B.jyotsna

Junior Civil Judge

Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda · Srikakulam · Andhra Pradesh

B.JYOTSNA, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,481 court orders on record since 2010. 17 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

1,481

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/145/2016 Acquitted

SI OF POLICE, BURJA vs MOHAN CHOWDARY

06 Aug 2018

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

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Jyotsna,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa.

Dated this Monday the 6 th day of August 2018

CC. NO. 145 /2016

Between:

State Represented by the SubInspector of Police, Burja Police Station.

… Complainant.

And:

Mohan Chowdary S/o Radhakrishna Chowdary, 40 years, Oriya, Brahmin, Burja Village and Mandal.

…. Accused.

This case coming on 01.08.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the ComplainantState and of Sri A Siva Das and Sri S. Dhanunjaya Rao, Advocates for the accused and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police, Burja, Srikakulam District filed charge sheet in Cr. No.96/2015 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as below:

LW.1 has issued a notice to the accused vide Lr. no. 5C, dated 15122015 to produce any authorization regarding utilization of water from Nagavalli river by using electrical motors at Burja (v) but the accused did not produce any such permission or authorization for utilization of water. Prior to 15122015, the accused found 2 damaged the Vavum branch channel in Burja (v) by using electrical motors unauthorizedly.

3. On 15.12.2015 at 17:00 hrs, L.W.1 present a report about the occurrence basing on which L.W.12 registered a case in

Crime No. 96/2015 u/s 430,431 IPC and sec 3(2) of prevention of

Damage to public property Act 1984 and investigated into. L.W.12 visited the scene of offence, recorded observation report at 17:00 hrs on 15.12.2015 duly attested by the mediators Lws 10 and 11 and prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence with details. L.W.12 examined Lws 1 to 9 and recorded their statements.

4. As per the instructions issued by the kind Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, a letter was addressed to the Assistant

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Section No. II, Palakonda with a request to furnish information that how much mischief/loss caused to the Government due to the irregular act of the accused. On that, the Assistant Executive Engineer furnished information that the accused 286062480.00 liters of water or 62926194.00 gallons of water (One gallon = 4.546 liters) loss to the Government during the period of 15 years and 10 months.

5. The accused approached the Honourable Court of the

Judge, Family Court cum III Additional District & Sessions Court,

Srikakulam and obtained anticipatory bail vide Crl.M.P.No.29/2016

dt. 27.01.2016. on completion of investigation LW.12 filed charge

sheet. Hence the case.

6. This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the accused.

7. On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents as per section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

8. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and framed charges for the offence punishable under section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984. The contents of charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. The evidence of LW.6/Radha

Govinda Pala, LW.7/Vepari Venikata Rao, LW.9/Pratapachandra

Chowdary and LW.11/Yegu Laxmu were given up by learned A.P.P.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material adduced against him was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel of the accused.

12. Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved that the guilty

of the accused for the offences punishable under section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 beyond all reasonable doubt?

The case of the prosecution is that on notice issued by LW.1 vide Lr. no. 5C, dated 15122015 to the accused to produce any authorization regarding utilization of water from

Nagavalli river by using electrical motors at Burja (v), the accused did not produce any such permission or authorization for utilization of water. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Section No. II,

Palakonda furnished information that the accused 286062480.00 liters of water or 62926194.00 gallons of water (One gallon = 4.546 4 liters) loss to the Government during the period of 15 years and 10 months. Therefore, the accused had illegally diverted the water from

Nagavali river by using electrical motors at Burja Village unauthorizedly and damaged the Vavam branch channel which is the public property at Burja Village and caused diminution of water supply and loss to the Government. Hence the charges.

13. In this case LW.1/ defacto complainant is examined as

P.W1. LW.2 examined as P.W.2. LW.3 examined as PW.3, LW.4 examined as PW.4, LW.5 examined as PW.5, LW.8 examined as

PW.6, LW.10 examined as PW.7, LW.12 examined as PW.8.

14. It is evident from the record that PW1 to PW3 deposed that on 24062015 on endorsement received from the District

Collector that the accused illegally carrying out business by utilizing the water from Nagavali River. Firstly, PW.2 on 15.07.2015 issued notice to the accused. On that the accused inspite of the notice received by him, he did not stop his illegal work at Nagavali river and did not remove pipe at that place. On that PW.1 gave report to the

Burja Police. PW.2 deposed about his issuance of notice to accused in his evidence.

15. Other witness PW3 who conducted enquiry on 01.03.2016 basing on the report of PW.1. He deposed about his enquiry which disclosed that accused is illegally utilizing the water from Nagavali River 2X4 river bank which was being constructed by

LW.4 under agreement No. 38/201415, dt: 14.11.2014 for an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/. Moreover, he deposed that the accused illigally without any permission utilizating the water from Nagavali

River from Zirayathi land through Vavam cannel by using 4 pipes each 2.5 mts length. Therefore on his enquiry reveal that accused committed the offence. Another witness PW.4 deposed that by an agreement No. 38/201415, dt: 14.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.

1,05,000/ which was entered with R & B Department, he started 5 the work in the month of November by constructing pipe culvert from

Vavam Canel to Chowka Branch culvert for about 10mts he completed his work. Later he found that pipe line was made and water was being utilize from Nagavali River.

16. PW.5 and PW6 evidence is that they are having lands near the Nagavali River. They are cultivating their lands with the water purchased from the accused. They deposed that the accused made a way to lift the water from the Nagavali River by placing pipes and motors.

17. PW7 is mediator who deposed that on 16.12.2016 he and

LW.11 acted as mediators in this case. They found a shed at

Nagavali River Bed. He deposed that in his presence scene observation was drafted and he put his signature on it. Further he deposed that no seizure of property.

