, Hindu, House hold duties, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, srikakulam district

3.Sidipalli Gurumurty, s/o Ramudu, aged 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Fisherman and business, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, Srikakulam district

4.Sidipalli Sanyasamma, w/oGurumurty, aged 30 years, Hindu, House hold duties, residing at Jalaru Koyyam village, Etcherla mandalam, Srikakulam district

Offence: U/sec.323of IPC U/sec.323 IPC: voluntarily causing hurt

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for theoffence punishable u/sec.323 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

SRIKAKULAM

ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ ¬µÔ¶¿¿ –Ô¶¿¿ þ¶§†¶¿

¬µÔ¶¿¶ïÔ¶¿¿Ð- ±. ¡µ†¶é, £».±., ±¨ý.±¨ýì. ±Ôý¿.,

ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿¸§ºà, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§, ³ÎÔ¶¿ Ô·§¶§, 22Ô¶ œÈ†º, ±¡¹ë¨ý þƨ, 2013 Ô¶ ¬µ§Ô¶œ¶ð§¶Ô¶¿¿

È¬µ¿ ÔºÔ¶§¶Ô¶¿¿ ¬µ§ –êÐ 628/2012

§·«µÛë ¡µë¤¶¿œ¶í§ œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶, —·›¸ ¨È–§º, ·ëÔ½¿¸› —·›· ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ . . . ¢¹§·ê†º

Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ±¨ì £¸¨ ¬µ¿¸§¶ê ¡µë³·Ÿ¶§·Ô¶À, œ¶§™ºë ¨È˜¿ Õ¡µå¨þ·§¿¿™¶¿, Ô¶§¿¶¿¬µ¿ð 52 ¬µ§Ô¶œ¶ð§¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿, ÔƨԶ¿ ¶¿¨§, „±·Ÿ·ê§¿¶¿¿™¶¿, ‚§†º§¶ þ¶¶§¶¿ ·¨þ½, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ ·ëÔ½¿› Ô¶¿§™¶¨§, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ ü»¨¸ì, ÔÆ¿¿¸˜¸§¶¿ ¬Éº¨ý þƧ ±.¡¹. 31 ™º 2122 §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ ™ÊÔ¶§¶¿ . . . Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ƒ ¢¹§·ê†¶¿ œÈ !8.4.2013 †ºþ¶ ƒ Í§¶¿Û Ô¶¿¿§†¶¿, ¢¹§·ê†»†·§¶¿ œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ Õ¬¹¬ÅÛ§˜¿ ¡µ£»ìý ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê˜§ý Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ Ô¶½¨¿ ª½ëÔ¶¿œº ¡µ¨»ì §·Ô¶¿¸§·Ô¶À, ¬µÔ¶¿¶ïÔ¶¿¿þ¶ úºÔ¶§º ³·§º· Ô·†Í¡µ Ô·†¶þ¶¨¿ Ôºþ¶¿˜¶¿

Ô¶úºÖþ¶†» Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ‚§¶¿¡µ¶ïÔ¶¿¿¨ Ô·†¶þ¶¨¿ Ô»þ¶ä œ¶§¶¿Ô·œ¶, ƒ ºë§†º œ½§¶å¿þ¶¿

Ôƨ¿Ô¶§º§úºþ¶†ºÐ

œ½§¶¿å

1. —·›¸ ¨È–§º, ·ëÔ½¿¸› —·›· ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ Ô·§¶¿ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É þȧ¶

Õ¤»§¿Æ¿¿¸¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿þ¶¿ ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ï ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 338 Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ¬Å¶ïþý 146/196

ÔÆ¿¿¸˜¸§¶¿ Ô·Ôµ¸þ¶Ô¶¿¿¨ ú¶˜Û§ ºë§†¶, ·ëÔ½¿¸› —·›· ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ þ¶§†¶¨» þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¬µ§–ê 183/2012 þ¶§†¶¿ †·–¨¿ úȬ¹§º.

