A. Thousheed Hussain, Excise Court

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:- Sri A. Thousheed Hussain, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu.

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, the 27 th Day of February, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.44/2013

Between :-

State Represented by the Inspector of Police,

I Town P.S., Anantapur. ... Complainant

AND

J. Sanjeeva Rayudu, age 30 years, S/o. Chinna Chendrayudu, D.No.14/76, Kamala Nagar, Anantapur Town, Owner of Balaji Movie Land DVD Point, D.No.14/163, Kamala Nagar, Anantapur. … Accused.

This case coming on 23-02-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri A.V. Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Secs.292, 293

I.P.C and U/Sec.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copyright Act in

Cr.No.45/2010.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 04.02.2010 at 6:00 PM on information LW.4 M.V. Ramana, S.I of Police, I

Town P.S., Anantapur and his staff raided the accused DVD Shop i.e., Balaji

Movi Land D.No.14/163 at Kamala Nagar, Anantapur Town and found the accused was illegally possessed, displaying, selling, preparing and circulating

DVD’s of various recent released films and blue film CD’s and selling to the public and youth without requirements as provided in the Copy Right Act,

LW.4 interrogated the accused. During the course of interrogation the 2 accused confessed and admitted to have committed the offence and he arrested the accused after informing the grounds of his arrest and seized 329 CD/DVD’s of the recent released films, blue film CD’s and 3 CPU’s from the possession of the accused under the cover of a mahazar in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.1 Gopal, LW.2 P.C. Obulaiah. Basing on the mahazar,

LW.4 M.V. Ramana, S.I of Police, I Town P.S., Anantapur registered a case in Cr.No.45/2010 U/S.51 r/w.63, 52(A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act and

Secs.292, 293 IPC and investigated into the case. Subsequently the accused was sent for remand. After completion of investigation, LW.6 K.V. Raghava

Reddy, Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Anantapur, filed charge sheet in this case.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offence Secs.292, 293 I.P.C and U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and numbered as C.C.86/2012. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge, Anantapurmu in Order Dis No.6789 dt.30.9.2013 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C 44/2013.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required Under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 and a charge

Secs.292, 293 I.P.C and U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right

Act, 1957 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Mos.1 and 2. PW.1 P. Gopal and PW.2 P.C.

Obulaiah are the mahazardars to the arrest of the accused and seizure of 3

MOs.1 and 2. PW.3 M.V. Ramana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur I Town

P.S, who registered the case against the accused, seized Mos.1 and 2. PW.4

K. Rajeswara Reddy, Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Anantapur, who investigated into the case and sent the accused for remand. Ex.P1 is the

Signature of PW.1 on the arrest and seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW.2 on the arrest and seizure mahazarnama, Ex.P3 is the

Mahazarnama, Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. MO.1 is 329 C.Ds and

DVD’s. MO.2 is 3 CPUs.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. He further stated that he has no more to say and he do not have any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments. Perused the written arguments.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under Secs. 292, 293 I.P.C and U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 beyond all reasonable doubt? ”

10. P O I N T :- PWs.1 and 2 namely P. Gopal and P.C. Obulaiah, the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution. They deposed in their evidence that in the year 2010 on one day they went to I Town P.S

Anantapur on their personal work. On the request of the police they attested on the said papers without reading its contents. The signature in mahazar confronted to them and they admitted the same to be that of their signatures and the same is marked as Exs.P1 and P2. Except that they do not know anything about the fact of the case and they never acted as mediators and they cannot identify the accused in this case even if shown to 4 them. Thus the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

11. PW.3 M.V. Ramana, the then S.I of Police, I Town P.S.,

Anantapur deposed that on 4.2.2010 as per the instructions of his DSP, he along with mediators i.e., PWs.1 and 2 and other staff proceeded to Balaji

Movie Land, Kamala Nagar and reached there at 5:50 PM, there they found a person with box containing blue film CD’s and DVD’s, on suspension they interrogated him in the presence of mediators. On interrogation, he revealed his identity particulars as accused and he used to prepare pirated CDS and

DVDs of those movies and used to sell those CDs and DVDs. The accused further revealed that CD’s are available at Bangalore market and the accused purchased those CD’s at Bangaore and he sells them in the shop.