18. PW.8 is the investigating officer who deposed from the receiving of report from PW.1 to completion of his investigation. He deposed that on receipt of written report from PW.1 he registered FIR in Cr. No: 96/2015, U/Sec. 430, 431 of IPC and Sec. 3(2) of PDPP

Act. Immediately he visited the scene of offence and secure mediators LW.10 & 11. He deposed that he drafted scene observation and prepared rough sketch. On the same day he examined LW.1 to 9 and recorded their statements. He deposed that the accused was enlarged on bail vide Crl. Mp. No: 29/2016 on the file of Hon’ble

Family Court –cum– III Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam, dt: 27.01.2016. on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

19. From the evidence on record, shows that PW1 and PW2 proceeded against the accused for the alleged offences is on endorsement received from the District Collector on 24062015. The same was not filed by the prosecution. The proceedings of inquiry made by PW3 that accused is illegally utilizing the water from 6

Nagavali River 2X4 river bank which was being constructed by LW.4 under agreement No. 38/201415, dt: 14.11.2014 for an amount of

Rs. 1,05,000/. Though stated by PW.3, the same was not file by the prosecution. PW.4 deposed that he found some pipelines are made and water was being utilize from Nagavalli River, the said was not against the accused. PW5 and PW6 deposed orally that they purchased water from accused, they evidence cannot be relied as

PW5 admitted he had rilivary with the accused and some cases are pending. PW6 did not file any document to show his land and such receipts of purchase of water. Lastly, PW7 who is the mediator deposed that Police drafted scene observation report. He deposed that no seziure of property in his presence.

20. Finally, the witness PW.8, who is the Investigating

Officer in this case, deposed about the registration of the crime, examination of the witnesses and visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report and rough sketch done by him, it is needless to say that his evidence cannot be taken into consideration because the evidence of material witnesses failed to stated the crux of the case against the accused. His evidence is suffering from lot of infirmities along with other material witnesses PW 1 to PW6. The prosecution failed to set forth the alleged offences with independent witnesses PW5 to PW.7 to establish its case. The allgation against the accused i.e. the loss and damage to Government and quantity of water used by accused and specific details as to the illegal utilization of water by the accused were not reveal with sufficient evidence.

There is no seziure of property in this case to show the pipes and motors alleged used by accused for commission of offence. Hence, from the above reasons, the prosecution failed to prove the offences punishable section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

21.Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused for the offences punishable under section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984 beyond all reasonable doubt beyond all reasonable doubt, thus a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Hence he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Criminal Procedure code for the above said offences. The accused is hereby directed to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.5000/ u/sec. 437A Cr.P.C. The bonds, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. No case property is deposited in this case, therefore, no property orders are passed.

Directly typed on my laptop by me, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 6 th day of August,

2018. na Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class, Amadalavalasa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: NiL PW.1: Dibba Udaya Bhaskara Rao PW.2: Kinjarapu Dalayya PW.3: Batta Gopala Rao PW.4: Killi Mahindra PW.5: Radhacharan Chowdary PW.6: Korikana Venkata Rao PW.7: Baniki Raja, VRO, Burja PW.8: K. Ravi Kishore, SubInspector, Burja

Documents marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex,P1: Report,dt: 15.12.2015 8

Ex.P2: Notice dt: 15.07.2015

Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on Enquiry report.

Ex.P4: Signature of PW.7 on Scene Observation Report

Ex.P5: FIR, dt:15.12.2015

Ex.P6: Scene Observation Report,dt: 15.12.2015

Ex.P7: Rough Sketch, dt: 15.12.2015

Material Objects:

No material objects are marked

Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa 9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

AMADALAVALASA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO. 145/2016

Date of offence15.12.2015

Date of Complaint or report:15.12.2015

Date of apprehension of accused:01.08.2016

Date of release on bail: Sec. 41A crpc

Date of commencement of trial: 27.11.2017

Date of close of trial: 01.08.2018

Date of sentence or order: 06.08.2018

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution.

Name of the complainant: SubInspector of Police, Burja Police Station. Cr. No: 96/2015

Name of the accused:p

Mohan Chowdary S/o Radhakrishna Chowdary, 40 years, Oriya, Brahmin, Burja Village and Mandal.

Offence: U/S. 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section. 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable section 430 and 431 of I.P.C. and sec. 3(2) OF Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Hence he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Criminal Procedure code for the above said offences. The accused is hereby directed to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.5000/ u/sec. 437A Cr.P.C. The bonds, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. No case property is deposited in this case, therefore, no property orders are passed. Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

Amadalavalasa.

CC/29/2018 Acquitted

SHO Saravakota vs Pisiniki Mallesu

02 Aug 2018

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

PATHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. B.Jyotsna,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam.

Dated this Thursday the 2 nd day of August 2018

CC. NO. 29 /2018

Between:

State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Saravakota Police Station.

… Complainant

A n d:

Pisini Mallesu, S/o Lt Yerakayya, Age 48 yrs, Rajaka, R/o Syirigam Village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District. Driver of tractor bearin No: AP30X4563.

…Accused

This case coming on 02.08.2018for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the ComplainantState and of Sri V. Sudhakara Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police of Saravakota, filed charge sheet in

Cr.No: 178/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 304A of

IPC & 184 of M.V.Act, 1988 against sole accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as below:

On 12.12.2017 the deceased engaged the tracor bearing no:

AP30X4563 belong to LW.9, for getting his paddy crop thrashed with the thrashing machine fitted to the engine of the tractor. After getting the paddy thrashed with the machine fittd to the tractor, the deceased left his paddy field together with LW.2 to 4 by sitting onthe above tracor driven by the accused. Around 2.30 pm when the tracot just reached near Parvathi canal located behind Naidu School near Saravakota village, the accused drove it in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which, the deceased was slipped off and fell underneath the thrashin machine due to which, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries 2 on righ side of ribs, on buttocks, lacerated wound on right shoulder and abrasions on righ side of neck. Subseqently, LW.2 to 4 took the deceased to RIMS, Srikakulam by 108 ambulance for treatment. On coming to know about the accident as well as admissionof deceased in

RIMS through LW.19, LW.1 went there along with her kin and foundt he deceased with sever bleeding injuries. At 6.30 PM the deceasd succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in RIMS,

Srikakulamk.

3. On 13.12.2017 at 7.00 hrs basing on the report of LW.1,

LW.19 registered a case vide Cr.No. 78/2017 u/s 304A of IPC & Sec.

184 M.V.Act, 1988 of Saravakota PS. On 03.01.2018 at 00.15 hours and he investigated into the case. During the course of investigation,

LW.18 examined Lws 1 to 5, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of Lws 10 and 11, drafted the scene observation report dt. 03.01.2018, prepared rough sketch and photographed the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of deceased by serving summons on Lws 1, 6 to 9 and panchayatdars/Lws 10 to 14. He reexamined LW.1 and examined Lws 6 to 9, recorded their statements, inquest report dt. 03.01.2018 and photographed the dead body of deceased and sent the dead body of deceased to LW.17 for postmortem. He also addressed a letter to LW.15 for conducting inspection over both the crime vehicles.