2. þȧ¶ Õ¤»§¿Æ¿¿¸¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿ þ¶§†¶¨» Ô¶¿¿ –ê Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿Ð 2 œÈ†º 05.09.2012 þ¶, ¶§˜¨¿ 9.00 ¨¶¿, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ Ô¶¿§™¶¨§ ¡Å†¶â±·™¶¿ ·ëÔ¶¿§ ¨Í œ¶Ô»¿éþÈþº ˜ÎÔÆ¿¸£Æʨý ´Î §¶¿¸Ôý¿ †¶¶Ó §¶, Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ œ¶þ¶

ÔÆ¿¿¸˜¸§¶¿ ¬Éº¨ý þƧ ±.¡¹. 31 ™º 2122 þ¶¿ þ¶™¶¿¡µÀ ú¶¿¸ ±¨ý.™¶£¿ì.1 º§œ·™¶ þ¶§¶¬¹§Ôµ¸Ô¶¿Ô¶¿é þ¶¿ š¾ ËþÆþ¶¿,  ·§¶›§· ±¨ý.™¶£¿ì.1 º§œ·™¶ þ¶§¶¬¹§Ôµ¸Ô¶¿Ô¶¿é ¡µ™º±ÎÔ¶À˜ úÈ, ÔÆ¿ ¶¿ §¶¶à ·§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿¨¿ Õ§¿¿þ¶Ôº.

Ôµ¸¬¹å˜¨ý Ô·§º ¬µÔ¶¿¸ú·§¶§ Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ±¨ý.™¶£¿ì.1 ‚úºÖþ¶ ¬ÇÛ˜ýÔÆ¿§˜¿ Ÿ·§¶§·, ·ëÔ½¿¸› —·›¸ ÕŸº·§º ƒ ¢¹§·ê†¶¿þ¶¿ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¬µ§–ê 183/2012 · þ¶ÔÆ¿¸†¶¿ úƬ¹§º Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶¶¿ ¬µ§£§†º§úº Ôºú·§¶› úȬ¹§º. Ôºú·§¶› ¬µÔ¶¿§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿þ¶ —·›¸ ¨È–§º þȧ¶ ¬µá¨Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ ¡µ§ºª½¨»§úº, þȧ¶¬µá¨Ô¶¿¿ §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ úºœ¶¿à ¡µ˜Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ ½¬Åþ¶¿, Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ³·¶¿ïê¨ þ¶¿ Ôºú·§º§úÆþ¶¿

Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ œÈ†º 29.09.2012 þ¶ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿þº էƬµ¿Û úȬ¹ ü¿™½«¹§¿¶¿¨ý §ºÔ¶¿¸§™¶¿ Ë§¶¶¿ Í§¶¿Û Ô¶¿¿§†¶¿ ¡µëÔȪ¶ ¡Å˜ÆÛþ¶¿. þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ Ôºú·§¶› ¡µÀ¸§ºà Õ§¿¿þ¶ œ¶§¶¿Ô·œ¶ Ô¶¿§»§¿¶¿¿ †Æ£ç¨¿ œ¶¨»º¨»þ¶ Ô¶êºà ·§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿¨¶¿ ¬µ§£§†º§úºþ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿þ¶¿ Ôʆ¶¿êþº Ô¶†¶âþ¶¿§™º ±Ë§†ºþ¶ œ¶§¶¿Ô·œ¶, ƒ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿¨Í Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É

Õ¤»§¿Æ¿¿¸¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿þ¶¿ †·–¨¿ úȧ¿¶¿¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.

3. œÈ 14.11.2012 †º þ¶ ƒ þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É Õ¤»§¿Æ¿¿¸¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿þ¶¿ ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ï ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 448, 326 Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ 324 ºë§†¶ ¬¼í¶§º§ú¶¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.

4. œ½ 31.10.2012 †º þ¶ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ƒ þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿§†¶¿ Ôµ¸ü§Êþ¶ œ¶§¶¿Ô·œ¶ ‚§†¶¨» È¬µ¿þ¶¶¿ ¬µ§£§†º§úºþ¶ ÕÔ¶¬µ§¶Ô¶¿¶¿ þ¶¶®¶ì þ¶¿ Ô¶¿†·â§¿¿º ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë물ü§ý Í™ý ¬Å¶ïþý 207 ºë§†¶ Õ§†¶üȧ¿¶¿¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.