He seized 329 CD’s and DVD’s of recent films and Blue films and 3 CPU’s from the possession of accused under cover of Ex.P3 mahazar. MO.1 is 329

CD’s and DVD’s, and Blue films CDs. MO.2 is 3 CPU’s and there after he arrested the accused and he registered a case in Cr.No.45/2010 U/S.51 r/w.63, 52-A (2) r/w.68-A of Copy Right Act and Secs.292 and 293 of IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR. There-after he handed over this case to LW.5

K.Rajeswara Reddy, Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu.

12. PW.4 K. Rajeswar Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, I Town

P.S, Ananthapuramu deposed that on 4.2.2010, PW.3 arrested the accused and seized incriminating material from the possession of accused under cover of Ex.P3 panchanama and he registered a case in Cr.No.45/2010

U/S.63, 52(A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act and U/S.292, 293 IPC and issued FIR and he took up investigation. He interrogated the accused and verified the investigation done by PW.3 and found it on correct lines and he forwarded the accused to the court for remand. After completion of 5 investigation his successor Sri K.V. Raghava Reddy (LW.6) filed charge sheet in this case.

13. It is evident from the evidence of PW.3 that he secured the mediators from Rani Nagar and Abarak Street, Anantapur. The Rani Nagar and Abarak street situated towards eastern side of police station at a distance of 3 Kilometers. The scene of offence is situated towards western side approximately to the distance of 4 kilometers. The scene of offence is situated in middle of the police station. PW.3 admitted in his evidence that the Government Offices, residential houses and banks is located surrounding the scene of offence. He did not enquire the owner of the building so also the owner of the shop. The box in which CDs were place is cartoon box. He did not seize the box and he did not affix any lables on the property as well as no packing to the property seized and the property does not contained the signature of mediators and the accused. He did not seize the monitors of computers and he did not enquire the neighbours as to the owners of the shop. As per Section 100 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure required the presence of local residence at that locality to be the mediators, but in this case mediators secured are other than the scene of offence which is fatal to the case of prosecution. In the above circumstances, in the absence of supporting evidence of mediators, the evidence of PW.3 remained doubtful.

Moreover, the alleged confession made by the accused before PW.3 in the presence of mediators is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence.

14. At this juncture it is relevant to note a decision made in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.).

Between

Botcha Raju

Vs.

State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle.

6 “It was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.”

15. In the above said circumstances and in the light of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused charged under Secs.292, 293 I.P.C and

U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and benefit of doubt is given to him as the said offences are not proved against the accused.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs 292, 293 I.P.C and U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and he is accordingly acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 CD’s and DVD’s shall be destroyed, after appeal time. MO.2 Three CPU’s shall be confiscated to the state, after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27 th day of February, 2018.

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 P. Gopal (Mahazardar to the -- NONE arrest of the accused and seizure of property).

PW-2 P.C. Obulaiah (Mahazardar to the arrest of the accused and seizure of property).

7

PW-3 M.V. Ramana (Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Anantapur, who registered the case against the accused, seized Mos.1 and 2).

PW-4 4 K. Rajeswara Reddy, (Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Anantapur, who investigated into the case and sent the accused for remand).

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Signature of PW.1 on -- NIL the arrest and seizure mahazarnama.

Ex.P-2 Signature of PW.2 on the arrest and seizure mahazarnama.

Ex.P-3 Mahazarnama.

Ex.P-4 First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO.1: 329 C.Ds and DVD’s. MO.2: CPU’s Three (3).

(FAC) JFCM.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Commence- Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial '04.01.2010 '04.01.2010 '05.02.2010 '05.02.2010 '26.06.2014 12.04.2017 '27.02.2018

Judgment in C.C.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Ananthapuramu P.S.

Crime No: 45/2010

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused 30 Chinna Kamala J. Sanjeeva Rayudu Hindu Business Anantapur. Yrs. Chendrayudu Nagar

Offence: U/Secs 292, 293 I.P.C and U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy Right Act, 1957.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs 292, 293 I.P.C and U/S.51 r/w.63, 52 (A) (2) r/w.68 (A) of Copy

Right Act, 1957 and he is accordingly acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 CD’s and DVD’s shall be destroyed, after appeal time. MO.2 Three CPU’s shall be confiscated to the state, after appeal time.

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:- Sri A. Thousheed Hussain, Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu.

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court,

Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, the 23 rd Day of January, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.82/2015

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Putlur Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Chinthamanu Rangaswamy S/o. Late Ramaiah, Age 50 years, Ambedkar Nagar, Tadipatri Town, Anantapur District. … Accused .