4. During the course of investigation, on 03.01.2018, LW.18 served notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C., to accused. On obtaining Accident report from LW.15, who opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of crime vehicles. Wound certificates of Lws 2 to 4 was issed by LW.16 who opined that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature. Postmortem Certificate issued by LW.17, who opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was due to shock as a result of head injury. After completion of investigation LW.18 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the case.

5. This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 304A of IPC & 184 of M.V.Act, 1988 against sole accused.

6. On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents as per section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him.

7. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 304A of IPC & 184 of M.V.Act, 1988.

The accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19. The evidence of LW.2/ Saravakota

Vykunta Rao, LW.3/Bodavalasa Thavitayya, LW.4/Jami Bhaskara Rao,

LW.6/Gonti Appayya, LW.7/Gonti Polayya, LW.8/Polaki Polayya,

LW.9/Surapu Venkata Rao, LW.11/Gurupur Viswanadham,

LW.12/Kona Venkateswara Rao, LW.13/ Varudu Rama Mohana Rao,

LW.14/ Vana Rama Rao, LW.15/ Gorle Srinivasa Rao, LW.16/Laveti

Manmadha Rao, LW.17/A. Venkata Ramana, LW.18/Dr Sadhu Rama

Mohana Rao, Asst Professor, Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Srikakulam,

LW.20/Ch. Durga Prasad, SI, Saravakota, LW.21/P. Satyanarayana,

SI, Saravakota were given up by learned A.P.P.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material adduced against him was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel of the accused.

11. Now the point that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused being driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 30 X 4563 who drove it in a rash or negligent manner which caused for the accident and death of the deceased?

2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused being driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 30 X 4563, drove it dangerously at the time of 4 accident?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 304A of IPC and sec.184 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. In this case LW.1/defacto complainant/Urlana Simmamma is examined as P.W1. LW.5/Gonti Yerrayya is examined as PW.2,

LW.10/Velamala Balakrishna examined as PW.3 LW.19/M.

Ramakrishnai, Investigating Officer is examined as PW.4.

Point Nos.1 to 3

13. Evidence of PW1 & 2: PW1/ Urlana Simmamma & PW2/ Gonti

Yerrayya deposed that they do not know the accused and about the facts of the case. PW.1 deposed that the deceased died due to accident only and PW.2 deposed that he do not how deceased died.

14. The entire evidence of PW1 & PW2 show that they resiled from their section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Ex.P1 to P2 are Sec. 161

Cr.P.C Statements of PW.1 & PW2 respectively.

15. Evidence of PW3: PW3/Velamal Balakrishna, deposed that he acted as mediator and he deposed that in his presence scene observation report was drafted. Ex.P3 is his signature on scene observation report. In cross examination he denied the suggestions put to him by learned counsel for accused.

16. Evidence of PW4: PW4/M. Ramakrishna, deposed from the receiving of report from PW.1 to completion of his investigation. He deposed that on receipt of written report from PW.1 He registered FIR in Cr. No: 78/2017,U/Sec. 304A of IPC and Sec. 184 of MV Act. He deposed that he visited the place of offence and conducted investigation. He deposed about the Scene observation report and

Rough sketch. He also deposed about the Inquest and Post moterm

Examination conducted over the dead body of the deceased in presence of mediators. He deposed that on the same day he sent requisition to 5

LW.17 to conduct inspection of the crime vehicle and LW.17 conducted inspection of the crime vehicle and issue MV Report. He deposed that he issued Sec. 41A Crpc notice to accused. He deposed that further investigation was done by LW.20 and 21. On completion of investigation

LW.21 filed charge sheet in this case.Ex.P4 is FIR dated: 13.12.2017,

Ex.P5 is Scene Observation Report,dt:13.12.2017, Ex.P6 is Rough

Sketch, dt: 13.12.2017, Ex.P7 is Inquest Report, dt: 14.12.2017, Ex.P8 is PME Certificate, dt: 14.12.2017and Ex.P9 is MVI report

dt:16.12.2017.The cross examination of PW4s are total denials to the

suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the accused.

17. From the evidence on record, shows that PW1 & PW2 from earliest point of time they did not did not support the prosecution evidence. The other evidence is PW3 who deposed that in his presence police drafted scene observation report. But he did not disclose the contents of it. Other witness is Investigating Officer examined as PW.4 in this case. PW4 reveal his investigation from registration of FIR to filing of charge sheet by LW.21. His evidence also suffering from lot of infirmities. Though PW.4 deposed about the registration of the crime, examination of the witnesses and visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report and rough sketch, it is needless to say that his evidence cannot be taken into consideration because the evidence of material witnesses is lacking. The prosecution could not putforth the case of prosecution from material witness LW1 and other witnesses who are not examined. Moreover, the prosecution failed to produce independent evidence in order to establish its case. Hence, from the above reasons, the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent manner of accused. Accordingly the points are answered.

18. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 304A of IPC and sec.184 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt, thus a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.304A of I.P.C and sec.184 of M.V.Act. Hence he is acquitted u/s.255(1) Crpc for the said offences. The accused is 6 directed to execute a bond of Rs.5000/ u/sec. 437A Crpc. The bail, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. No case property is deposited in this case, therefore, no property orders are passed.

Typed on my laptop by me, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court this the 2 nd day of August, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

PW.1:M.Vurlana Simmadiramma

PW.2:Gonti Yerrayya

PW.3:V. Bala Krishna

PW.4:M. Rama Krishna Rao, ASI of police,Saravakota PS.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 None

Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2

Ex.P3:PW.5 Signature on Scene Observation Report

Ex.P4:FIR dated: 13.12.2017

Ex.P5:Scene Observation Report,dt:13.12.2017,

Ex.P6:Rough Sketch, dt: 13.12.2017

Ex.P7:Inquest Report, dt: 14.12.2017

Ex.P8:PME Certificate, dt: 14.12.2017

Ex.P9:MVI report dt:16.12.2017.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PATHAPATNAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO. 29/2018

Date of offence13.12.2017

Date of Complaint or report:13.12.2017

Date of apprehension of accused:13.12.2017

Date of release on bail: Sec. 41A Crpc

Date of commencement of trial: 07.06.2018

Date of close of trial: 02.08.2018

Date of sentence or order: 02.08.2018

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution.

