Sri Azhar Hussain

1 C.C.No.266 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL.MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: Azhar Hussain Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 13th day of October, 2016

C.C. No. 266 of 2015

Between :

The State through, Inspector of Police, P.S Vemulawada (Cr.No.8 of 2015)

...Complainant

AND

A1.Vedira Chinna Devaiah Goud, s/o Chandraiah, 65 years, A2.Gaddameedi Mallesham Goud, s/o Lachaiah, 55 years, A3.Gaddameedi Venkatesham Goud, s/o Laxmirajam, 40 years, A4. Durgam @ Bhavupeta Lalaiah Goud, s/o Rajaiah, 55 years, A5.Konda Mallesham Goud, s/o Venkaiah, 51 years, A6.Vedira Parsharamulu Goud, s/o Pedda Devaiah, 38 years, A7.Burra Parsharamulu Goud, s/o Sambaiah, 45 years, A8.Vedira Rajaiah Goud, s/o Chandraiah, 60 years, A9.Gaddameedi Devarajam Goud, s/o Muthaiah, 39 years, A10. Gummadi Mondaiah Goud, s/o Meenaiah, 46 years, A11. Gummadi Kishan Goud, s/o Shankaraiah, 27 years, A12. Gaddameedi Parsharamulu Goud, s/o Mallaiah, 42 years, A13. Vanga Mallesham Goud, s/o Chandraiah, 51 years, A14. Vedira Anjaiah Goud, s/o Laxmirajam, 48 years, A15. Chinthalakoti Venkateshm, s/o Devarajam, 40 years, All are belongs to Goud caste, r/o Konaipalli v/o Vemulawada Mandal

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 05.10.2016 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri E.Madhusudhan Rao, Counsel

for 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:

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

1.The Inspector of police, Vemulawada P.S has laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 15 for the offence punishable U/s.7(1)(b) of Protection of Civil Rights Act.

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

2 C.C.No.266 of 2015

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

The complainant viz., C.Yelliah Goud, is a resident of Konaipalli village and belong to Gouda caste. The accused No.1 to 15 also hail from Konaipalli and belong to Gouda caste. The complainant obtained license from

Prohibition and Excise Authority, vide License bearing No. 30/41/2014 for drawing and selling of toddy liquor. But A1 to A15 obstructed the complainant from drawing and selling of toddy liquor, on the ground that, he has no rights to draw or sell the toddy liquor, as he did not take membership from their caste society and demanded that they would allow him in to their caste only, if he deposits an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. In this regard, on the approach of the complainant, the caste elders conducted panchayaths thrice, but A1 to A15 did not heed and boycotted the complainant from their caste.

3.On receipt of complaint from the complainant, the Inspector of Police,

Vemulawada has registered it as a case in Cr.No.8 of 2015, U/s.7(1)(b) of

Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and took up investigation. During investigation, he recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses and collected copy of license of TFT from the complainant and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

4. The case was taken on file against the accused No.1 to 15 for the offence U/s.7(1)(b) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

3 C.C.No.266 of 2015

6.The accused were examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C, by stating the substance of accusations for the offence U/s.7(1)(b) of Protection of Civil

Rights Act, 1955. They denied the said accusations, pleaded not guilty of the said offence and claimed for trial.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 11 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the said accusations, and stated that the complainant has implicated them in this case, only to extract money.

9.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

10.The learned APP contended that the evidence of Pws.1 to 11 is cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other on material particulars and their evidence establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, they are liable for conviction for the offence U/s. 7(1)(b) of PCR Act.

11.On the other hand, the counsel for accused contended that except the interested testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are father and son respectively, and the evidence of Pws.3 to 8, who belong to other villages and henchmen of PW1, there is no evidence of any person of Konaipalli, where the alleged offence took place. He further contended that even the interested testimony

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

4 C.C.No.266 of 2015 of complainant and his witnesses is not cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other on material particulars and suffering from various infirmities, and basing on such evidence, no conviction can be recorded against the accused and therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted of the offence alleged against them.