This case coming on 19-01-2018 for final hearing

before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for Prosecution and of Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Putlur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Ss.171-E and 188 of IPC in Crime No.61/2014.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 05.05.2014 at 5:00 PM at S.C. Colony, Yellutla Village, Putlur

Mandal, the accused was found canvassing on behalf of J.C. Diwakar

Reddy, contesting candidate for MPs and found distributing cash of

Rs.500/- to each voter to cast their vote in favour of contesting candidate J.C. Diwakar Reddy for M.P on behalf of Telugu Desam

Party. On credible information, LW.3 A. Obulesu, Head Constable,

Putlur P.S arrested the accused, with the assistance of PW.1

E.Sreenivasulu and LW.2 G. Venkatesh, Police Constables and seized an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the possession of accused under cover of a Police Proceedings. Basing on the Police Proceedings, PW.2 registered a case in Cr.No.61/2014 under Secs.171-E and 188 of

I.P.C and investigated into the case and on the same day, he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. LW.4 M. Pradeep

Kumar, S.I of Police, Putlur P.S verified the investigation done by

PW.2 and found it on correct lines and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the Judl. Magistrate of I class, Tadipatri for the offences

U/Secs.171-E and 188 of IPC and numbered as C.C.242/2014.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case records was furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in ROC

No.1848/E1/2014 dt.25.02.2015 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C.82/2015.

6. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offences U/Secs 171-E and 188 of

I.P.C was read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 and P2 and MO.1. PW.1

E.Sreenivasulu, Police Constable and PW.2 A. Obulesu, Head

Constable, Putlur P.S, who arrested the accused, registered the case and sent the accused for remand. Ex.P1 is the Police Proceedings.

Ex.P2 is the First Information Report. MO.1 FDR for Rs.5,000/-.

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, and he denied the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. He further stated that he does not have any defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard both sides.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/Secs.171-E and 188 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt? ” 11. P O I N T :- PW-1 E. Sreenivasulu, Police Constable deposed in their evidence that on 5.5.2014 at about 5:00 PM himself along with his staff went to Yellutla Village near S.C Colony when they reached the above said place there they noticed one person canvassing in view of elections and on seeing them the said persons tried to skulk away from that place, they caught hold the said person and on enquiry the accused voluntarily disclosed that he was the follower of TDP party and canvassing for MP contesting party by distributing Rs.500/- to each person to cast their votes in favour of

TDP contesting candidate. On search by LW.3 A. Obulesu, Head

Constable found cash of Rs.5,000/- from the possession of accused and there were no mediators at that time and LW.3 arrested the accused and seized cash under cover of a police proceedings and brought the accused to Putlur P.S

12. PW.2 A. Obulesu, the then Head Constable, Putlur P.S deposed that on 5.5.2014 at about 5:00 PM on credible information himself, PW.1 along with his staff went to Yellutla Village, near SC

Colony when they reached the above said place there they noticed one person canvassing in view of elections, on seeing them the said person tried to skulk away from that place, PW.1 and LW.2 caught hold the said person produced before him. On enquiry the said person revealed his name and particulars as that of accused in this case and he voluntarily stated that he was the follower of TDP Party and was canvassing for MP contesting party by distributing Rs.500/- to each person to cast their votes in favour of TDP contesting candidate. On search by him found cash of Rs.5000/- from the possession of the accused as there were no mediators at that time and he arrested the accused and seized cash under cover of police proceedings which is marked as Ex.P1 and brought the accused to putlur P.S at 7:00 PM.

Basing on the police proceedings, he registered the case as a case in

Cr.No.61/2014 U/S.177 (E) and 188 of IPC and submitted FIR to all concerned officers. FIR is marked as Ex.P2. After completing of all formalities and he informed the blood relatives about the arrest of accused and on the next day he forwarded to court for judicial remand along with property form. In the month of November, 2016 the seized cash which is kept in Andhra Bank as FDR (which is marked as MO.1) due to demonetization and after verifying his investigation, LW.4 M.Pradeep Kumar, S.I of Police, Putlur P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

13. PW.1 stated in his cross-examination that it is true

Yellutla Village is a big village and it is faction area and as it is a faction area they will stay in the village at night times. They have not tried to catch the persons who tried to receive amount from the accused. PW.2 stated in his cross-examination that he does not know whether they have filed a case U/S.177 (E) and 188 IPC with orders of Election Officer. They did not seize the pamphlets with the accused. It is true that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they did not secure the mediators at scene of offence. Witness volunteers that no one came forward to act as mediators. Generally, if any person holds Rs.5,000/- is not a crime.