Name of the complainant: Sub Inspector , Saravakota Police Station. Cr. No: 178/2017

Name of the accused:

Pisini Mallesu, S/o Lt Yerakayya, Age 48 yrs, Rajaka, R/o Syirigam Village, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District. Driver of tractor bearin No: AP30X4563.

Offence: U/S. 304A of I.P.C and sec.184 of M.V.Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section. 304A of I.P.C and sec.184 of M.V.Act.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.304A of I.P.C and sec.184 of M.V.Act. Hence he is acquitted u/s.255(1) Crpc for the said offences. The accused is directed to execute a bond of Rs.5000/ u/sec. 437A Crpc. The bail, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. No case property is deposited in this case, therefore, no property orders are passed. Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judicial Magistrate

of I Class, Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam 8

Sd/ Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

CC/87/2018 Acquitted

SHO, Saravakota p.s vs Bommali. Ramarao

09 Aug 2018

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

PATHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. B. Jyotsna,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam

Dated this Thursday, the 9 th day of August’ 2018

CALENDAR CASE No: 87/2018

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by SubInspector, Saravokta P.S., Srikakulam District.

…Complainant

A n d:

Bommali Rama Rao, S/o Lt Nagabushana @ Krishna, Age 50 yrs, Pamula by Caste, Suravaram Village, Jalumuru Mandal, R/o Akula Tamopara Village, Kothuru Mandal, Srikakualm District.

… Accused

This case coming on 09.08.2018for final hearing

before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the ComplainantState and of Sri Y. Chandrabhushana Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and after hearing on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police of Saravakota, Srikakulam

District filed charge sheet in Cr.No: 8/2018 for the offences punishable under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

2.Brief facts of the case prosecution are that:

On 10.02.2018 at 17.00 hrs LW.1 went to Saravakota Police station and lodged a complaint before LW.10 mentioning that since about 17 years he has been working as Priest to the temple of 2

Juuadamma Goddess of their village. He used to open the temple at 7AM to 12 PM and 4 PM to 6 PM and perform pooja and returns. As usual, on 10.02.2018 morning their temple assistance viz., Talitiri

Simmayya went to temple for cleaning, found the lock of temple iron grill door was found on the floor and also found the lock of the

Hundi also found and some coins of money were on the floor and on seeing which, he came and informed the same to him. Immediately, he rushed to the member of Temple committee viz., Doki Bharani and on informed the same, then they both rushed to the temple and found that two gold eyes and bottu wg. About ¼ tola were not there to the idol and also Rs. 2000/ available in the hundi not found and came to a conclusion that some unknown offenders might have committed theft of above articles and on informing the same to the committee members, he preferred this report for doing justice.

3.Basing on the report given by LW.1 LW10 registered a case in

Cr.No: 8/2018 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC on 10.02.2018 at 17.00 hrs and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.10 examined WL.1 to 6 recorded their statements, inspected the Scene of offence in the presence of LWs. 7 & 9 and got prepared scene observation report, seized the incriminating i.e. broken locks of the temple and drew rough sketch of scene of offence.

4. On 27.06.2018, LW.10 arrested the accused at Bonthu

Junction, Saravakota Mandal in the presence of LWs. 7 and 9, got recorded the confession statement of accused, seized the part case property i.e. two gold eyes and gold bottu billa under the cover of confession statement of accused and sent the accused to the Hon’ble

Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation LW.10 filed charge sheet. Hence the case.

5.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under section 457 and 380 of IPC against the accused.

6.On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents as per section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him.

7.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., framed charges against accused for the offences punishable Under Section 457 and 380 of IPC. The contents of charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu for which to pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to PW.5 Exhibits P1 to Ex. P7 and M.O. 1 to 4 are marked. Evidence of Lw.4/Chalapka Srinivasa Rao, LW.5/Dandu

Ramu,LW.6/KalingapatnamTatayya,LW.8/Sathivada

Laxminarayana, LW.9/Gunupur Vuswanadham, VRA, Saravakota

Were given up by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S. 313 Cr.P.C. the incriminating material on record was read over the explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the learned Assistant public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the offences punishable sections 457 and 380 of IPC are clearly attracted. Pw.1 defacto complainant and material witnesses deposed the overt acts of the accused as to commission of offences, so accused shall be punished for the same according to law.

12.On the other hand, the learned defense counsel argued that in evidences of PW.1 to 5 there are several omissions and laches in investigation. There is no identification of accused to commission of offences. He argues that the confession is inadmissible in evidence and the case of prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable 4 doubt. Therefore., the accused may be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt in the interest of justice.

13.Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved that the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under sections 457

and

380 of IPC?

14.The case of prosecution is that the accused gained entrance into the temple of Goddess Ujjadamma by broke open the locks of iron grill door and also opened lock of Hundi, committed theft of two gold eyes and gold bottu billa adorned to the idol of Goddess and committed theft of Rs.2000/ from the Hundi and retained the property dishonestly for geeting wrongful gains, Hence, the charges.

15.In this case LW.1 is the defacto complainant examined as PW.1

LW.2 examined as PW2. LW.3 examined as PW.3, LW.7 examined as

PW.4 and LW.10 examined as PW.5.

16.As per the evidence on record. PW1/Josyula Vallabharayudu @

Namala Panthulu that on information by Pw.2 he came to know about the incident. His evidence reveal the findings after occurrence of incident at the place of offence. He deposed that he saw the temple door and Goddess idol, he thereafter informed Pw.3. His evidence show the cause of filing Ex.P1. He identified M.O.1 & 2.

17.The material witness PW.2 and PW.3, at the earliest point of time, they resiled from their section 161 of Cr.P.C statement, they did not support the case of prosecution.

18.Another witness PW.4/Velamala Bala Krishna, VRO deposed that he acted as mediator and police drafted scene of offence, 5 confession statement of the accused, mediator report. He deposed about the MO.3 & 4.