12.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence U/s.7(1)(b) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?

POINT:

13.The accused are charged for the offence U/s.7(1)(b) of Protection of

Civil Rights Act, 1955, alleging that, inspite of having license issued by

Excise Department, the accused obstructed the complainant from drawing and selling toddy liquor, on the ground that he has no rights to draw or sell the toddy liquor, as he did not take membership from their caste society, and demanded him that they would allow him into their caste only, if he deposits Rs.15,00,000/-, and even they did not heed to the advise of caste elders and boycotted the complainant from their caste.

14.As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited five documents.

15.PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is son of PW1. Pws.3 to 8 are said to be the caste elders and eye witnesses to the incident. PW9 is the then S.I of

Police, Vemulawada PS. PW10 is a panch witness for crime details form.

PW11 is the Inspector of Police, Vemulawada PS and the Investigating

Officer.

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

5 C.C.No.266 of 2015

16.Ex.P1 is the complaint of PW1, on the basis of which the case was registered against the accused. Ex.P2 is the relevant portion in the 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P3 is the Attested copy of License. Ex.P4 is the

Crime details form. Ex.P5 is the First Information Report.

17.PW1 is the complainant and victim of alleged caste boycott by accused.

He deposes that he took TFT license from Excise Department in 2014, that thereafter, when he went to tap toddy trees, all the accused obstructed and took away the Tapping Instruments and kept the same with them, demanding him to pay Rs.15,00,000/-, to allow him to tap the trees. He further deposed that then he called Pws.3 to 8, who questioned the accused, but in vain, that later he approached the village Sarpanch for conducting panchayth, that panchayth was conducted twice, but the accused did not heed to their advises, upon which the deposited amount of Rs.3,000/- was returned by Sarpanch to them, that thereafter, all the accused made propaganda in the surrounding village including Konaipalli, that they boycotted him and his family members from their caste and caused humiliation, and hence, he filed Ex.P1 complaint.

18.PW2 is son of PW1. He deposes that, after obtaining license, when his father PW1 went to tap toddy trees, all the accused prevented him from tapping and took away Tapping Instruments, demanding to give

RS.14,00,000/-, that later, the accused called a meeting of Gouda community people and boycotted their family from their caste and did not allow their family to perform Bonalu and did not invite their family to marriage functions of Gouda Community, and hence, his father PW1 gave complaint to police.

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

6 C.C.No.266 of 2015

19.PW3 who is one of the caste elder and an eye witness to the incident, did not support the case of Pws.1 and 2 and turned hostile saying that he does not know anything about the facts of the case.

20.Pws.4 to 6 deposed that, in the month of November or December, 2014, when PW1 approached them and complained to them that his caste people in his village were not giving a share in the tapping of Sendi and

Toddy trees, they went to Kanaipalli and called the accused at Ellamma

Temple, that the accused came there, that they held panchayath, in which accused demanded PW1 to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to provide share, that they directed PW1 to pay Rs.2,10,000/-, but accused did not accept for it and hence, they went away from the said place.

21.PW7 and 8 are other caste elders. They deposed that, they and Pws.3 to 6 went to Konaipalli to conduct panchayath, in which accused demanded

Rs.3,00,000/-, that they directed the accused to receive Rs.2,20,000/-, but the accused did not agree for the same.

22.PW9 is the P&E S.I of Police. He deposed that two months after issuance of TFT license, he went to Konaipalli and called PW1 and other

Gouda community people and told them that license was issued in favour of

PW1, and they should allow him to Tap toddy tress, that all the Gouda people told him that they would sort out the issue among themselves.

23.PW10 is a panch for crime details form, who stated that the police

Vemulawada came to Koinapalli and made eqnuiry at the Gouda Sangam and obtained his signature on CDF.

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

7 C.C.No.266 of 2015

24.PW11 is the Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, who deposed about the investigation done by him.