14. In this case the police officials have not tried to secure the mediators though the public were available at the place of arrest and seizure. It is evident from the admission of PW.2 that he did not seize the pamphlets with the accused and the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not secure the mediators at scene of offence.

The prosecution has not explained as to why the police have not attempted to secure the mediators though the scene of offence is a busy locality and he has not examined any voters, to whom the accused was distributing amount. From the above admissions of

PW.1 and PW.2 it is clear that the absence of supporting evidence of mediators, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remained doubtful.

15. At this juncture it is relevant to note a decision made in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.)

Between

Botcha Raju

Vs.

State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle.

It was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

16. For the above discussion, this Court feels that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 171-E and 188 IPC.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 171-E and 188 of I.P.C and he is acquitted

U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. MO.1, shall be confiscated to the State, after appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed, after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 rd day of January, 2018.

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate

Spl. Mobile Court,

Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 E.Sreenivasulu, -- NONE (Police Constable). PW-2 A. Obulesu, (Head Constable, Putlur P.S, who arrested the accused, registered the case and sent the accused for remand.)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Police Proceedings. -- NIL Ex.P-2 First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO.1 FDR for Rs.5,000/-.

Sd/- A.T.H.

JFCM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Commence- Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial '05.05.2014 '05.05.2014 '06.05.2014 '06.05.2014 18.01.2018 '18.01.2018 23.01.2018

Judgment in C.C.No. 82 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Putlur P.S.

Crime No: 61/2014

Father's

Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal

Name Accused

Ambed- Chinthamanu Late 50 Yrs. Hindu kar Tadipatri Tadipatri Town Rangaswamy Ramaiah Nagar

Offence: U/Secs. 171-E and 188 I.P.C.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 171-E and 188 of I.P.C and he is acquitted

U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. MO.1, shall be confiscated to the State, after appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed, after appeal time.

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:- Sri A. Thousheed Hussain, Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu.

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court,

Ananthapuramu.

Thursdays the 8 th Day of February, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.280/2013

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Anantapur Traffic P.S. ... Complainant

AND

Chakala Sreenivasulu, age 49 years, S/o. Yellappa, APSRTC Bus Driver vide Staff No.575196, Anantapur Depot, R/o. Somaladoddi Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri T. Praveen, Sri S.Md. Hafizullah, Advocates for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Anantapur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A I.P.C and

Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act in Crime No.75/2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is an unknown male person, lived by begging, he is a physically handicapped (not having two foots) there is no person to look after him, he is taking shelter at

APSRTC Bus stand platform during the nights again morning he left from the platform by crossing the road by creeping with the help of his hands for begging. As usual on 16.11.2012 at about 7:15 AM while the deceased was crossing road after getting down from the platform, the accused being the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed 2 against the deceased, as a result the deceased came under the rear left tyre of the bus and sustained bleeding head injuries and died on the spot. On the report of LW.1 C. Ramakrishna, LW.12 B.V. Nagamuneppa, Head Constable,

Traffic P.S Anantapur, registered a case in Cr.No.75/2012 for the offence under Sec.304-A I.P.C and investigated into the case. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Mortuary Room, Government General

Hospital, Anantapur on 16.11.2012 from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM and handed over the dead body for post mortem examination. As the deceased is unknown hence after post mortem examination the deceased was handed over to Anantapur Municipal Corporation authorities for his last rites by taking proper acknowledgment. During the course of investigation, LW.13

R.Ramaraju, Inspector of Police, arrested the accused on 20.11.2012 at 10:30 AM and released him on bail by taking two sureties. LW.10 Dr.

B.Venkateswarlu, M.D Professor, Forensic Medicine Department. Government

Medical College, Anantapur, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued post mortem examination report and opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained mainly Intra Cranial hemorrhage, raptures of spleen and Liver.

LW.11 D. Venkateswarlu, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Anantapur who inspected the crime vehicle, issued accident report and opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Further the crime vehicle is not covered with any Insurance, hence the Section 196 r/w.146 of

M.V Act was added to Sec.304-A IPC. After completion of investigation,

LW.13 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/S.304-A I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offence U/Sec. 304-A

I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act and numbered as CC.1229/2012. As 3 per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge, Anantapurmu in

Order Dis No.6789 dt.30-9-2012 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C 280/2013.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined Under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. PW.2 C. Ramakrishna is the defacto complainant.