5. œÈ 18.02.2013 †º þ¶ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿þº ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë물ü§ý Í™ý 251 ºë§†¶ ¡µ§¾ºï§ú¶£™º ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ïê ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 338 ºë§†¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ÔÆ¿¿¸¡µ£™ºþ¶†º.

 þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ œÍëúº¡µÀúºÖ, Ôºú·§º§ú¶Ô¶¿þº Í§Æþ¶¿.

3

6. ±·ë¬¹¶¿·ê«µþý œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ 1 þ¶¿§™º 4 ³·¶¿ï¨¿ ¡µ§½ºï§ú¶£™º§º Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ¡µëÔȪ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿¨¿ 1 þ¶¿§™º 4 ¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶Ôº. 1 þ¶¿§™º 4 ³·¶¿ï¨¿ úÆ¡¹åþ¶ ³·¶ïê§ †¶Ã´·Ûê Ôº¿º¨»þ¶ ³·¶¿ï¨ ³·¶ïêÔ¶¿¿þ¶¿ Õ¬¹¬ÅÛ§˜¿ ¡µ£»ìý ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê˜§ý Ô·§¶¿

Ô¶†º¨»Ôȧ¿¶¿¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†».

7. ±·ë¬¹¶¿·ê«µþý Ô·§º ³··ïꟷ§·¨þ¶¿ ¡µ§½ª»¨»§úºþ¶ œ¶§¶¿Ô·œ¶, Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É þȧ·§Í¡¹œ¶ ³·¶ïê§ ¨È†¶þº ƒ þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¶ëÔº·§úº, Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿º þº§¶íÔº·§ú¶Ô¶¨¬¹þ¶ ¡µ§½¶ï ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë¬¼ü§ý Í™ý ¬Å¶ïþý 313 þ¶¿ ™º¬Ååþýð Ôºœý úȧ¿¶¿™¶ÔÊ¿þ¶†º.

8. ‚§¶¿¡µ¶ïÔ¶¿¿¨ Ô·†¶þ¶¿ Ôºþ¶¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.

9. ¶þ¶¿Ëþ¶ Ô¶¨¬¹þ¶ Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿?

1.Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ œ¶þ¶ §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ Ô·Ôµ¸þ¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ Õü¸¶ëœ¶à· þ¶™¶¿¡µÀú¶¿¸ ¡¹.™¶£¿ì.1 þ¶¿ š½ Ëþ¶¿˜ Ô¶¨þ¶, ¡¹.™¶£¿ì.1 þ¶¶¿ §¶¶à ·§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿¨¿ Տ¶¿˜¶¿ ·§¶¶¿™·?

2.±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§¶¿ ±˜»Û Õþ¶¿Ô¶¿¸þ¶Ô¶¿¿¨¶¿ œ·Ô¶À ¨È¶¿§™· Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ï ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 338 ºë§†¶ §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À úȬÅþ·?

10. Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿ 1 Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ 2Ð ¡Éþ¶ ¡Ç§ËÑþ¶ä Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿ 1 Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ 2 ¨¶¿ ¬µ§£§Ÿº§úºþ¶ ³·¶ïêÔ¶¿¿þ¶¿ Ô¶¿§¶¨¸ ú¶§ºÖ§ú¶¿˜ þºÔ·§º§ú¶¿˜¶¿ §Æ§™¶¿ Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿¨þ¶¿¸ ŠÈ ¡µ§·ê§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿ ú¶§ºÖ§ú¶¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.

Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡Éþ¶ ÔÆ¿¸¡µ£™ºþ¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À úȧ¿¶¿¿˜¶¿, ±·¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§¶¿, Ô·§º œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ 1 þ¶¿§™º Ô¶¿¸™¶¿ ³·¶¿ï¨þ¶¿ Ôºú·§º§úº§º.