19.The investigating Officer PW.5/P. Satyannarayana, VR

Srikakulam who was the then SI of Police, Saravakota, deposed that in this case he conducted investigation on receipt of Ex.P1 from

Pw.1. He deposed about registration of FIR. Visit to the place of offence. He deposed that in presence of mediators, he prepared mediators report and Rough sketch. He also deposed about the confession statement of the accused and seizure of property M.O.1 to

M.O.4. His chief examination reveal about his investigation.

20.From the entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, disclose that theft of

M.O.1, 2 & 4 was done. To establish that the accused have committed the said theft was not reveal in any of evidence of prosecution. All the witnesses stated that they found and the investigation was done as per process of law. However, the foremost element for the alleged section of law i.e. U/Sec. 457 and 380 of IPC, the prosecution did not made attempt of identification of the accused. The witness also did not identify the accused so as to stated that he committed the alleged offences as stated in Ex.

P1.Relying on Ex. P5 i.e., Confession statement of the accused does not prove the commission of offence by the accused himself. To say that whether the accused committed the alleged offences for the offence punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 of IPC or not, the M.O. 3 itself do not help the prosecution as there are inherent lapses in prosecution evidence. The commission of broke and open the temple was not disclosed by oral evidence, it is only in Ex. P1 reveal the acts of accused, such confession cannot be considered by this court as it is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

21.Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 6 accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. It is necessary to extent benefit of doubt to the accused.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 of IPC. Therefore he is acquitted

U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The accused is directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5000/ under section 437A Cr.P.C.

MO.1 to 4 i.e., MO.1 is two Gold Eyes, MO.2 is Gold Bindi which are already given to PW1 for interim custody as per the orders in Cr.

M.P. No: 314/2018, dt: 02.08.2018, the said orders stands good.

MO.3 is three locks shall be destroyed after the appeal time and

MO.4 is Rs.27/ coins shall be handed over to the rightful claimant after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed on my laptop by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 9th day of August, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class, Amadalavalasa (FAC) Pathapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

PW.1: Josyula Vallabharayudu @ Namala Panthulu

PW.2: Thalitiri Simmayya

PW.3: Doki bharadwaj @ Bharani

WP.4: Velamala Balakrishna

PW.5: P. Satyanarayana, SubInspector, Saravakota

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: 7

Ex.P1Complaint, dt: 10.02.2018 : Ex.P2Sec. 161 Statement of PW.2, dt:

:10.02.2018 Ex.P3Sec. 161 Statement of PW.2, dt:

:10.02.2018 Ex.P4Mediators Report, dt: 10.02.2018 : Ex.P5Confession Statement, dt: 10.02.2018 : Ex.P6FIR, dt: 10.02.2018 : Ex.P7Rough Sketch, dt: 10.02.2018 :

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 is 2 Gold Eyes.

MO.2 is Gold Bindi.

MO.3 is Three Locks.

MO.4 is Rs. 27/ coins.

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st

Class,

Amadalavalasa (FAC)

Pathapatnam 8 9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

AMADALAVASA(FAC) PATHAPATNAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO. 87/2018

Date of offence10.02.2018

Date of Complaint or report:10.02.2018

Date of apprehension of 27.06.2018 accused:

Date of release on bail: PT Warrant

Date of commencement of 02.08.2018 trial:

Date of close of trial: 09.08.2018

Date of sentence or order: 09.08.2018

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution.

Name of the complainant: Sub Inspector , Saravakota Police Station. Cr. No: 8/2018

Name of the accused:

Bommali Rama Rao, S/o Lt Nagabushana @ Krishna, Age 50 yrs, Pamula by Caste, Suravaram Village, Jalumuru Mandal, R/o Akula Tamopara Village, Kothuru Mandal, Srikakualm District.

Offence: U/S. 457 and 380 of I.P.C.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section. 457 and 380 of I.P.C.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 of IPC. Therefore he is acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The accused is directed to execute a bond of Rs. 5000/ under section 437A Cr.P.C. MO.1 to 4 i.e., MO.1 is two Gold Eyes, MO.2 is Gold Bindi which are already given to PW1 for interim custody as per the orders in Cr. M.P. No: 314/2018, dt:

10 02.08.2018, the said orders stands good. MO.3 is three locks shall be destroyed after the appeal time and MO.4 is Rs.27/ coins shall be handed over to the rightful claimant after the lapseofappealtime. Sd/ B. Jyo

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Amadalavalasa(FAC)P athapatnam

CC/127/2017 Acquitted

si of police excise p.s vs Vspadala ramu

06 Aug 2018

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

AMADALAVALASA,

Present: Smt. B.Jyotsna,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa.

Dated this Monday the 06 th day of August,2018

CC. NO. 127 /2018

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.

…Complainant

A n d:

Padala Ramu, S/o Ramana, Age 27 yrs, Telaga, R/o Voosavanipeta Village, Amadalalvalasa Mandal Srikakulam District.

…Accused

This case coming on 06.08.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the ComplainantState and of Sri H. Prasada Rao and Sri H. Atchinnaidu, Advocates for the accused and after hearing on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police Prohibition and Excise,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District filed charge sheet in

Cr. No. 29/2017 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 25.02.2017 at about 18.30 hrs LW.3 along with his staff conducted raid at the pan shop of the accused at Metakivalasa village of Amadalalvlasa mandal found the accused in possession of liquor bottles Tuborg

Strong Beer 650 ml07, Mansion House Brandy 180 ml – 05, MC

Dowells No.1 Whisky 180 ml – 06, Directors Special Fine Whisky 180 ml – 04, Officers Choice Reserve Whisky 180 ml – 07. Total 29 bottles.

On enquiry, the accused revealed his name and details and stated that 2 said liquor bottles are purchased from unknown person and confessed that he is selling liquor bottles at his village for higher price to make some profit without any license or permit. LW.3 verified the property and took one bottle as sample. He drafted occurrence report. Basing on occurrence report LW.3 registered a case as Cr. No. 14/2017 u/s. 34(a) (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act. After receipt of relevant document by LW.4 re registered a case in Cr. No: 29/2017, u/s. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act.