25.As seen from the evidence of Pws.1 to 8, who are the material witnesses to the case of prosecution, their evidence is not cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other on material aspects. None of the witnesses in their evidence have given the specific date, day and month, on which PW1 went to tap the trees, on which, the accused allegedly prevented him from tapping trees and took away his Tapping Instruments.

26. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are father and son, is contradicting to each other with regard to material aspects. While PW1 says that, the accused demanded Rs.15,00,000/- to allow him to tap trees, PW2 says that the accused demanded Rs.14,00,000/- for the said purpose.

Further, PW1 says that he approached Pws.3 to 8 who belongs to other villages and conducted panchayath, but accused did not heed to their advises. However, in the entire evidence of PW2, he did not state anything about Pws.3 to 8 conducting any panchayath. PW3 one of the alleged caste elder, turned hostile saying that, he never participated in any such panchayath. Further PW1 says that later he approached the Sarpanch of village and deposited Rs.3,00,000/- for the panchayath, and the panchayths were held twice, but as the accused did not heed to their advise, the amount of Rs.3,000/- was returned to him. However, in the entire evidence of PW2 there is no whisper regarding the said fact.

27.Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not consistent with their earlier versions. For instance, PW1 says that all the accused made propaganda in the village and surrounding villages that they boycotted him

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

8 C.C.No.266 of 2015 and his family members, and caused humiliation. However, in his 161 Cr.P.C statement, he did not specifically stated so, which is a material omission.

That apart, PW1 in vague manner states, that the accused boycotted him from their caste. He did not give the specific manner, in which he was boycotted and the dates on which he was boycotted. Similar is the evidence of his son PW2. Though he says that the accused did allow their family to

Bonalu festival and to the marriage functions of Gouda community, he did not say the said material fact in his 161 Cr.P.C statement, which is a material omission. Further, in his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that in the year 2014, after PW1 giving complaint by his father PW1, the Gouda community people and some other villagers, celebrated Vinayaka Chavithi

Festival, and he participated in the said festival and had meals with all the people. In view of this categorical admission on the part of PW2, the version of prosecution that the accused boycotted PW1 and his family members from

Gouda caste, is falsified by the evidence of PW1 and 2 themselves.

28. As stated above, the evidence of alleged panchayath elders i.e., Pws.3 and 5 to 8 is also not convincing and satisfactory and contradictory with each other. For instance, Pws.3 to 6 say that the accused demanded

Rs.3,00,000/-, but they settled the matter at Rs.2,10,000/- for which the accused did not agree. However, the other panchayath elders Pws.7 and 8 give a different version and say that in the panchayath, they settled the matter at Rs.2,20,000/-, but the accused did not agree. Pws.3 and 5 to 8 further admitted that PW1 belong to Konaipalli and they belong to other villages, that the village Konaipalli comes under Vemulawada for which there is a separate caste sangam, which has authority to conduct panchayaths and they did not have authority to conduct panchayath in respect of disputes of

Gouda people of Konaipalli village. This admission on the part of Pws.3 and 5

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

9 C.C.No.266 of 2015 to 8 goes to show that they are supporters of PW1 and not speaking the truth.

29. Admittedly, Konaipalli village falls under the limits of Vemulawada.

The Investigating Officer PW11 and Pws.1, 2 and PW4 to 8 admitted that

Konaiplali falls in the limits of Vemulawada. Admittedly, the said village is having Gouda community people and other caste people. PW1 and PW2 and the Investigating Officer PW11 also admitted that whenever any dispute arises between Gouda community people or other community people, they approach the Sarpanch of village. In the instance case, as per the version of

PW1, the Sarpanch of the village and some other elders held panchayath twice. Therefore, the village Sarpanch and the said panchayath elders are the material witnesses. However, neither the Sarpanch nor any villager of

Konaipalli of either Gouda caste or other caste are examined by the prosecution. PW11, the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination, admitted that he has not examined the Sarpanch and other villagers of