‚§†¶¨» ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» ³·ºï £¸†ºœ¶¿§·¨¿ Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ ¢¹§·ê†º †·§¶¿. §Æ§™¶¿ Ô¶¿§»§¿¶¿¿

Ô¶¿¿¸™¶Ô¶ ³·¶¿ï¨¿¡µëœ¶ê¶ï ³·¶¿ï¨¿. ƒ ³·¶¿ï¨¿, ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§º È¬µ¿¶¿

Õþ¶¿¶¿¸¨§· ³·¶ïê§ úÆ¡µå¨È†¶¿ Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ Ô·§º ³·¶ïê§¨Í ƒ È¬µ¿þ¶¶¿ ¬µ§£§†º§úº Ô·§ºº ±˜¿Ô¶§˜» ÔºÔ¶§¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿ œÆ¨»§¿¶¿Ô¶À Õþº úÆ¡µå¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º. ƒ 4 ¬µÔ¶¿§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿þ¶ Õ¬¹¬ÅÛ§˜¿ ¡µ£»ìý ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê˜§ý Ô·§¶¿ Í§¶¿Û §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ Õþ¶¿Ô¶¿œºœÍ ³·¶¿ï¨þ¶¿ ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§º È¬µ¿þ¶¶¿ ¡µëœº¶¿¸¨ ³·¶¿ï¨¿· þº§¶ï§¿¿§ú¶¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.  œ¶§¶¿Ô·œ¶, Õ¬¹¬ÅÛ§˜¿ ¡µ£»ìý ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê˜§ý Ô·§¶¿ ³·¶¿ï¨þ¶¿ ·ë¬ø ±·ðÔº¿þÈ«µþý §½œº¨Í ¡µëª¶ä¨¿ ÔȬ¹þ¶¡µå˜»½, ƒ ³·¶¿ï¨¿ ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§º È¬µ¿þ¶¶¿ ¡µëœº¶¿¸¨ ³·¶¿ï¨¿· Ô¶¿¸§¶¿˜¶¿ ¶¨ ·§¶›Ô¶¿¿¨¿ §·£Æ˜Û¨Æ¶ ±Î§¿Æ¿þ¶¿.

11. ¡É ·§¶›Ô¶¿¿¨ Ô¶¨þ¶, ƒ þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿ ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§¶¿

Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É ÔÆ¿¸¡µ£™ºþ¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À úȧ¿¶¿¨È¶ ±Î§¿Æ¿þ¶þº Õ¤»±·ë§¿¶¿¡µ™Æþ¶¿, †½þºº Õþ¶¿¶¿›§· ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ §Æ§™¶Ô¶ Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿¨þ¶¿ ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§ºº

ԶꜺ§È¶§· þº§¶ß§¿¿§ú¶™¶ÔÊ¿þ¶†º.

12. Ô¶¿¿¸™¶Ô¶ Õ§ª¶Ô¶¿¿Ð ¡Éþ¶ Ôºª»†¶ ¡µ§ºúºþ¶ ³·¶ïêÔ¶¿¿¨¿, È¬µ¿ §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ ¡µÀ¸§·í¡µ§¶Ô¶¿¿¨þ¶¿ £˜»Û, ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§¶¿ Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É ÔÆ¿¸¡µ£™ºþ¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶¿ §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À úƧ¿¶¿¿˜¶¿ ±§¶å™ºþ¶ Õþºä ¬µ§†ÈÔµ¸Ô¶¿¿¨þ¶¿ œ½§¶¿Ö˜¨Í Ô»¢µ¨ÔÊ¿þ¶†¶þº ƒ þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿

Õ¤»±·ë§¿¶¿¡µ™»þ¶†º.

13. ¡µ¨»œ¶§·, Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É ÔÆ¿¸¡µ£™ºþ¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ïê ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 338 §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À ·¨È†¶¿. †·þºº Õþ¶¿¶¿›§· Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿þº ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë¬¼ü§ý Í™ý ¬Å¶ïþý 255 (1) ºë§†¶ Ôº™¶¿†¶¨ úȧ¿¶¿¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º. Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ ü¸Ô½¿þ¶¿ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿¨¿ œ¶¶ï›Ô¶¿¿ §¶†¶¿â úȧ¿¶¿™¶ÔÊ¿þ¶†º.