The accused was arrestedunder the cover of occurrence report and

LW.3 was issued Sec. 41 crpc notice to accused. On 18.03.2017, LW.4 sent the sample bottles to Government chemical examiner for analysis, on 21.03.2017 he received the report which shows the sample is Indian made liquor. Thereafter, on 06.05.2017 he received orders from the

Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam, to destroy the case property, as such the remaining case property was destroyed. After completion of investigation, LW.4 filed charge sheet before this court. Hence the case.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act against the sole accused.

4. After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and framed charge under section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act. The contents of charge is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The evidence of LW.1/B. Harikrishna, PC.

2108, LW.2/CHV Krishna, PC2221, LW3. G. Vasudeva Rao SI,

Amadalavlasa are given up by Learned APP.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same, he denied and did not choose to let either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and learned defense counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under 34(a) of AP. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.In order to establish the case, prosecution examined LW.4 as PW.1, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked.

11. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that on 25.02.2017 at about 18.30 hrs LW.3 along with his staff conducted raid at the pan shop of the accused at Metakivalasa village of Amadalalvlasa mandal found the accused in possession of liquor bottles Tuborg

Strong Beer 650 ml07, Mansion House Brandy 180 ml – 05, MC

Dowells No.1 Whisky 180 ml – 06, Directors Special Fine Whisky 180 ml – 04, Officers Choice Reserve Whisky 180 ml – 07. Total 29 bottles.

On enquiry, the accused revealed his name and details and stated that said liquor bottles are purchased from unknown person and confessed that he is selling liquor bottles at his village for higher price to make some profit without any license or permit. After completion of investigation LW.4 filed charge sheet before this court. Hence the charge.

12.In this case even though prosecution cited three witnesses. Only LW.4 was examined as PW.1. Other witnesses LW.1 to

LW.3 were given up by learned A.P.P .

13. Testimony of PW.1: PW.1/SK Raheem, is working as SI of Police

Prohibition and Excise Department. The evidence of PW.1 is that he registered a case as Cr. No. 29/2017, u/s. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act.

He issued Sec. 41 Crpc notice was issued to the accused PW.1 sent the samples for analysis on his letter of advise. After receipt of analysis report which revealed as Indian liquor and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14. Findings in cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the he was not present at the time of occurrence of ofence. He admitted that he did not have knowledge about the commission of the offence by the accused in this case. He admitted that he did not draft Ex.P1. He admitted that he did not mention the specific place of offence in the charge sheet. He admitted that the the place of offence is a busy locality. He admitted that no independent witness examined in this case. Other part of cross examination are denials for suggestions put to him by learned counsel for accused.

15. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that this case is the case where section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act is clearly attracted and so accused shall be punished for the same and it is the clear case of prosecution.

16. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argues that Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 have material contradictions and non filing of the rough sketch proves no case in favour of the prosecution. Thus, owing to several material contractions and omissions, the case of the prosecution stands not proved. So, accused cannot be convicted in this case. Thus he argues to let off the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

17.Thus, from the entire evidence of PW1 it reveal that he registered this case against the accused on basis of occurrence report.

His evidence does not reveal the commission of offence by the accused with supported witnesses.

18. The recitals of Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 only show the investigation and cause of filing the case. The recitals of Ex.P1 to P6 are inconsistent with oral evidence of P.W 1 in cross examination. In absence of independent mediators and the material contradiction, the case of prosecution leads to doubt.

19. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the accused was selling liquor bottles. Thus, it is not safe to rely only on

PW.1’s evidence, as there are some inherent lapses in the case of 5 prosecution. Hence, this court is of opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court intend to extent benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused is hereby directed to execute a bond for an amount of

Rs.5000/, u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. The bonds, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. No case property is deposited in this case, therefore no property orders are passed.

Directly typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6 th day of August’

2018. Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: SK Raheem, None Proh.& Excise SubInspector.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: Occurrence report, dt: 25.02.2017 Ex.P2: First Information Report dt: 25.02.2017 Ex.P3: Letter of Advise dt: 18.03.2017 Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis report dt: 21.03.2017 Ex.P5: Confiscation Orders, dt: 06.05.2017

Material objects:

- No -

Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

6 Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

//True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

Amadalavalasa.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: AMADALAVALASA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO. 127/2017

Date of offence25.02.2017

Date of Complaint or report:25.02.2017

Date of apprehension of accused:25.02.2017

Date of release on bail: 25.02.2017

Date of commencement of trial: 03.08.2018

Date of close of trial: 06.08.2018

Date of sentence or order: 06.08.2018

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution.

Name of the complainant: Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector , Amadalavalasa Cr. No: 29/2017

Name of the accused:p

Padala Ramu, S/o Ramana, Age 27 yrs, Telaga, R/o Voosavanipeta Village, Amadalalvalasa Mandal Srikakulam District.

Offence: U/S. 34(a) of AP. Excise Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section. 34(a) of AP. Excise Act.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused is hereby directed to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.5000/, u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. The bonds, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. No case property is deposited in this case, therefore no property orders are passed. Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

8 Amadalavalasa.

CC/114/2018 Acquitted

SHO OF EXCISE P.S AMADALAVALASA vs Vslingiberi suryanarayana

06 Aug 2018

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

AMADALAVALASA,

Present: Smt. B.Jyotsna,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Amadalavalasa.

Dated this Monday the 06 th day of August,2018

CC. NO. 114 /2018

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.

…Complainant

A n d:

Lingiberi Suryanarayana, S/o Appalasuri, Age 65 yrs, Segidi, R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal Srikakulam District.

…Accused

This case coming on 06.08.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the ComplainantState and of Sri T. Annam Naidu, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police Prohibition and Excise,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District filed charge sheet in

Cr. No. 127/2017 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 27.07.2017 at about 16.00 hrs LW.3 along with his staff conducted patrolling at Ramachandrapuram village of Amadalalvlasa mandal found the accused in possession of liquor bottles Directors Special Fine

Whisky 180 ml – 07 bottles. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name and details and stated that said liquor bottles are purchased from unknown person and confessed that he is selling liquor bottles at his 2 village for higher price to make some profit without any license or permit. LW.3 verified the property and took one bottle as sample. He drafted occurrence report. Basing on occurrence report LW.3 registered a case as Cr. No. 127/2017 u/s. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted the original F.I.R. Cr. No. 127/2017 to the Hon’ble JFCM

Court, Amadalavalasa. The accused was arrestedunder the cover of occurrence report and he was issued Sec. 41 crpc notice to accused. On 07.08.2017, LW.3 sent the sample bottles to Government chemical examiner for analysis, on 09.08.2017 he received the report which shows the sample is Indian made liquor. Thereafter, on 20.09.2017 he received orders from the Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam, to destroy the case property, as such the remaining case property was destroyed.