Konaipalli, who are the best witnesses to speak about the true facts of the case. No reasons are assigned by the Investigating Officer, for non- examination of the above material witnesses. The Investigating Officer PW11 has not given any satisfactory reasons, for examining only Pws.3 and 4 to 8 who belong to other villages, which are far away from Konaipalli. This fact shows that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated into the case an under the influence of PW1, has registered the case against the accused without proper investigation. Thus, except the interest testimony of

Pws.1, 2 and their supporters Pws.4 to 8, which is also not convincing any satisfactory and suffering from various infirmities, there is no other believable evidence on record, to connect the accused to the alleged offence against them. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the prosecution

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

10 C.C.No.266 of 2015 has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence, with which they are charged and as such, they are entitled to be acquitted of the said offence.

30.In the result, the accused No.1 to 15 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.7(1)(b) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and they are acquitted of the said offence U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of October, 2016.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1Chinthalakoti Yellaiah (Complainant) PW2C.Ramesh (Son of PW1) PW3P.P.Komuraiah Goud (Caste elder) PW4M.Mallesham (Caste elder) PW5J.Brahmaiah Goud (Caste elder) PW6E.Ramanuja Goud (Caste elder) PW7P.Ramulu @ K.Rama Goud (Caste elder) PW8T.Srinivas Goud (Caste elder) PW9K.Laxman (P& E S.I of Police) PW10 D.Venkat Reddy (Panch for crime details form) PW11 T.Ramesh Babu (Inspector of Police & Investigating Officer)

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 is the complaint, marked through PW1 Ex.P2 is the relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3 is the Attested copy of Form T.S-I (License for the retail sale of Toddy) Ex.P4 is the Crime details form, marked through PW10 Ex.P5 is the First Information Report, marked through PW11

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

Dt: 13.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

1 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL.MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: Azhar Hussain Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 6th day of October, 2016

C.C. No. 193 of 2014 (Old C.C.No.1333 of 2014 on the file of I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Karimnagar)

Between :

Boora Rammohan, s/o Rajesham, Aged: 53 years, Occ. Business, r/o H.No.1-3-106, Padmashali Street, Karimnagar Town

...Complainant

AND

Chittimalla Prashanth, s/o Srinivas, Aged: 48 years, C/o Care Medical Store, H.No.7-2-229, Ponnam Complex, Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 27.09.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Prakash, Counsel for complainant and Sri V.Raghuraman, Counsel for 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:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.This is a complaint filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C by the complainant against the accused, for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, and to grant compensation U/s.357 Cr.P.C to the complainant.

2.The brief allegations in the complaint are as follows:

The complainant and accused are known to each other. Out of such acquaintance, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant on 04.03.2013, for his business needs, with a promise to repay the same, within three months, for which the accused executed a promissory

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

2 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014 note and receipt in favour of the complainant for the said amount, on the same day. After expiry of the said period of three months, the complainant requested the accused for repayment of the due amount several times, but the accused postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally issued a cheque bearing No.31569, dated 08.07.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/-, pertaining to his account in Karimnagar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,

Karimnagar Branch, in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the above legally enforceable debt. The complainant presented the said cheque with his Banker viz., Deccan Grameena Bank, Kaman Branch, Karimnagar, in his account, on the same day for realization. But the said cheque was returned un-paid to the complainant on 09.07.2013 along with a Return

Memo for “Insufficient Funds”. Within (30) days of the date of dishonour of cheque i.e., on 12.07.2013, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 12.07.2013 through his Advocate by registered post with acknowledgement due to the accused, calling upon him to repay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- due under the cheque, within (15) days from the date of receipt of such notice. The said notice was served on the accused on 13.07.2013, but he failed to make the payment within the stipulated time and did not give reply.

As such, the cause of action to file the complaint arose on 28.07.2013.

Hence, the complaint.

3. The case was originally taken on file by the learned Addl. JMFC,

Karimnagar against accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act in C.C.No.1333 of 2014. Later, the case was transfered to this Court, as per the proceedings of Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar for disposal according to law and on such transfer, it was

re-numbered as C.C.No.193 of 2014, on the file of this Court.