ƒ†ºþ¶Ô¶¿¿ Õþ¶· 22Ô¶ œÈ†º ±¡¹ë¨ý þƨ 2013 Ô¶ ¬µ§Ô¶œ¶ð§¶Ô¶¿¿þ¶ Í§¶¿ÛÔ·§» ™ºý˜È«µþý ¡É ¬ÅÛþ͏·ë¢µ§ýúÈ Ô·ë§¿¿§úº, †º†¶â£™º þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿¨Í £Ô»·§¶§¶Ô¶¿¿· ¬µ§œ¶¶Ô¶¿¿ úȬ¹ Ôƨ¿Ô¶§º§ú¶¿˜ ü§»ºþ¶†º.

ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¸§ºà, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§

³·¶ïêÔ¶¿¿¨ Õþ¶¿£§Ÿ¶Ô¶¿¿

¡µ§½ºï§ú¶£™ºþ¶ ³·¶ï¿¨ ü¸£»œ·

±·ë¬¹¶¿·ê«µþý œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ Ð ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý ³·ºïÐ 1 Ð º§œ·™¶ þ¶§¶¬¹§Ôµ¸Ô¶¿Ô¶¿é 5 ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý ³·ºïÐ 2 Ð Ë¨»Ôº Õ¡µåþ¶ä ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý ³·ºïÐ3Ð Õ¨¿ì ¨¾ïé þ·§·§¿¶¿› ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý ³·ºïÐ4Ð º§œ·™¶ ÔÆ¿¸Ôµ¸þ¶§·Ô¶À ™»¢Åþý𠜶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ Ð ¨È§¶¿

¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿¨ ü¸£»œ·

±·ë¬¹¶¿·ê«µþý œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ Ð ¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿Ð ¡¹.1 Ð ¡¹.™¶£¿ì.1 §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ 161 ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë물ü§ý Í™ý ¬ÇÛ˜ýÔÆ¿§˜¿ ¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿Ð ¡¹.2 Ð ¡¹.™¶£¿ì.2 §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ 161 ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë물ü§ý Í™ý ¬ÇÛ˜ýÔÆ¿§˜¿ ¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿Ð ¡¹.3 Ð ¡¹.™¶£¿ì.3 §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ 161 ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë물ü§ý Í™ý ¬ÇÛ˜ýÔÆ¿§˜¿ ¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿Ð ¡¹.4 Ð ¡¹.™¶£¿ì.4 §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ 161 ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë물ü§ý Í™ý ¬ÇÛ˜ýÔÆ¿§˜¿ ™»¢Åþý𠜶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ Ð ¨ÈÔ¶À ¶¿§ºà§ú¶£™ºþ¶ Ô¶¿¿ –ê Ô¶¬µ¿àÔ¶À¨ ü·£»œ·Ð ¨ÈÔ¶À

ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¸§ºà, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ 6

œ½§¶å¿ ÔºÔ¶§¶Ô¶¿¿¨ ¡µ˜¾Û

ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¿§ºà, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ Ô·§ºúÈ Ôºú·§º§ú¶£™ºþ¶ È¬µ¿ ÔºÔ¶§¶Ô¶¿¿¨ ¡µ˜»Û¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ü§ººþ¶ œÈ†ºÐ 05.09.2012 ¢¹§·ê†¶¿ ‚úºÖþ¶ œÈ†º Ð 05.09.2012

Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿þº ¡µ˜¿Û¶¿þ¶ä œÈ†»Ð 20.09.2012 ü¸Ô½¿þ¶¿ ¡É Ôº™¶¿†¶¨Êþ¶ œÈ†º Ð 20.09.2012