PW.1 M. Siva Reddy and PW.3 K.C. Naidu, eye witnesses to the accident.

Ex.P2 is Signature of PW.2 on the complaint.Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P4 are

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 to 3 respectively.

7. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, the examination of the accused Under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now, the point arose for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 304-A I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act

beyond all reasonable doubt ? ” 10. P O I N T :-

PW.1 M. Siva Reddy deposed that he does not know about the case and he has not witnessed any incident at RTC bus stand area and he was not examined by the police. PW.2 C. Ramakrishna deposed that he does know the accused present in the court and he does not know PW.1, LW.3 4

B.Venkataramana, LW.4 K.C. Naidu, LW.5 M. subbarayudu and LW.6

D.N.Rajan and he does not know anything about this case. On 16.11.2012, while he was in the APSRTC Bus Stand, Anantapur, he came to know that an accident took place and except that he does not know anything about the accident. He did not witness any accident. He never preferred any complaint to the police about the accident. The witness identified his signature on the complaint. Signature is marked as Ex.P-2. Police obtained his signatures on some papers, but he does not know the contents mentioned therein. He was not examined by the police. PW.3 K.C. Naidu deposed that he is resident of Peddavadaguru Village. He knew the accused, who is driver of APSRTC Bus and he does not know PWs.1, 2 and LW.3

B.Venkataramana and LW.5 M. Subbarayudu. He does not know anything about this case. He does not know that on 16.11.2012 at about 7:20 AM whether their bus met with any accident and he does not witness any accident on that day and he was not examined by the police.

11. PWs-1 to 3 did not speak anything incriminating against the accused and the prosecution treated them hostile and marked their Sec. 161

Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P-1, P-3 and P-4 respectively. However, the prosecution could not elicit anything from them in favour of its case.

Therefore, the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, there is no other evidence on record to find the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged.

12. Under the above circumstances, I feel that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused. The learned A.P.P after considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 felt that it is sheer wastage of time in examining remaining witnesses and she given up examining the remaining witnesses which move is acceptable. Hence accused deserves for acquittal.

5

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act, and he is accordingly acquitted Under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8 th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- A. Thousheed Hussain

(FAC) Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 M. Siva Reddy -- NONE (defacto complainant)

PW-2 C.Ramakrishna (eye witness).

PW-3 K.C. Naidu (eye witness).

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Section 161 Cr.P.C -- NIL statement of PW.1 dt.16.11.2012.

Ex.P-2 Signature of PW.2 on the complaint.

Ex.P-3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 dt.16.11.2012.

Ex.P-4 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 dt.16.11.2012.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

Sd/- A.T.H.

JFCM.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Commence Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report -ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial '16.11.2012 '16.11.2012 '-- '-- '17.02.2016 '06.02.2018 '08.02.2018

Judgment in C.C.No. 280 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapur Traffic P.S.

Crime No: 75/2012

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused

Driver Chakala 49 Somaladoddi Yellappa Hindu APSRTAnantapur. SreenivasuluYrs. C

Offence: U/Secs. 304-A I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A I.P.C and Sec.196 r/w.146 of M.V. Act, and he is accordingly acquitted Under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

7

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.p...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge

Case No. :CC/0000293/2014 Ms. Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited. Rep By it Vs Nadeem Ahmed

Date : 29-01-2018

Business: Sumoto advanced to this day this case is transferred to the court of Spl.Magistrate court, Dharmavaram at Ananthapuramu. As per the orders of the Honorable Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu in order Dis.No.282/2018 dt.12.01.2018. Nature of Disposal: TRANSFERRED Disposal Date: 29-01-2018 Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge 1 of 131/08/24, 12:40 pm

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.p...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge

Case No. :CC/0000293/2014 Ms. Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited. Rep By it Vs Nadeem Ahmed

Date : 29-01-2018

Business: Sumoto advanced to this day this case is transferred to the court of Spl.Magistrate court, Dharmavaram at Ananthapuramu. As per the orders of the Honorable Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu in order Dis.No.282/2018 dt.12.01.2018. Nature of Disposal: TRANSFERRED Disposal Date: 29-01-2018 Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge 1 of 131/08/24, 12:40 pm