After completion of investigation, LW.3 filed charge sheet before this court. Hence the case.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act against the sole accused.

4. After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1. The evidence of LW.1/P Ganeswara,

P & EHC and LW.2/S. Simhachalam P & EC are given up by Learned

APP.

8. Heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and learned defense counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under 34(a) of AP. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.In order to establish the case, prosecution examined LW.3 as PW.1, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1 are marked.

11. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that on 27.07.2017 at about 16.00 hrs LW.3 along with his staff conducted patrolling at Ramachandrapuram village of Amadalalvlasa mandal found the accused in possession of liquor bottles Directors Special Fine

Whisky 180 ml – 07 bottles. On enquiry the accused revealed his name and details and stated that said liquor bottles are purchased from unknown person and confessed that he is selling liquor bottles at his village for higher price to make some profit without any license or permit. After completion of investigation LW.3 filed charge sheet before this court. Hence the charge.

12.In this case even though prosecution cited three witnesses. Only LW.3 was examined as PW.1. Other witnesses LW.1 &

LW.2 were given up by learned A.P.P .

13. Testimony of PW.1: PW.1/J. Kurma Rao, is working as SI of Police

Prohibition and Excise Department. The evidence of PW.1 is that he registered a case as Cr. No. 127/2017, u/s. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise

Act. He issued Sec. Thereafter, the accused was released on self bail under Sec. 60(2) (a) of AP Excise Act. PW.1 sent the samples for analysis on his letter of advise. After receipt of analysis report which revealed as Indian liquor and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14. Findings in cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the place of offence is a busy locality and residential area for rehabitants of 4 Vamsadhara Project. He admitted that In Ex.P1, he did not mentioned about the manufacturing date of MO.1. He admitted that MO.1 contain the time of offence as 3.00 PM. He admitted that he did not mention in the Ex.P1 who refused to act as mediators. He admitted that the laboratory is exclusively for excises cases.He admitted that Ex.P2 contains correction as to the time of offence. Other part of cross examination are denials for suggestions put to him by learned counsel

for accused.

17.Thus, from the entire evidence of PW1 it reveal that he registered this case against the accused on basis of occurrence report.

His evidence does not reveal the commission of offence by the accused with supported witnesses.

18. The recitals of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 only show the investigation and cause of filing the case. The recitals of Ex.P1 to P5 are inconsistent with oral evidence of P.W 1 in cross examination. In absence of independent mediators and the material contradiction, the case of prosecution leads to doubt.

19. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the accused was selling liquor bottles. Thus, it is not safe to rely only on

PW.1’s evidence, as there are some inherent lapses in the case of prosecution. Hence, this court is of opinion that the prosecution had 5 failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court intend to extent benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution.

Rs.5000/, u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. The bonds, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. MO.1 is

Directors Special Fine Whisky sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6 th day of August’

2018. Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: J. Kurma Rao, None Proh.& Excise SubInspector.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: Occurrence report, dt: 27.07.2017 Ex.P2: First Information Report dt: 27.07.2017 Ex.P3: Letter of Advise dt: 07.08.2017 Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis report dt: 09.08.2017 Ex.P5: Confiscation Orders, dt: 20.09.2017

Material objects:

MO.1 is Directors Special Fine Whisky sample bottle.

Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

//True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

Amadalavalasa.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: AMADALAVALASA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO. 114/2018

Date of offence27.07.2017

Date of Complaint or report:27.07.2017

Date of apprehension of accused:27.07.2017

Date of release on bail: 27.07.2017

Date of commencement of trial: 01.08.2018

Date of close of trial: 06.08.2018

Date of sentence or order: 06.08.2018

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution.

Name of the complainant: Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector , Amadalavalasa Cr. No: 127/2017

Name of the accused:p

Lingiberi Suryanarayana, S/o Appalasuri, Age 65 yrs, Segidi, R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal Srikakulam District.

Offence: U/S. 34(a) of AP. Excise Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section. 34(a) of AP. Excise Act.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused is hereby directed to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.5000/, u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. The bonds, bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force until the lapse of appeal time. MO.1 is Directors Special Fine Whisky sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Sd/ B. Jyotsna

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

Amadalavalasa.