Ôºú·§¶› úÈ¡µ˜»Ûþ¶ œÈ†º Ð 16.04.2013

Ôºú·§¶› Ô¶¿¿º¬¹þ¶ œÈ†ºÐ 18.04.2013 œ½§¶¿å ¨È¶ üÚ œÈ†ºÐ 22.04.2013 þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ü§ººþ¶ ¬µá¨Ô¶¿¿Ð ¡Å†¶â±·™¶¿ ·ëÔ¶¿§ ¨¬µêÔ¶¿¿þ¶¶¿ ÔºÔ¶§¶›Ð ±·ë¬¹¶¿¸ê«µþý Ô·§¶¿ ³·¶¿ï¨þ¶¿ ¡µëÔȪ¶ ¡Å˜Û¶¿§™¶¿˜ œ½§¶¿å ÔºÔ¶§¶Ô¶¿¿ ¬µ§–ê Ð ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿³·áþ¶Ô¶¿¿, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ þ¶§†¶¿ þ¶ÔÆ¿¸†¶¿ ·£™ºþ¶ È¬µ¿ Ô»Ô¶§¶Ô¶¿¿ ¬µ§–êÐ 628/2012 ¢¹§·ê†º †·§¶¿ Ð §·«µÛë ¡µë¤¶¿œ¶í§ œ¶§¶¿¡µÀþ¶ —·›¸ ¨È–§º, ·ëÔ½¿¸› —·›· ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ þ¶§†¶¿ þ¶ÔÆ¿¿¸†¶¿ ·£™ºþ¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¬µ§–êÐ183/2012

Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡Ç§¶¿, œ¶§™ºë ¡Ç§¶¿, Ð ±¨ì £¸¨ ¬µ¿¸§¶ê ¡µë³·Ÿ¶§·Ô¶À, œ¶§™ºë ¨È˜¿

Ô¶§¿¶¿¬µ¿, Ô¶¿œ¶Ô¶¿¿, ·ëÔ¶¿§ Ô¶¿§º§¿¶¿¿ Õ¡µå¨þ·§¿¿™¶¿, Ô¶§¿¶¿¬µ¿ð 52

Ô¶¿§™¶¨§ ¬µ§Ô¶œ¶ð§¶Ô¶¿¿¨¿, ÔƨԶ¿ ¶¿¨§, „±·Ÿ·ê§¿¶¿¿™¶¿, ‚§†º§¶ þ¶¶§¶¿ ·¨þ½, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ ·ëÔ½¿› Ô¶¿§™¶¨§, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§ ü»¨¸ì, ÔÆ¿¿¸˜¸§¶¿ ¬Éº¨ý þƧ ±.¡¹. 31 ™º 2122 §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ ™ÊÔ¶§¶¿ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ Ð ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ïê ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 338 ¶þ¶¿Ëþ¶£™ºþ¶†ºÐ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À ·¨È†¶¿ œ½§¶¿å ¨È¶ üÚÐ ¡µ¨»œ¶§·, Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ ¡É ÔÆ¿¸¡µ£™ºþ¶ þȧ¶Ô¶¿¿ ¤¸§¶œ¶ ªº·ïê ¬µéÃœº ¬Å¶ïþý 338 §¶¿ü¿Ô¶À ·¨È†¶¿. †·þºº Õþ¶¿¶¿›§· Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿þº ºëÔº¿þ¶¨ý ±Ë¬¼ü§ý Í™ý ¬Å¶ïþý 255 (1) ºë§†¶ Ôº™¶¿†¶¨ úȧ¿¶¿¿˜ ü§ººþ¶†º.

Ô¶¿¿†·â§¿¿ §¿Æ¿¿¶Ñ ü¸Ô½¿þ¶¿ ¡µœ¶ëÔ¶¿¿¨¿ œ¶¶ï›Ô¶¿¿ §¶†¶¿â úȧ¿¶¿™¶ÔÊ¿þ¶†º.

ÔÆ¿¿†¶˜» œ¶§¶¶œº þ·ê§¿¶¿Ô¶¿¸§ºà, ª½ë·¶¿®¶§