Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav

1C.C No. 302 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

METPALLY.

PRESENT:- SRI AJAY KUMAR JADHAV,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

METPALLY.

Tuesday, on this the 12th day of October 2021

CC. NO. 302 OF 2021

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Mallapur P.S. (Crime No. 115 of 2021 ) ….Complainant.

And

A-1: Balaji Nivruti Gayakwad S/o Nivruti Gayakwad, 21 years, R/o Chikli V/o Kinwat Taluka of Nanded district, Maharashtra state. A-2: Nunavath Bheemraj S/o Mangya Nayak, 36 years, R/o Sirpur village, now at Metpalli town and mandal.

….Accused.

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri. N.Rajender, Advocate for the accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mallapur P.S., filed Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03-06-2021 at about 19.30 hrs the complainant State Police through G.Raju Nayak, S.I of Police, P.S Mallapur along with PC’s 640, 2403 while conducting village patrolling and when they reached at the outskirts of Valgonda village at about 20.00 hrs they found one without number plate

Mahindra Yuvo Company Tractor vide Chassis No.MBNSF AVTEMZK01031 and

Engine No.ZMK5FBF3587 loaded with sand, immediately the S.I of Police stopped the above said vehicle and apprehended the accused No.1. Immediately secured the presence of two mediators and conducted confessional and seizure panchanama in which the accused No.1 confessed that he is the driver of the above said tractor and as per the instruction of his tractor owner/accused No.1 he went to Godavari river at the outskirts of

Valgonda village and committed theft of sand and illegally transporting and selling it to needy people on high rates.

2C.C No. 302 of 2021

Later the Lw.5/G.Raju Nayak, S.I of Police, Mallapur along with the A-1 along with seizure property was brought to Police Station at 21.30 hrs and registered a sue motto case vide Cr.No. 115/2021, U/s. 379 of I.P.C and Sec.21 (1) of Mines and Minerals

Act and issued issued F.I.R and took up the investigation and after completion of entire investigation Lw.5 filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act against the accused persons.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to accused as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sections 188 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals

Act were framed, contents was read over and explained to them, to which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

6. During the course of the trial, prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW-4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P-4 and no material objects were marked. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After closer of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act beyond all reasonable doubt?” 3C.C No. 302 of 2021

10.In the present case the prosecution to prove its case should prove that on 03.06.2021 at about 20.00 hours on the instruction of accused No.2, the accused No.1 went to Godavari river at the outskirts of Valgonda village and illegally transporting the sand without having any valid license or permit, and they also violated the orders promulgated by a public servant lawfullly empowered to promulgate such order in view of spreading of corona virus (Covid-19) in Telangana State and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable U/s.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and

Minerals Act.

The prosecution to prove its case have examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked

Ex P-1 to Ex P-4. Pws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for seizure and confession panchanama, Pw.3 is the Police constable and assisted the Investigation Officer and Pw.4 is the Investigation Officer who filed the charge sheet.

9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable U/s.379 of

IPC, the prosecution has to establish two essential ingredients i.e. the Government is the owner or possessor of the stolen property i.e, sand and the said sand should be stolen property. The accused with dishonest intention took the sand without knowledge of the owner of the sand. In order to prove the ownership of the sand, which is the stolen property, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of the Pws.1 to 4. Coming to the evidence of the Pws. 3 and 4, they categorically deposed that on 03-06-2021 they conducting village patrolling and they noticed a tractor with sand and the accused No.1 confessed that on the instruction of accused No.2 he illegally transporting the sand and

Pw.4 secured the presence of the Pws.1 and 2 seized the tractor under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, they went to the police station along with seized property.

Thereafter Pw.4 registered a suo-motto case and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

10.In a case decision reported in GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3395), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a question 4C.C No. 302 of 2021 whether the prosecution case has to be doubted if all the witnesses are from police department. While referring to the previous case on the subject, it is categorically held in the said decision at Para Nos. 25 and 26.

11.In GURUJALA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF A.P. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 12 A.P. the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has categorically held that when a Police Officer

who detected the offence and arrested the accused, gave a report which was registered as FIR and the same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, any conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained.

12.In a case judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between VINOD

KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, DATE OF DECISION: 21 January 2015

Citation: 2015 Law suit (SC) 53, in para Nos.16 to 18 as follows: Para No.16. Learned senior counsel would contend, (solely on the basis of evidence of recovery, a conviction is not sustainable and in the obtaining factual matrix, the presumption under section 20 of the Act would not be attracted. To substantiate the said proposition, strengthen has been drawn from C.M. Girish Babu V.C.B.I., Cochin, 2009 3 SCC 779 and Benarsi Das V. State of Haryana, 2010 4 SCC 450.)

Para No.17. The last plank of submission of Mr. Jain is that in the instant case, the prosecution was launched by Narinder Pal Kaushal, PW8, who has investigated into the case and therefore, the concept of fair investigation, has been totally marred as a consequence of which, the trial is vitiated. Learned senior counsel would contend that a person who is a part of the trap party is an interested witness and he would be enthusiastic to see that the trap is sustained in every manner and in such a situation, it is per se an unfair and blased investigation that frustrates the essential principle inhered under Article 21 of the constitution and eventually the trial.

Para No.18. Mr. Madhukar, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, per contra, would contend that the view expressed by the learned trial judge and the High Court cannot be found fault with, for a conviction under the Act can be based on the evidence of trap witnesses, if they are trustworthy and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied and in the case at hand, the High Court on x-ray of the evidence has so recorded. It is urged by him that neither the learned trial judge nor the High Court has fallen into error by applying the principle of presumption as engrafted under section of the Act. It is canvassed by Mr. Madhukar that the evidence of the hostile witnesses can be placed reliance upon by the prosecution and in the obtaining factual matrix, the testimony of PW7, one of the shadow witnesses, renders immense assistance for establishing the case of the prosecution. He has with great pains, taken us through the evidence to substantiate the stand that the conviction recorded against the appellant is totally defensible.

13.It is the case of the accused that the police filed a false charge sheet against them for the statistical purpose and they were innocent persons. It is further contention of the accused that the police conducted panchanama and recorded the seizure panchanama in the police station itself, therefore, the independent panch witnesses did not support the 5C.C No. 302 of 2021 case of the prosecution in any manner. Therefore the accused is implicated in a false case and they are entitled for acquittal.

14. Now, in the light of the above parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and High Court of A.P, the present factual matrix now requires to be analyzed to ascertain whether the testimony of the Pws.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama. The Pws. 3 and 4 are police witnesses. In the cross- examination of Pws.1 and 2 the learned A.P.P nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. In the absence of any independent corroboration is cogent, convincing, credit worthy and reliable. Interestingly, according to the prosecution, the confession and seizure were conducted simultaneously and the confession of accused did not lead to discovery of any new fact. In this view of the matter, the seizure panchanamas under

Ex.P3 becomes inadmissible in evidence in view of the provisions U/Sec.25 and 26 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly the prosecution did not file any documentary evidence to show that the Government is the owner or possessor of the sand quarry from where the accused alleged to have excavated. Under those circumstances this court feels that the prosecution neither established nor proved the ownership of the stolen property.

Admittedly, no material is collected against the accused who alleged to have committed theft of the sand. Therefore, in the absence of any material adduced by the prosecution connecting to the accused to the offence alleged against the accused, this court is of considered view that the testimonies of Pws.1 to 4 are not cogent, convincing, credit- worthy and as a sequel, the accused are entitled for acquittal, the point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subjected to Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The seized tractor i.e., Mahindra Yuvo Company

Tractor vide Chassis No.MBNSF AVTEMZK01031 and Engine No.ZMK5FBF3587 which is already given to its owner for interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of October, 2021.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

METPALLI.

6C.C No. 302 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION; FOR THE DEFENCE PW.1: R.Raji Reddy None PW.2: M.Mallaiah PW.3: D.Ramesh PW.4: G.Raju Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW-1 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.2: Signature of PW-2 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.3: Confessional and seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P.4: First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE

NIL. M.O.’s MARKED NIL

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

METPALLI.

1C.C No.301 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT METPALLY

PRESENT: SRI. AJAY KUMAR JADHAV.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

METPALLI.

Monday, on this the 11th day of October, 2021

CALENDAR CASE NO. 301 OF 2021

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Mallapur P.S. (Crime No. 111 of 2021).

….Complainant.

And

Pothuganti Gangadhar S/o Ellaiah, 52 years, R/o Gorrepalli village.

….Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri Eleti Ramreddy, Advocate for the accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mallapur P.S., fled the Charge Sheet against accused for the ofences under Section, 188 of IPC, and Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act in Crime No. 111 of 2021 with the following allegations:

The brief facts of the case are that on 23-05-2020 at 2100 hrs the complainant along with PC-1601, PC-337 conducting patrolling duty in

Gorreplalli village, on reliable information about illegal possession of liquor and selling it, on that they went there and noticed that the accused was illegally possessing of Imperial Blue Whisky (Full) 750 ML bottle (01),

Imperial Blue Whisky (half) 350 ML bottles (04), Imperial Blue Whisky (Quarter) 180 ML bottles (07), Imperial Blue Whisky 90 ML bottles (05), Royal

Stag Whisky (half) 350 ML bottles (04), Royal Stag Whisky (Quarter) 180 ML bottles (03), MC Dowels Whisky (Full) 750 ML bottles (02), MC Dowels Whisky 2C.C No.301 of 2021 (half) 350 ML bottles (3), MC Dowels Whisky (Quarter) 180 ML bottles (07),

Blenders Pride Whisky (Quarter) 180 ML bottles (3), Good day Whisky (quarter) 180 ML bottles (27), King Fisher Light Beer Bottle (14), King Fisher

Strong Beer Bottle (08) worth of Rs.13,700/-. and selling the same for huge rates and disobeyed the instructions promulgated by the State Government

Lockdown and cerfew in view of efect and spreading of corona virus (covid- 19). Thereafter, the police party apprehended the accused and immediately got secured the presence of two mediators and seized the above said liquor under a cover of confessional recovery panchanama before the mediators, hence he violated the orders promulgated by a public servant lawfuly empowered to promulgate such order in view of spreading of corona virus (Covid-19) in Telangana State. Later Lw.5/G.Raju Nayak, SI of Police,

Mallapur seized property alongwith the accused brought to P.S at 21.30 hrs and registered a Sue-motto case in Cr.No.111/2021, U/s.188 of IPC, and Sec.

34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and issued F.I.R and after completion of entire investigation he fled charge sheet against accused.

2.This case was taken on fle against accused for the ofences U/s.188 of

IPC, and Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

3.On appearance of accused, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the ofences under Sections 188 of IPC, and Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed, contents was read over and explained to him, to which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

5.To prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.5 and no material objects were marked.

3C.C No.301 of 2021

6.Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he denied as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Point for determination: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the ofences U/s.188 of IPC, and Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT

The prosecution to prove its case must prove that on 23-05-2021 at 2100 hrs at Gorrepalli village, in which the accused possessing the liquor and illegally selling the same on higher prices without having any permission, immediately the Sub Inspector of Police seized the above said liquor bottles

W/Rs.13,700/- under a cover of panchanama before two mediators, hence he violated the orders promulgated by a public servant lawfullly empowered to promulgate such order in view of spreading of corona virus (Covid-19) in

Telangana State and thereby the accused has committed the ofence punishable U/s.188 of IPC, and Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

10. Prosecution to prove its case have examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex P-1 to Ex P-5. Pws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for seizure and confession panchanama, Pw.3 is the Police constable and assisted the

Investigation Ofcer and Pw.4 is the Investigation Ofcer who fled the charge sheet.

On careful scrutiny of entire material available on record, the panch witnesses for recovery Pws.1 and 2 have not supported the case of prosecution and turned as hostile and thereby the recovery itself is not 4C.C No.301 of 2021 proved. The Police ofcials i.e. Pws. 3 and 4 deposed about the manner of investigation done by him into the case. The testimonies of Pws.3 and 4 are no way helpful to the case of prosecution in the absence of any independent and corroborative evidence. Though the learned A.P.P., cross examined the

Pws.1 and 2 with the permission of this court nothing of substance elicited from him to shake the case of the prosecution. It is not that the court will not consider the evidence of police witness but when none of the independent witnesses to the prosecution did not support the evidence of police witnesses then this court is afraid to believe the evidence of police witnesses. Basing on the evidence of Pws.-1 to PW-4, this Court is inclined to come to the conclusion that Prosecution miserably failed to prove the confession-cum- recovery of seized property from the possession of accused. As the recovery of seized property is not proved by the Prosecution and also due to non- examination of independent witnesses, this Court opines that identity of accused is not established by the Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt enabling accused liable for acquittal and the point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofences under

Section 188 of IPC, and Sec. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (l) of Cr.P.C, and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRS CLASS,

METPALLI.

5C.C No.301 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE PW.1 B.Raji Reddy- None – PW.2 M.Mohana Chary PW.3 A.Devender PW.4 G.Raju Nayak

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 Signature of Pw.1 on confessional seizure panchanama Ex.P.2 Signature of Pw.2 on confessional seizure panchanama Ex.P.3 Confession and seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P.4. First Information Report Ex.P.5. FSL Report.

FOR THE DEFENCE: Nil. M.Os MARKED -NIL-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

METPALLI.

TSKA150002802019

Presented on : 27-03-2019 Registered on : 27-03-2019 Decided on : 27-03-2019 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge

AT KORATLA ,KARIMNAGAR

CC/59/2019

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): The State through SHO, PS Korutla R/by Raju Naik Through Police Station Officer Korutla 38 , SHO, PS Korutla

KORATLA KARIMNAGAR

The State through SHO, PS Korutla R/by Raju Naik VERSUS

Sudagone Srinivas Goud Age: 25 Occupation : Teachers colony of Adilabad. 2:Sudagone Anasurya Age: 62 Occupation : 3:Sudagone Hanmanth Age: 66 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: B. Narsaiah, Advocate for appearing for Sudagone Srinivas Goud Advocate ,

Offence punishable under : 420 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 3,4 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 ALONG WITH RULES AND

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IPC &

EVIDENCE AND CRPC RELA,

ORDER

Dt:27-03-2019

Both parties present. They filed joint memo praying to refer the case to Lok Adalath. Case is accordingly referred to Lok Adalath. Both parties present. Police identified the parties. Both parties reported compromised in Lok Adalath. Hence accused are acquitted U/s 320(8) Cr.P.C for the offence U/s 420 IPC.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C

KORATLA KARIMNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

KORUTLA

C.C. No. 32 of 2017 Between:

Vadlakonda Narsaiah

...Complainant

AND

Thummala Swamy

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

:: O R D E R :: 

Dt:19­03­2019:

Accused present. Copies furnished to the accused and he is examined

U/s 251 Cr.P.C explaining the allegation for the offence U/s 338 IPC for which he pleaded guilty voluntarily. Hence accused is found guilty for the offence U/s 338 IPC and accused is convicted U/s 252 Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/­ in default to suffer SI for a period of one week. Total fine is Rs.1000/­.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: METPALLY

Present: Smt P. Padmavathi, Junior Civil Judge,

METPALLY .

Disposal Date: 11-10-2021

CC/361/2019

Between:-

Panjala Srinivas Address: Occu.Business,R/o H.No.3-27,Yousufnagar v/o Korutla mandal,Jagtial district.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Bannai Anantha Srinivas Address: Occu.Business,R/o H.No.5-6-98/1,Budwarpet,Nirmal town.

… Defendent/Respondent

ORDER

The case is suemoto advanced from 12-11-2021 to 11-10-2021 i.e., today.

Both parties are present, terms of compromise memo memo filed before the Lok Adalath, compromise is recorded, hence the accused is acquitted U/sec. 320(8) Cr.P.c. for the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act.

Accordingly this case is disposed off in Lok Adalath.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge

METPALLY