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

3 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C, by explaining the substance of the accusations for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. He denied the said accusations, pleaded not guilty of the said offence and claimed for trail.

6. During trial, in support of its case, the complainant has examined

Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

7.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses. He denied the same, and got examined himself as DW1 in his defence.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel

for accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the complainant has established the existence of a Legally Enforceable Debt of Rs.4,00,000/-?

2) Whether the cheque Ex.P2 was issued by the accused in favour of complainant towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt of Rs.4,00,000/-?

3) Whether the complainant has established the guilt of accused, beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act?

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

4 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014 POINT NOs.1 and 2:

10.Since the initial burden is on the complainant to establish his case, the complainant is examined himself as PW1. During his evidence, he deposed that out of acquaintance and friendship, the accused borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- from him with a promise to pay the same within (3) months, and executed a promissory note and receipt to that effect, in favour of the complainant, on the same day, that after expiry of (3) months, when he asked the accused for repayment of the amount, he postponed the matter, day by day on one pretext or the other, that on his insistence he issued

Ex.P2 Cheque bearing No.31569, dated 08.07.2013 pertaining to his account in Karimnagar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar Brnach, in his favour towards the discharge of said legally enforceable debt, that he presented the said cheque with his banker i.e., Deccan Grameena Bank,

Karimnagar Branch, for realization, on the same day, but it was returned upaid to him on 09.07.2013 along with a return memo for “Funds

Insufficient”, that within (30) days from the date of dishonour of the said cheque i.e., on 12.07.2013, he got issued a legal notice to the accused on 12.07.2013, through his Advocate by registered post with acknowledgement due, calling upon him to repay the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, covered under the said cheque, within (15) days from the date of receipt of notice, that the said notice was served on accused on 13.07.2013, but the accused had failed to make any payment within the grace time, or thereafter, and also did give any reply. During his evidence, he got marked the Promissory note, dt 04.03.2013, the Cheque bearing No.31569, dt 08.07.2013 for

Rs.4,00,000/-, the Cheque Return Memo, dt 09.07.2013, the Copy of legal notice, dt 12.07.2013 and Registered postal receipt, dt 12.07.2013 and

Postal acknowledgement, dt 13.07.2013 as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 respectively.

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

5 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014

11.The above evidence on PW1 on oath remained unchallenged, as there was no cross-examination of this witness on behalf of accused, and not even a suggestion is put to him, denying the case of the complainant.

12.In support of his case, the complainant got examined the Bank

Manager of Telangana Grameena Bank, Kaman Branch, Karimnagar, who testified that the complainant is having an Account with their branch at

Kaman Branch, that on 08.07.2013, he deposited the cheque bearing

No.31569, dt 08.07.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/-, that they forwarded the said cheque to their main Branch, at Karimnagar, for collection, that on the next day, their Branch received a memo from Co-operative Urban Bank,

Karimnagar stating that the cheque was dishonoured, due to insufficient funds, and in turn they gave the said memo to the complainant. The above evidence of PW2 on oath also remained un-controverted, as no cross- examination was done to this witnesses by the counsel for the accused.

Thus, the complainant by examining himself as PW1 and the Branch

Manager of Telangana Grameena Bank, Kaman Branch, Karimnagar as PW2, has established his case that the accused borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- and issued Ex.P2 Cheque towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt.

13.Now the burden is on the accused, to disprove the case of the complainant by rebuttal evidence. In support of his case, the accused examined himself as DW1. In his chief-examination, he deposed that, he has no acquaintance with the complainant, that he never borrowed any amount from him, much-less Rs.4,00,000/-, nor executed any pronote in his favour, and hence the question of issuing Ex.P2 Cheque does not arise. He further stated that the complainant got filed this false case against him, by forging his signature, and that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

6 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014 such huge amount. He further stated that, he did not receive any legal notice sent by the complainant and the signature on the acknowledgement card does not belong to him and a false complaint is filed against him by the complainant, to extract money from him. The accused has been cross- examined by the counsel for the complainant at length. During his cross- examination, he admitted that, he did not lodge any complaint to police in respect of loss of Ex.P2 cheque from his custody. He admitted that, one

Advocate Commissioner appointed by Court, came to execute NBW against him, but denied that he pushed him and managed to escape. He admitted that, he filed a petition U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C, for recall of NBW in the Court, and the Court recalled the NBW against him, on the assurance given by him that he would compromise the matter and pay the due amount under Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant. He also admitted that, in the petition filed by him in Crl.M.P.No.186/2016, U/s.311 Cr.P.C, for recall of PW1, he asserted that he intended to compromise the case by paying the cheque amount to the complainant.

14.Admittedly, the cheque Ex.P2 bearing No.31569, dt 08.07.2013, belongs to the accused, pertaining to his Account, of Karimnagar Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar. It is not the case of the accused, that the above Ex.P2 cheque does not belong to him, pertaining to his account. When the complainant admits that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to him, the burden is on him to establish, as to how it went into the possession of the complainant. However, there is no explanation from the accused in this regard. He did not even say in his evidence, as to when and how Ex.P2 cheque was lost. If the cheque was lost, he ought to have given a police complaint or informed to his Banker, stating that it was lost. However, neither the accused filed any police complaint nor informed to his Banker

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

7 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014 about its missing. This circumstance itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion that accused, is not speaking the truth. In fact on a petition filed by the accused U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C, the NBW against him was recalled by the

Court, on the assurance given by him that, he would compromise the case and pay the amount to the complainant. Further, in the petition filed by him

U/s.311 Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.186/2016, for recall of PW1, also, he categorically stated that he intended to compromise the case by paying cheque amount to the complainant. The above admissions, on the part of accused itself, are sufficient, to come to a conclusion that he is not speaking the truth and taking false pleas to evade payment of amount.

15.Though, the accused in his evidence states, that the complainant forged his signature on the cheque Ex.P2 and filed this false case against him, he did not establish by any rebuttal evidence as to how the cheque went into the custody of the complainant. He did not choose to take any steps, to send the cheque Ex.P2 to the Hand writing Expert, for comparison of his signature on it, with his admitted signatures. Though, he states that he did not receive any legal notice from the complainant under Ex.P4, and the signature on the acknowledgment card Ex.P6, does not belong to him, he did not examine any officials of Postal Department to prove, that his signature on Ex.P6, was a forged one and notice was not taken by him. The accused ought to have cross-examined the complainant (PW1) in that regard and elicit information favourable to his case. But no such steps were taken by him and simply for the first time, in his evidence as DW1, he has taken the above false pleas. From the above facts, it is evident that the accused has borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant and issued Ex.P2 cheque towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt and now only with an intention to evade payment, due under it, he is taking the above false pleas.

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

8 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014 The points.1 and 2 are accordingly, answered, holding that the complainant has proved by satisfactory evidence, that there is existence of a legally enforceable debt and Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of such legally enforceable debt.

POINT NO.3:

16.In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, since the complainant has established that there is existence of legally enforceable debt, and that Ex.P2

Cheque was issued by the accused towards the said legally enforceable debt, it has to be held that the complainant has proved his case, beyond all reasonable doubt, against the accused for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, and he is liable to be convicted for the said offence.

17.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is convicted of the said offence U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C

Typed to my dictation, by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of October, 2016.

Judl.Magistrate of F.C, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

Heard, the accused, on question of sentence. He submitted that, he has wife and one small son, that he is eking his livelihood by working in a private firm, that he is the sole-bread winner for his family and if he is sent to jail, his entire family would be put for starvation. Therefore, he prayed to take lenient view in imposing sentence and to let-off him after admonition.

Having regard to the submissions of accused, and having regard to the amount of cheque, and the facts and circumstances of the case, if the

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

9 C.C.NO. 193 OF 2014 accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, that will meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment, for one month, for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. The remand period already undergone by the accused earlier, if any, shall be given set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused is apprised of his right of appeal and on enquiry, he stated that he has sufficient means to engage an Advocate, to prefer an appeal.

Typed to my dictation, by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of October, 2016.

Judl.Magistrate of F.C, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

PW1: B.Rammohan (Complainant) PW2: A.Kumar (Bank Manager of Telangana Grameena Bank)

FOR THE ACCUSED:

DW1: Ch.Prashanth (Accused )

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 is the Promissory note, dt 04.03.2013 Ex.P2 is the Cheque bearing No.31569, dt 08.07.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/- Ex.P3 is the Cheque Return Memo, dt 09.07.2013 Ex.P4 is the Copy of legal notice, dt 12.07.2013 Ex.P5 is the Registered postal receipt No.9298IN, dt 12.07.2013 Ex.P6 is the Postal acknowledgement, dt 13.07.2013

FOR THE ACCUSED: -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of F.C, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

Dt: 06.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl Junior Civil Judge: KARIMNAGAR

Present: Smt. P. Sai Sudha, Addl Junior Civil Judge,

KARIMNAGAR .

19-11-2015

CC/101493/2008

TSKA030003632008

Between:-

PS. Karimnagar Rural. Address: PS. Karimnagar Rural.

ADVOCATE: Addl. PP. … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

A1- Gajula Lachaiah. and 6 others. Address: Durshed vill. Karimnagar mdl.

ADVOCATE: E. Madusudhan Rao. … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

Accused No.1 to 3 and 7 are present. Judgment is pronounced in the open court (V.S.O). In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s 120-B, 365,420,347, 327 and 386 IPC and A7 found not guilty for the offences U/s 365,420,347,327 and 386 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) cr.p.c. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled. The case against A4 to A6 is split up in

CC.No.1791 of 2014 as Nbws were pending.

This Order Generated in CIS on 25-02-2021

Addl Junior Civil Judge

KARIMNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE JMFC PCR Spl Mobile: KARIMNAGAR

Present: Sri. M.Raju, JMFC PCR Spl Mobile,

KARIMNAGAR .

17-12-2015

CC/200148/2012

TSKA030009802011

Between:-

Keshetti Anjaiah Address: 8-6-1112, Kothirampur, Karimnagar

ADVOCATE: Shrawan Kumar … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Mogiloju Peddanna Address: 9-7-24 Opp Lucky Bar, Ramnagar, Karimnagar

ADVOCATE: … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

Complainant present. Accused present. The complainant filed a petition U/sec. 257 of crpc. seeking permission to withdraw the complaint on the ground that he and accused have settled the matter out side the court on the advise of elders and as such he does not want to proceed any more with the case. The said petition is allowed. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn as the accused is acquitted of the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act and U/sec. 257 of crpc.

This Order Generated in CIS on 29-07-2020

JMFC PCR Spl Mobile

KARIMNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl Junior Civil Judge: KARIMNAGAR

Present: Smt. P. Sai Sudha, Addl Junior Civil Judge,

KARIMNAGAR .

01-07-2015

JCC/100149/2010

TSKA030019652010

Between:-

Koyyur P.S. Address: Koyyur PS

ADVOCATE: Sr. APP. … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Kolakani Naresh. Address: ro. Mallaram village, Malahar mandal.

ADVOCATE: J. Sree Ramulu … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

JUVENILE DELINQUENT IS PRESENT. JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (V.S.O). IN THE RESULT, THE JUVENILE DELINQUENT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 302 AND 201 IPC AND ACCORDINGLY, HE IS ACQUITTED OF THE SAID OFFENCE U/S 248 (1) CR.PC. HIS BAIL BONDS SHALL STAND CANCELLED. MOS.1 TO 5 AND MOS.7 TO 9 ARE ORDERED TO BE DESTROYED AFTER APPEAL TIME IS OVER AND MO 6 RS.10/- NOTE SHALL BE CONFISCATED TO THE STATE FORTHWITH.

This Order Generated in CIS on 17-02-2021

I Addl Junior Civil Judge

KARIMNAGAR