Order Record 1,473 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/4/2025	SHO Veeraghattam Police Station vs Mohammad Naseem	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/44/2025	SHO Veeraghattam police station vs Banki Vasudevarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/64/2025	SHO Palakonda P.S vs Savara Simhachalam	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/194/2024	The SHO, Palakonda Police station vs Kadagalia Srinivasa Rao, son of Krisham naidu, and 3 othersd	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/305/2024	SHO, Seethampeta police station vs Korada Ramu, son of Chinna rao, alias chinnodu, age 23 years	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/492/2024	Station house Officer, Palakonda Police station vs Botchu Krishnamurty	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/494/2024	Station house Officer, Palakonda Police station vs Siripuram Nanibabu	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/550/2024	SHO Palakonda Police Station vs Bevartha Uday Kiran	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/587/2024	SHO Seetampeta POlice Station vs Kuppili Chaitanya Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/667/2024	SHO Palakonda Police Station vs Kadagala Rajsekhar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/866/2024	SHO Donubai P.S vs Vulla Kesavarao	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/878/2024	Station House Officer, Seethampeta police station vs Chakka Lokeswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/2/2025	SHO, Veeraghattam vs Visanagiri Umamaheswara rao and 8 others	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/3/2025	STation House Offier, Seethampeta vs Potnuru Srinivasarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/4/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Gorle Rajendra	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/5/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Karanam Rambabu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/6/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Narayanasetti Srinivasarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/7/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Seerapu Venkatarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/8/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Vantharapu Krishnarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/9/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Kotlana Vamsi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/10/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Naviri Lokesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/11/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Buddi Srinivasarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/12/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Buddi Nageswararao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/13/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Thiruveedhula Krishna Murthy	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/14/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Ladi Srinivasarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/15/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Naramsetti Govindarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/16/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Boddi Umasankararao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/17/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Ayyaka Naresh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/18/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Gorle Kishore	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/19/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Savara Santhosh Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/20/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Kothakota Rajesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/21/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Gembali Laxmanarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/22/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Dusi Ashok	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/23/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Tangudu Santosh KUmar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/24/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Biddika Durgarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/25/2025	Station House Officer, Seethampeta vs Kotnana Murali	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/26/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Mylavarapu Venkatarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/27/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Korada Vijay Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/28/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Duba Venkatrao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/29/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Boghi Raju	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/30/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Kothakota Seshagirirao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/31/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Devarasetti Srerammurty	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/32/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Easarla Ramesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/33/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Vadada Manoj Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/34/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Rajana Lokesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/35/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Pandiripelli Jagadeesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/36/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Chapana Gowtham	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/37/2025	SHO Seethampeta P.S vs Metta RavindraNath Bhatlu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/38/2025	SHO Palakonda P.S vs Mavidi Shiva	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/39/2025	SHO Palakonda P.S vs Olugulu Gowrishankar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/40/2025	SHO Palakonda P.S vs Polla Sangayya	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/41/2025	Seethampeta Police Station vs Rayapureddy Kantharao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/42/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Parri Ravi Kumar,	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/43/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Suri Srikanth	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/44/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Gopalasetti Suryanarayana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/45/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Devarasetti santhosh Kumra	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/46/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Addakula Rambabu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/47/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Savara Bhaskara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/48/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Vs	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/49/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Palaka Mahesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/50/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Vula Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/51/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Savara Chukkayya	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
STC/52/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Pentimanuguda Srinu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/53/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Thotapalli Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/54/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Kala Nagaraju	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/55/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Korada Trinadha Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/56/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Savara Kadai	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/57/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Savara Ganapathi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/58/2025	Seethampeta PS vs Kondagorri Sanjeeva Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/59/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Vuna Venkata Ramana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/60/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Boddana Samba Murty	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/61/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Dasarath Sahu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/62/2025	SHO vEERAGHATTAM P.s vs PALAKARRA RAMANAMMA	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/63/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Kenguva Murali Krishna	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/64/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Kenguva Venkata Ramana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/65/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Gembali Gowri Prasad	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/66/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Gembali Nagaraju	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/67/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Bhogi Kishore Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/68/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Naviri Ravi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/69/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Mali Dasarada	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/70/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Rajapu Anil	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/71/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Suthiri Sankara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/72/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Mudadi Narayana Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/73/2025	Veeraghattam PS vs Guntireddy Rama Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/74/2025	SHO Veeraghattam PS vs Gotapu Satish	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/75/2025	SHO Veeraghattam PS vs Gurabana Suryanarayana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/76/2025	SHO Veeraghattam PS vs Killara Jagan	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/77/2025	SHO Veeraghattam PS vs Pedada Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/78/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs Bevara Naresh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/79/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs Saketi Suryanarayana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/80/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs P Ramakrishna	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/81/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs S Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/82/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs S Srinivasarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/83/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs K Venkataramana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/84/2025	SHO Vangar PS vs A.Sai Krishna	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/85/2025	SHO Vangara P.S vs Ranasthalam Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/86/2025	SHO Vangara P.S vs K.Gowru	08 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
STC/87/2025	SHO Donubai P.S vs Rojay Hemathrao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/88/2025	SHO Donubai P.S vs Arika Gopal Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/89/2025	SHO Donubai P.S vs Gedala Siva	08 Mar 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,473 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2025		134
Jul 2020		1
Mar 2020		13
Feb 2020		114
Jan 2020		13
Dec 2019		23
Nov 2019		28
Oct 2019		13
Sep 2019		17
Aug 2019		16
Jul 2019		71
Jun 2019		179

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has B.JYOTSNA handled?

B.JYOTSNA has handled 1481 court orders since 2010 at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does B.JYOTSNA hear?

Based on available records, B.JYOTSNA primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda.

Where is B.JYOTSNA currently posted?

B.JYOTSNA is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by B.JYOTSNA available online?

Yes. 17 judgments by B.JYOTSNA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does B.JYOTSNA dispose cases?

B.JYOTSNA disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 1481 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda.

Since when is B.JYOTSNA serving?

B.JYOTSNA has been serving at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda since 2010.

Case Types

CC 36%

STC 35%

OS 20%

EP 5%

PLC 2%

MC 1%

PRC 1%

A 0%

Posting History

Jan 2025 — Mar 2025

Junior Civil Judge · 134 orders
Jun 2019 — Dec 2019

Junior Civil Judge
Dec 2018 — Jul 2020

Junior Civil Judge · 687 orders
Apr 2018 — Aug 2018

Junior Civil Judge · 32 orders
Dec 2017 — Jan 2018

Junior Civil Judge
Oct 2016 — Aug 2018

Junior Civil Judge · 580 orders
May 2010 — May 2013

Junior Civil Judge · 48 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 11

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Ch. Hari Priya

Junior Civil Judge

2,629 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge Court Palakonda

B.jyotsna

AMADALAVALASA

Dated this Monday the 6 th day of August 2018

… Complainant.

…. Accused.

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution proved that the guilty

Directly typed on my laptop by me, corrected and

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Documents marked:

For Prosecution:­ For Defence:

Material Objects:

Sd/­ B. Jyotsna

AMADALAVALASA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

PATHAPATNAM

Dated this Thursday the 2 nd day of August 2018

… Complainant

…Accused

J U D G M E N T

Point Nos.1 to 3

Typed on my laptop by me, corrected and pronounced by me

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Pathapatnam

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

PATHAPATNAM

Dated this Thursday, the 9 th day of August’ 2018

CALENDAR CASE No: 87/2018

…Complainant

… Accused

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution proved that the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under sections 457

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Amadalavalasa (FAC)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

AMADALAVASA(FAC) PATHAPATNAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

AMADALAVALASA,

Dated this Monday the 06 th day of August,2018

…Complainant

…Accused

J U D G M E N T

Directly typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

For Prosecution: For Defence: ­Nil­

- No -

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

AMADALAVALASA,

Dated this Monday the 06 th day of August,2018

…Complainant

…Accused

J U D G M E N T

Directly typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

For Prosecution: For Defence: ­Nil­

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class.

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st class,

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Sd/ B. Jyotsna

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil