Sri. B. Papi Reddy

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM II

ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT :AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

PRESENT : SRI B.PAPI REDDY

 II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, HYDERABAD

MVOP No. 1392 of 2010

Between : Fatima Hasan D/o Syed Aminul Hasan Jafri, aged : 12 yrs, Occ : student (Being minor rep. by her father as Natural Guardian, Syed Aminul Hasaj Jafri S/o Syed Ahmed Hussain, aged ; 55 yrs, Occ : Journalist,) R/o H No.17­1­210/2/L, I.S. Sadan X Roads, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad ­ 500

059.... Petitioner.

Vs.

1. K. Maddileti S/o K. Giddaiah, aged : Major, Occ : Business, R/o H No.1­5­21, Ashok Nagar, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Off : at 1­4­2/10, Near Krishnaveni Chowk, Bheem Nagar, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District ­ 509 125. (Policy No.051104/31/08/02/00000290 Valid from 26.06.2008 to

25.06.2009)... Respondents.

This OP is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B. Peddiraju, Advocate for second respondent first respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following : 

O R D E R

This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act,1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act') claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­ with future interest at 12% per annum for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the minor petitioner on 11.05.2009 at Kothur bypass road on

N.H.No.7 near Vinayaka Steel Factory, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar

District in the motor vehicle accident.

2) The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows :

The case of the petitioner as per the claim petition is that on 11.05.2009 at about 12.00 noon the petitioner along with her family 2OP 1392-10 members were proceeding from Hyderabad towards Jahangeer Peer Darga,

Kothur in a vehicle Swaraj Mazda bearing No. AP12 V 2419, when the said vehicle reached bypass road Kothur on N.H.7, while crossing from Kothur to

Jahangeer Peer Dargah a lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 9705 came in a high speed from Shadnagar thereby dashed the vehicle in which the petitioner and her family members were proceeding, due to which the petitioner along with her family members received grievous injuries due to the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle not taken proper precautions lost control over speed thereby caused injuries. 

3)The petitioner stated that she sustained injuries on her head and chest, immediately she was shifted to Care Hospital, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad where she underwent inpatient treatment for 37 days from 11.05.2009 to 16.06.2009 and spent a sum of Rs.6,80,000/­ towards hospital expenses, thereafter also continued treatment as inpatient by incurring expenditure amounting to Rs.3,20,000/­. Thus the petitioner spent total expenditure of Rs.10,00,000/­ and still undergoing treatment and suffered total disability, the petitioner having sustained head injury not able to do her daily work and affected her right eye resulting in dis­figuration on account of upper eyelid not functioning.

4)The petitioner is aged about 11 years as on the date of accident and she was quite hale and healthy, she is a student of 7th class in

Gowtham Model School, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad, due to the accident finding difficult to move, as such the petitioner lost her present academic year 2009­10. Thus the petitioner is claiming total compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/­ under all heads. Hence the claim petition. 

3OP 1392-10

5)The first respondent remained exparte.

The second respondent filed counter by denying each and every averment of the claim petition stating that the petitioner already benefited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/­ towards medi­claim by TTK Health Care Private

Limited vide bill dt. 15.06.2009 and concession given amount of

Rs.30,000/­, thus, the total amount of Rs.2,80,000/­ is benefited, the respondent denied involvement of the offending vehicle and driving of the same in a rash and negligent manner, the said offending vehicle driver is not having valid licence at the time of accident, the second respondent also denied the injuries on the petitioner, treatment and expenditure as stated by the petitioner. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 

6)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial.

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent

driving of the Swaraj Mazda bearing No. AP 21.U.9705 causing

injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom?

3. To what relief? 

7)During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner Pws. 1 to

Pw.4 were examined, Exs A.1 to A.16 documents were marked. The 2nd respondent examined Rw.1 & Rw.2 and marked Exs B.1 & B.2. Heard both sides and gone through the entire evidence.

8) ISSUE NO.1 :­

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner lost eye sight, still she has been undergoing treatment, as such the disability 4OP 1392-10 cannot be assessed, the medical record and bills which are supported by the doctors evidence Pws 3 & 4 clearly goes to show that there is no hope of getting eye vision of the petitioner, per contra the learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the petitioner availed medical expenses under medi­claim facility, hence that part amount has to be deducted.

9)Thatas seen from the counter second respondent formally denied the accident and injuries on the petitioner but the petitioner to substantiate her case examined the father of the petitioner as Pw.1, he reiterated the contents of the petition in his chief affidavit and testified the same before the court by deposing that the above said accident occurred on the sole negligence of R1 vehicle, Ex A.1 F.I.R copy in crime No. 106 of 2009 dt. 11.05.2009 was marked, the same discloses that one of the family member of the petitioner statement was recorded in the hospital while under going treatment immediately after the accident, basing on which the FIR was registered, the

FIR clearly discloses that on 11.05.2009 when the petitioner along with her family members were proceeding in a vehicle bearing No. AP 12 V 2419 the offending lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 9705 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle in which the petitioner was proceeding, the said earliest information clearly goes to show that it is the first respondent vehicle which caused the accident, the police after thorough investigation after examination of 15 witnesses came to the conclusion that the first respondent being the owner cum driver caused the accident, chargesheet filed for the offences under Section 337 and 338 IPC, Ex A.3 is

Medico Legal Patient Record of the petitioner by which it is evident that the petitioner immediately after the accident on 11.05.2009 admitted in the hospital, Ex A.4 is the crime details form but as admitted by Pw.1 he was not 5OP 1392-10 the eye witness to the accident but the documents marked through him are undisputed and unchallenged. The minor petitioner also examined as Pw.2, she being the injured in the accident clearly and categorically deposed that the above said accident occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle and except denying the suggestion with regard to the manner of accident nothing is elicited in her cross examination. The second respondent examined it's Administrative Officer as

Rw.1, he deposed that first respondent lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 9705 was insured with them, the same was valid from 26.06.2008 to 25.06.2009 and the said policy was issued under certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the policy Ex B.1, this witness also not denied the manner of accident as stated by the petitioner, who deposed merely with regard to the quantum of compensation as they have already deposited some amounts before the court, second respondent also failed to examine any eye witness to the accident including first respondent, as such except unchallenged evidence of

Pws.1 & 2 which is supported by Exs A.1 to A.3 there is nothing contrary to the case of the petitioner as such the petitioner clearly proved their case on preponderance of possibility, it is clearly held that the above said accident occurred only on the negligence of the driver of the first respondent vehicle.

Hence this issue is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner.

10) ISSUE No.2 :­

The petitioner claimed total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­, that coming to the injuries, medical expenditure and treatment the petitioner marked Ex A.3 Wound Certificate, Ex A.5 is the discharge summary issued by Care Hospital for the treatment for the period from the date of accident on 11.05.2009 to 16.06.2009, Ex A.6 is the discharge summary issued by 6OP 1392-10

Siddhaatha Eye Center dt.15.10.2010, Ex A.7 also discharge summary dt.

23.05.2011, Ex A.8 discharge summary of Deccan Hospital dt. 27.04.2013,

Ex A.9 are the OP Cards for the different dates, Ex A.10 is case summary of the petitioner issued by Siddhaatha Eye Center, Ex A.11 are the medical bills (14 in number), Ex A.12 are the bunch of medical bills for

Rs.4,90,875/­, Ex A.13 are the medical prescriptions, Exs A.14 to A.16 are the X­ray, C.T.Scan films.

11)The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the petitioner was reimbursed about Rs.2,50,000/­ under medi­claim policy, that has to be deducted from the medical expenses of the petitioner, RW1 stated that Rs 2,50,000/­ paid by TTK helath care but during the cross examination he stated that he had no knowledge whether TTK Health care paid to Care Hospital, R2 also examined billing manager of care Hospital as

RW2, he deposed that the total bill of the hospital was of Rs 6,55,935/­, out of which Rs 2,50,000/­ was paid by TTK Health care but the petitioner paid only Rs 3,79,813/­, it is also elicited in his cross examination that the pharmacy bills will not be included in the Care hospital Bill,ExA12 bills are issued by the care pharmacy, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High court by stating that as per these decisions the medi­claim reimbursement amount was deducted:

1. National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs RK Jain dated 02­07­2012 2013 ACJ 2609

2. National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Shiela Avinash dated 27­01­2012 2014 ACJ 320

3. Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Ganpat Rai Sehgal dated 03­01­2003 2013 ACJ 2366

12)But the same Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in subsequent decision on 3rd December, 2013 in MAC.A. No.693/2006 between NATIONAL 7OP 1392-10

INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SH. AMAN KAPUR & ORS it is held that the reimbursement amount from mediclaim policy cannot be deducted and held elaborately as under “So far as the question of deduction of Rs.1,38,000/­ received by the respondent No.1 from the other insurer under the Mediclaim Policy is concerned, the same has rightly not been deducted by the learned

Tribunal inview of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. 

A.C. Mehra Vs. Behari Lal & Anr., I (1997) ACC 657, wherein this

Court has held that the reimbursement of medical expenses under

Mediclaim Policy and Personal Accident Policy can always be claimed against the tort feasor, as the victim had paid the premium for getting the said policies. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:­ “After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the authorities relied by the Counsel, I am of the opinion that the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the appellant has correctly stated that the amount paid by his Insurance 

Company to M/s. Saran Motors cannot be adjusted or deducted. That was paid under a separate contract entered into by the appellant with a third party. In this regard reference can be made to Chapter 10 of "The Quantum of Damages" by Kemp & Kemp­­1986 Edition, where reference has been made to various English decisions holding that completely collateral matters cannot be invoked by a tortfeasor to reduce the damages payable to the victim of his tort. The following passage from para 10­002 which refers to case law can be reproduced for our advantage:

In an action for injuries caused by defendant's negligence a sum received by the plaintiff on an accidental insurance policy cannot be taken into account in reduction of damages". This is the head­note to 

Bradburn v. Great Western Ry. and in our view correctly summarizes the effect of this case. Two passages from the judgments in this case contain the ratio decidendi­­ Bramwell B. said:

In Dalby v. India and London Life Assurance Company it was decided that one who pays premiums for the purpose of insuring himself, pays on the footing that his right to be compensated when the event insured 8OP 1392-10 against happens is an equivalent for the premiums he has paid; it is a quid pro qua, larger if he gets it, on the chance that he will never get it at all. That decision is an authority bearing on the present case, for the principle laid down in it applies, and shows that the plaintiff is entitled to retain the benefit which he has paid for in addition to the damages which he recovers on account of the defendants 'negligence .

And Pigott B. said:

The plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages caused to him by the negligence of the defendants and there is no reason or justice in setting off what the plaintiff has entitled himself to under a contract with third persons, by which he has bargained for the payment of a sum of money in the event of an accident happening to him. He does not receive that sum of money because of the accident, but because he has made a contract providing for the contingency; an accident must occur to entitle him to it, but it is not the accident, but his contract; which is the cause of his receiving it. (Emphasis supplied)

6. The reading of this para clearly establish, that there is no distinctions so far as the law relating to injury is concerned. The point in issue is, whether the amount received by the injured on account of his contract with third person can be deducted ?The answer is definitely "No".

13)The medi­claim policy amount will be reimbursed only on the payment of the premium for the reason that if the petitioner suffered any treatment because of injuries the insurance company has to indemnify the petitioner but for the said reason the second respondent cannot exempted in payment of such amount in view of the above latest decision,, during the cross examination also Pw.1 clearly denied the suggestion made by the second respondent counsel with regard to reimbursement under mediclaim, the nature of injuries and the amounts paid by the petitioner. 

9OP 1392-10

14)The petitioner also examined Pws.3 and 4, Pw.3 by reiterating the medical records deposed that on the date of accident on 11.05.2009 he examined the petitioner with the history of road traffic accident at 12.15

P.M. she was found following injuries.

1) Severe Head injury with compound depressed fracture right TP Bone with underlying SDH.

2) Multiple Frontal Temporal and basal Ganglion contusion with I.V.

Bleed.

3) Severe chest injury with right pneumothorax

4) Right optic nerve injury with orbital bone fracture,

5) Frontal bone fracture and Ethimoral bone fracture.

15)According to Pw.3 because of all those injuries the petitioner was unconscious with difficulty in breathing. She was introbated immediately and examined by the doctors concerned specialists like orthopedic surgeon, plastic surgeon, C.T. Surgeon and Optholmologist, the petitioner was also taken up for emergency surgery for elevation of depressed fracture and evaluation of underlying Hematoma, she was treated for pneumothorax with

I.C.D. On 16.05.2009 she underwent Trachostomy as she required continuous ventilatory support, the same was removed on 19.05.2009, he further deposed about the continuous regular inpatient treatment in the hospital, the petitioner also undergone treatment for associated tooth problems, even at the time of discharge on 16.06.2009 she advised aggressive physiotherapy long term medication to minimize the effects of brain damage and to undergo corrective procedure for the eye and tooth.

Pw.3 deposed that Ex A.5 discharge summary, Ex A.9 OP Cards, Exs A.6 to

A.8 and A.10 are taken by the petitioner on their advice. Ex A.11 hospital bills are issued under the course of treatment for Rs.6,55,935/­ apart from that also the patient incurred expenditure towards out patient under Ex 10OP 1392-10

A.12, when he was examined the petitioner, she was having persistent residual deficit in the right eye even after several correction surgeries and still she is under regular follow­up, further treatment for the injuries to the brain, right eye and lungs definitely affected her day today life, studies and the development and there was also almost more than 90% risk to life at the time of injury.

16)The petitioner to prove the treatment and eye injury condition examined Pw.4 (doctor), he deposed that he was practicing as

Ophthalmologist since 15 years and running hospital i.e Siddharth Eye

Center, he clearly deposed that the petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 15.10.2010 with squint and ptosis eye problem, secondary to Trauma, due to the injury she developed problem to right eye and he gave treatment for Squint correction surgery on 15.10.2010 discharged on the same day under Ex A.6, but again the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 23.05.2011 for the same problem and the said injury was already existing since prior to Ex A.6, he conducted Ptosis surgery on the patient and discharged on the same day under Ex A.7. This witness deposed that the injuries sustained by the patient cannot be treated and corrected in a single sitting which takes many more surgeries for correction of squint and ptosts.

the said problem arises when the nerve to the eye is damaged and the problem of controlling the eye lid will develop, due to such injury the petitioner sustained dis­figuration of her right eye under Ex A.6. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs.26,000/­ under Ex A.7 and Rs.27,500/­, he further testified that for further surgeries and treatment the petitioner requires Rs.70,000/­ per sitting but there is no guarantee that even after the surgeries her disfiguration can become normal, she has to suffer the same 11OP 1392-10 for her life time and during the cross examination also nothing is elicited except denying the suggestions.

17)The above evidence clearly goes to show that the petitioner suffered five grievous injuries and she lost right eye, there is no hope whether the eye sight will restore even after so many surgeries as such it is clear that the petitioner lost her one eye sight which required so many surgeries and there is no conformity as to when she will get normal vision, there is no complete treatment and there is no clarity as to when the petitioner will come to normal condition hence by considering the loss of one eye sight the disability has to be assessed, that as per the Workmens Compensation Act schedule I the Loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eye sight is essential or Very severe facial disfigurement is mentioned as 100% disability and the same is taken for awarding just compensation.

18)That according to the claimant she was aged about 11 years at the time of accident and she was a student, PW1 reiterated the contents of claim petition in his chief about the age and avocation of the claimant, admittedly the claimant have not filed any proof for the education, Exs.A.5 first medical record discloses that the age of the claimant as 11 years only and apart from the medical record there is no evidence with regard to the age of the claimant, respondents also not disputed the age of the claimant as such the claimant age is taken as 11 years.

12OP 1392-10

19)In a case between BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

V/S GUJJALA RAMULAMMA AND OTHERS reported in 2016 ACJ 230 it is held as under “compensation has to be assessed as per Second Schedule to know whether the same is below or above the minimum limit as prescribed in Puttammas case (2 supra). Since the boy is 5 years old, a suitable multiplier has to be selected. The Apex Court in the case of Reshma

Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 ACJ 1253 held as follows:

In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation {(2009)6 SCC 121} should be followed.

b) Following the above, multiplier 15 and notional income of

Rs.15,000/­ p.a. are to be taken”

20)The claimant suffered dis figuration and eye sight as such by relying upon the decision the compensation has to be awarded for permanent disability, the multiplier 15 and notional income of Rs 15,000/­ p.a is taken the compensation comes to Rs 2,25,000/­, the claimant filed and proved medical bills of Rs 7,03,813/­ as such the same is awarded, Rs 10,000/­ is awarded for transport, for pain and suffering for five grievous injuries

Rs,1,50,000/­ is awarded as such the claimant is entitled for a total compensation amount of Rs.10,88,813/­.

21)That as stated above under issue No.1 it is held that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of R1 being the owner cum driver, Ex.B1 policy discloses that R1 is the 13OP 1392-10 owner of the offending vehicle bearing no AP21U­9705, the policy issued by

R.2 was in force from 26­06­2008 to 25­06­2009 and the above accident occurred on 11­05­2009 as such R.1,R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, admittedly there are no violations of policy conditions. hence this issue is answered in favour of the claimant accordingly.

22) ISSUE NO.3 :­

In the result, the petition is partly allowed, awarding a compensation of Rs.10,88,813/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Eighty Eight Thousand Eight

Hundred thirteen only) with proportionate costs with future interest at 7.5% per annum on Rs.10,88,813/­ from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall deposit the entire compensation within one month from today. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs. 

The amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till the petitioner attains majority.

The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/­,

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of February, 2019.

Sd/­ (B. Papi Reddy) Chairman (MACT) cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : 

Pw.1 : Syed Aminul Hassan Jafri Rw.1 : S.Chandra Shekar

Pw.2 : Fatima Hassan Rw.2 : L Ramesh

Pw.3 : Dy.Syed Ameer Basha

Pw.4 : Dr. Siddharth Karan 14OP 1392-10

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner : 

Ex A.1Certified copy of the FIR. Ex A.2Certified copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex A.3Certified copy of Wound Certificate. Ex A.4Certified copy of Crime Details form with rough sketch. Ex A.5Discharge Summary issued from Care Hospital. Ex A.6Discharge summary dt. 15.10.2010 of M/s Siddarth Eye Centre. Ex A.7Discharge summary of dt.23.05.2011. Ex A.8Discharge summaryk of Deccan Hospital dt. 27.04.2013. Ex A.9Out Patient Cards. Ex A.10Case summary issued by M/s Siddarth Eye Centre. Ex A.11Bills numbering 14 issued by Care Hospital. Ex A.12Bunch of Medical Bills. Ex A.13Medical Prescriptions. Ex A.14X­ray films. Ex A.15CT Scan Films. Ex A.16X­ray reports. 

For the respondents :

Ex B.1Attested copy of Policy. Ex B.2Final Bill Summary of Fathima Hasan issued by Care Hospital.

Sd/­ (B. Papi Reddy) Chairman (MACT) cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 

1 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri B. Papi Reddy, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 185/2018

( PRC No. 01/2017 on the file of Spl. JFCM for Excise Cases, Hyderabad )

Committed bySmt. G. Sabitha Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

Crime Number & Police StationCrime No. 386/2013 of PS S.R Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the AccusedA1) Uma Reddy @ N. Uma Maheswar Rao, S/o N. Vasanth Rao, Aged 47 yrs, Occ: Organizer, R/o Plot No.46, Road No.4, Venkateshwara colony, Chintal, Quthubullapur, Hyderabad. A2) A. Bhaskar S/o A. Venkateshwarlu, Aged 28 yrs, R/o Flat No 502, 5th floor, Jamuna Theertha Apartment, N/o Vagu Centre, Vijaywada. A3) Smt D. Aruna W/o Babu Rai, Aged 45 yrs, R/o FlatNo. 502, 5th floor, Jamuna Theertha Apartments, N/o Singi Nagaram, Vijaywada. (Case against A2 & A3 in CC No.152/2013 treated as LPC No. 15/2019) on the file of Spl. JFCM for excise cases, Hyderabad.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through the ComplainantInspector of Police, PS. S.R Nagar, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySri Durga Jee Public Prosecutor of this Court.

Accused defended bySri Gampa Venkatesham Advocate

Offence ChargedUnder Section 370, 370(A)(2) of IPC and Sec 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the court The accused/A1 is found not guilty of the charge under section 370, 370(A)(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act and is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

2 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

ResultIn the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty of the charge under section 370, 370(A)(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act and is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. Mos 1 to 5 shall be kept pending till the disposal of case against A2 and A3 in C.C.No.152/2013 which is treated as LPC No.15/2019.

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

1. The Inspector of Police, S.R.Nagar PS, Hyderabad has laid a charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offence under sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act in Cr.No.386/2013.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.5.2013 on receipt of information that the accused running a brothel house at Flat No.502, 5th floor, Jamuna Thirtha

Apartments, D.K.Road, Ameerpet, SR Nagar, Hyderabad, PW1 informed the same to his superior officer, drafted search proceedings before PW4 and Manohar

Shyam Powar/LW16, he along with panchas and his staff proceeded to the above said premises at about 1910 hours, deputed M.Satyanarayana/LW10 as decoy witness, on receiving signals from the decoy witness, raided the premises and found A2 and A3, A2 voluntarily confessed that A1 used to bring sex workers and used to send the customers to the brothel house by collecting Rs.1,000/- to

Rs.3,000/- from each customer, thereafter recorded the confessional statement of

A2 and seized net cash of Rs.1,500/-, 6 condoms, two cellphones from his possession, also seized one cellphone from the possession of A3.

3.Basing on the report, PW5 registered a case in Cr.No.386/2013 under sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act.

4.During the course of investigation, PW5 recorded the statements of witnesses, affected the arrest of A2 and A3 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence under sections 3, 4 and 5 of

ITP Act.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 370 IPC and

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act by the Special Judicial 3 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, who has committed this case

to the Court of Sessions, Metropolitan Sessions Division, Hyderabad, by committal Order dated 22.9.2017 in PRC No.1/2017 by following due procedure contemplated under section 209 Cr.P.C., against A1 only, by splitting up the case against A2 and A3 vide C.C.No.152/2013 for the offence under sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act.

6.That on appearance of accused/A1 in this court on consideration of the material and upon hearing for the prosecution as well as the accused, charge under sections 370, 370(A)(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of

Immoral Traffic Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, exhibited MOs 1 to 5.

8.The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating evidence but he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Now, the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution has proved the charge under sections 370, 370(A)(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.5.2013 at about 1900 hours at

Flat No.502, 5th floor, Jamuna Theertha Apartments, D.K.Road, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad, A1 by managing a brothel house in the premises, engaged trafficked women for sexual exploitation against her will.

11.The prosecution in order to prove the alleged charge cited 17 witnesses but examined only PWs 1 to 5. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the owner of the flat, PW3 is the watchman and eye witness, PW4 is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, PW5 is the investigating officer.

4 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

12.PW1 deposed that on 18/05/2013 at 19.00 hours after confession of Flat

No. 301 when they are coming down stair of Jamuna Theertha Apartment D.K

Road, Ameerpet, the watch man informed that the prostitution is going on at 502, 5th Floor, immediately he secured the mediators PW4, LW16/Manohar Shyam

Powar and prepared search proceedings and they sent Decoy LW10/

Satyanarayana Police constable and asked him to give a signal, then LW10 went inside flat No. 502, 5th floor and gave two missed calls by way of signal, PW1 and his team and mediators along with WPC proceeded to said place where they found organizer/A2 and A3, they also found one victim lady LW2/Naga Subhashni, recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P1 is the search proceedings, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, he seized Rs 1500/- cash, two Nokia cell phones, Six condoms from A2, One cellkone mobile phone from A3, the cash kept in FDR No. 986478 for Rs.1500/-/MO1, MO2 and

MO3 are the two Nokia cell phones, MO4 is the condoms, MO5 is one cellkone phone, thereafter he brought the accused to police station and lodged Ex.P3 complaint before S.R.Nagar Police station, basing on the confession of A2 and

A3, the accused/A1 made as accused.

13.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that he did not made any GD entry or FIR, he did not give any intimation to the Magistrate after completing the search, he admitted that the mediators are not local inhabitants of the place, which is clear violation of section 100(4) CrPC, he admitted that as per the provision of the Act if the women mediator was not taken the entire proceedings would be vitiated, as per the procedure the currency note number should be noted and that notes should be recovered from the organizer, as per the complaint and his 161 CrPC statement there is no mentioning that the amount was paid to Decoy and the same was recovered from the organizer, he admitted that he did not prepare any rough sketch, he did not receive any complaint from the victim, he did not seize any other articles except MOs 1 to 5, he did not collect any evidence to show that this accused is the resident or occupant of that flat.

5 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

14.PW2 owner of the flat no.502 deposed that he is resident of Flat No 602,

Jamuna Theertha apartments, Dharam Karam road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, he has nine flats in the said apartment, he gave the said flat to the accused in the year 2013 on monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-, after 1 ½ month he came to know about the raid and also came to know that one male and one female person was found when the raid was conducted.

15.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that he did not give any sale deed to police or to the court to show that he is the owner of the flat no.502, he has not given any rental deed to the police or to the court to show that the accused was the tenant of the said flat, he did not give any rental receipt to the accused, he has shown the rent in his income tax returns but he did not mention the accused name, he did not take any Aadhar card or any other identity card of the accused.

16.PW3 watchman of the apartments deposed that on 18/5/2013 Police came and went to Flat No.506 on a brothel case and caught hold male and female person, then they went to Flat No.502 and found one male person and one female person as they are running brothel house, the accused used to reside in Flat No.

502 on rent.

17.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that there is no appointment letter for him to work as watchman, he did not receive any complaint from anybody by stating that so many persons are coming to Flat No.502, whenever any visitor come he used to write down in the register, he does not know from which flat the male and female persons were brought, he clearly admitted that the accused was not present on the date of raid.

18.PW4 mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that on 18.5.2013 Task Force police called him to their office, but police not taken him to anywhere, not conducted any panchanama, no accused was present at that time, no seizure was conducted in his presence, he finally admitted that he does not know the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama.

6 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

19.The learned Public Prosecutor on declaring him as hostile cross-examined but nothing material is elicited against the accused except giving a suggestion that on 18.5.2013 police recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama by seizing MOs in his presence and LW16 but now he is deposing false to help the accused, this suggestion was denied by the witness.

20.PW5 deposed that on 18/5/2013 PW1 lodged Ex.P3/Complaint, basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No.386/2013 under sections 3, 4, 5 of

Prevention of immoral of traffic Act and issued Ex.P6/FIR, he recorded the statements of witnesses, A2 and A3 confessed the offence, affected the arrest of

A2 and A3, deposited MO1 to MO5 before the court, sent the victim women/LW2 to rescue home and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

21.During the course of cross-examination he admitted that prior to registration of FIR the entire search and seizure was conducted and panchanamas recorded, he did not obtain the signature of the informant at column no.14 of FIR, he did not examine any neighbouring witnesses, he did not prepare any rough sketch of the building, he did not collect any ownership particulars of the said building or proof of occupancy, he did not collect any proof to show that the accused are residing on rent in the said premises.

22.That admittedly PW4, the mediator for the confession cum seizure panchanama is declared hostile by the prosecution, PW1 the complainant admitted that he did not made any GD entry or FIR, he did not give any intimation to the Magistrate after completing the search, the mediators are not local inhabitants of the place which is clear violation of section 100(4) CrPC, as per the provision of the Act if the women mediator was not taken the entire proceedings would be vitiated, as per the procedure the currency note number should be noted and that notes should be recovered from the organizer, but as per the complaint and his 161 CrPC statement there is no mentioning that the amount was paid to

Decoy and the same was recovered from the organizer, he did not receive any complaint from the victim, he did not collect any evidence to show that this accused is the resident or occupant of that flat, PW2 owner of the flat admitted 7 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018 that he did not give any sale deed to police or to the court to show that he is the owner of the flat no.502, he has not given any rental deed to the police or to the court to show that the accused was the tenant of the said flat, he did not give any rental receipt to the accused, he did not take any Aadhar card or any other identity card of the accused as such the occupancy of the accused in the flat is not proved, PW3 watchman admitted that he did not receive any complaint from anybody by stating that so many persons are coming to Flat No.502, he does not know from which flat the male and female persons were brought and the accused was not present on the date of raid as such running of brothel house at the flat is not proved, PW5 admitted that he did not examine any neighbouring witnesses which itself sufficient to doubt the prosecution case, he did not prepare any rough sketch of the building, he did not collect any ownership particulars of the said building or proof of occupancy, he did not collect any proof to show that the accused are residing on rent in the said premises, further the victim women/LW2 was not examined by the prosecution, there is no explanation put forth by the prosecution as to why no summon was issued and why no neighbour is placed as mediator, these clear discrepancies entertain a reasonable doubt against the prosecution case in the absence of independent corroboration. Hence, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 370, 370(A) (2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

23.In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty of the charge under section 370, 370(A)(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of (Prevention) of Immoral Traffic Act and is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. Mos 1 to 5 shall be kept pending till the disposal of case against A2 and A3 in C.C.No.152/2013 which is treated as

LPC No.15/2019.

8 of 8 S.C. NO.185/2018

Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

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

March,2023.

Sd/-xxxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1. S. Rama Chandra Reddy PW.2. V. Vamsi Krishna PW.3. Nanaji PW.4. Prakash Jadhav PW.5. S. Prabhakar

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1. Search proceedings Ex.P.2. Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.3. Complaint Ex.P.4. Signature of PW4 on search proceedings Ex.P.5. Signature of PW4 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.6. First Information Report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- Nil

MO.1FDR No.986478 for Rs.1500/- MO.2Nokia Cell phone MO.3Nokia Cell phone MO.4Condoms MO.5Cell kone Phone

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM II

ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT :AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

PRESENT : SRI B.PAPI REDDY

 II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, HYDERABAD

MVOP No. 1283 of 2013

K. Ramesh @ Nanne S/o Ramulu, Aged about 45 years, Occ : Labour, R/o

Kodakandla Village, Gajwel Mandal... Petitioner.

Vs.

1. Marku Laxman S/o Rajaiah, aged : Major, Occ : Business, R/o H.No.4­261/3, Raghavapoor Village, Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh ­ 505 172.

2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Jeevani Pavani Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

(Policy No.TOP1002992 and Valid from 30.08.2012 to 31.07.2013)

... Respondents

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Vishwarupa Chary, Advocate for the petitioner and first respondent remained exparte and of Sri B.Sudhakar, Advocate for the second respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following : 

O R D E R

This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act,1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act') claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/­ with future interest at 18% per annum for the injuries alleged to have sustained by the petitioner on 31.10.2012 opposite to 400 K.V.Sub Station,

Kodakandla in the motor vehicle accident.

2) The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows :

a)The petitioner initially filed this application under Section 163­A of M.V.Act but subsequently amended the claim petition under Section 166 2OP 1283-13 of M.V. Act vide orders in IA No. 1805 of 2018 dt. 15.10.2018. The case of the petitioner as per the claim petition is that on 31.10.2012 while he was proceeding on his TVS XL Super bearing No. AP 23 R 6273 from Kodakandla towards his residence at about 6.30 P.M and when he reached the outskirts of Kodakandla Village opposite to 400 K.V. Sub Station one Tata Indica Vista

Car bearing No. AP 15 BD 1876 driven by it's driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from Hyderabad proceeding towards Siddipet dashed the petitioner vehicle, due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained fracture to left leg and other grievous injuries and fracture on vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Gajwel, after first aid shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, later on for better treatment he was shifted to Tulasi Hospital, ECIL X Road, Hyderabad. 

3)That on information. Kuknoorpaly police registered a case in crime No. 186 of 2012 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the said car, as per the petitioner he was aged about 45 years and earning more than

Rs.6,000/­ per month as labour and contributing the same for his family members who are solely depended on him, but due to the unfortunate accident and injuries he had to take treatment privately and spent more than Rs.2,50,000/­, the petitioner suffered lot of pain and discomfort, because of the injuries and he became permanent disabled person, he lost his future earning capacity which cannot be compensated in any manner, the first respondent being owner, second respondent insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Hence the petitioner claimed Rs.6,00,000/­ towards compensation under different heads along with the interest @ 18% per annum.

3OP 1283-13

4)The first respondent remained exparte.

5)The second respondent filed a counter by denying each and every averments of the petition, the second respondent denied the income and avocation of the petitioner, denied the accident and involvement of the first respondent vehicle. The second respondent further stated that the unfortunate accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the petitioner who was not able to ride such motor cycle, as such the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation, the owner and insurer of the petitioner motor vehicle are also necessary parties. Hence the second respondent prayed to dismiss the petition. 

6)This Tribunal basing on the pleadings framed the following issues for trial. 

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 15 BD 1876 causing injuries

to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7)The petitioner himself examined as Pw.1 marked Exs A.1 to A.11 documents and also examined Pw.2 (doctor), the second respondent not examined any witness but filed an application under Section 170 of M.V.Act by seeking permission to raise all the defences available to the first respondent and the same was allowed. 

8)Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4OP 1283-13

9) ISSUE NO.1 :­

The petitioner case is that on 31.10.2012 when he was proceeding on his TVS XL Super bearing No. AP 23 R 6273 at about 18.30 hours at the outskirts of Kodakandla village, opposite to 400 K.V.Sub

Station, one Tata Indica Vista Car bearing No. AP 15 BD 1876 came in a high speed on a negligent manner dashed the petitioner motor cycle consequently he fell down and sustained fracture injuries, immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Gajwel, where he was given first aid and shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderbad, later on for better treatment he was shifted to Tulasi Hospital, Hyderabad. The first respondent is the owner of the offending car, who remained exparte not contested the version of the petitioner, second respondent filed counter by denying the averments of the petition but stated that the said accident took place due to gross negligence of the petitioner, who was not able to ride such motor vehicle as such there is no dispute about the accident but the dispute is on whose negligence the accident occurred, the petitioner to prove his version examined himself as

Pw.1, he reiterated the contents of the petition in his chief affidavit by testifying that the above said accident occurred only on the negligence of the first respondent car, the petitioner to prove his oral evidence marked Ex A.1

FIR copy in crime No. 186/2012, the said FIR lodged by the relative of the petitioner wherein it is clearly stated that the accident occurred only on the negligence of the Tata Indica Vista Car bearing No. AP 15 BD 1876 which dashed against the petitioner TVS XL Super bearing No. AP 23 R 6273, the police after thorough examination of witnesses Lw.1 to Lw.8 came to the conclusion that the above said accident occurred on the sole negligence of the first respondent car driver in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as such the said charge­sheet filed against the accused driver of the

Car bearing No. AP 15 BD 1876 more particularly for the offence under 5OP 1283-13

Section 338 of IPC, the second respondent even though denied the accident but not chosen to examine any other witness including the said offending car driver and failed to rebut the case of the petitioner, during the cross examination of Pw.1 also nothing is elicited to disbelieve his version which was supported by Exs A.1 to A.3 as such the petitioner clearly proved that the said accident occurred on the sole negligence of R1 car driver. Hence this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. 

10) ISSUE No.2 :­

The petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/­, the first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and his car was insured with the second respondent, there is no dispute that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the learned counsel for the second respondent also filed a memo stating that there is no dispute about the existence of policy as on the date of accident, as such admitted facts need not be proved as per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, there is no dispute that the petitioner sustained injuries when the first respondent car caused the accident and the policy issued by the second respondent was in force. The petitioner counsel argued that the petitioner sustained 55% disability which is partial and permanent in nature, the petitioner also filed medical bills hence just compensation may be awarded.

11)The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a decision reported in 2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB) between Charan Singh v.

G.Vittal Reddy and another, wherein it is held that any qualified doctor can assess the loss of disability i.e earning capacity, it is not necessary that he should be the same doctor who treated the injured but it is always open 6OP 1283-13 for the qualified medical practitioner to assess the loss of disability, the petitioner to prove his injuries and medical expenses marked Ex A.3 MLC which shows that the petitioner sustained one injury of deep fracture of left leg and he was examined by the doctor immediately after the accident on 01.11.2012, Ex A.4 is the disability certificate issued by one doctor

S.Narasimha Rao which shows the petitioner suffered 55% disability of partial and permanent, Ex A.5 are the bunch of medical bills for the relevant period of the accident for a total amount of Rs.1,69,736/­, Ex A.6 is the discharge summary issued by Tulasi Hospitals for the period of treatment from 01.11.2012 to 07.11.2012, Ex A.7 is the inpatient bill for the said period of treatment, Ex A.8 is the discharge summary issued by Yashoda

Hospital for the period of treatment from 15.05.2014 to 20.05.2014, the same is disclosing that the treatment was for non union fracture neck femur ­ left, which is a serious injury, Ex A.9 is the final bill issued by Yashoda

Hospital for Rs 2,19,937/­. Exs A.10 and A.11 are also the medical reports of the Yashoda hospital, the petitioner suffered injuries on 31­11­2012 but he was made to take inpatient treatment in Yashoda Hospital from 15­5­ 2014 to 20­05­2014 and undergone surgeries but during the cross examination of Pw.1, it is clearly elicited that he received injuries on his left leg at hip and ankle, he received amount under C.M. Relief Fund, as such he submitted the hospital record for getting such amount, he received Rs.One

Lakh in that regard, he also received amount under final bill given by the hospital, he filed only advance bills but considering the gravity of injuries and the treatment in the year 2014 also the petitioner is entitled for medical expenses.

12)The learned counsel for the second respondent argued by reiterating his written submissions that Ex A.4 disability certificate cannot 7OP 1283-13 be considered genuine, during cross examination of Pw.1 it is elicited that the doctor issued certificate when he approached through an advocate, that

Dr. S.Narasimha Rao was examined as Pw.2, even though he deposed that

Ex A.4 disability certificate was issued by him and he assessed the disability

as 55% which is partial and permanent in nature but he was not treated the

patient, he issued the disability certificate on the request of the patient, it is also elicited that he cannot tell that the injuries are accidental injuries for which he issued disability certificate but generally disability certificate will be issued by Medical Board and there is no x ray films before the court to show the genuinity of the disability assessment, there is no doubt that the qualified medical practitioner can also assess the disability percentage but in this case Pw.2 is unable to explain how he assessed the disability, more over he cannot tell those injuries are accidental injuries or not, in such case disability certificate cannot be reliable, but considering Ex A.3 Wound

Certificate, the petitioner sustained only one grievous injury which is serious in nature, as per A8 it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is unable to bear weight and walk on left leg associated with pain in left hip and ankle pain is increased in intensity even after lapse of more than one and half years of accident, initially the petitioner taken inpatient treatment from 01.11.2012 to 07.11.2012 and the final bill issued by the hospital for

Rs.1,42,000/­ and admittedly the petitioner received an amount of Rs.One

Lakh from Chief Minister Relief Fund. Hence considering the gravity of the injury and inpatient treatment the compensation has to be awarded, a sum of Rs.30,000/­ is awarded for pain and suffering for one grievous injury,

Rs.10,000/­ is awarded towards transportation, Rs.2,60,000/­ is awarded towards medical and other expenses. There is no proof of income but considering the period of inpatient treatment and seriousness of injury

Rs 30,000/­ is awarded for loss of earnings for six months, the petitioner 8OP 1283-13 suffered deep fracture of neck femur which is serious in nature and he is having pain in walking even in the year 2014 and took treatment and suffered partial permanent disability which cannot be ruled out but the disability certificate issued in this case is not reliable, however considering the partial permanent disability Rs.1,00,000/­ is awarded Hence the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation amount of Rs.4,30,000/­.

13.There is no dispute that the first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and his car was insured with the second respondent, there is no dispute that the policy was in force as on the date of accident as such the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the injured claimant. Hence this issue is answered partly in favour of the petitioner.

14) ISSUE NO.3 :­

In the result, the petition is partly allowed, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,30,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) with proportionate costs with future interest at 7.5% per annum on

Rs.4,30,000/­ from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall deposit the entire compensation within one month from today. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs. 

Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the award amount forthwith and the remaining half after three years, during which period the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank.

9OP 1283-13

The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/­.

Office is directed to prepare the decree on payment of the entire court fee.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of

January, 2019.

Sd/­ (B.Papi Reddy) Chairman (MACT) cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : 

Pw.1 : K. Ramesh @ NanneNIL

Pw.2 : S. Narasimha Rao

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner : 

Ex A.1Certified copy of FIR. Ex A.2Certified copy of Charge­sheet. Ex A.3Certified copy of MLC. Ex A.4Original Disability Certificate. Ex A.5Original Bunch of Medical Bills Ex A.6Original discharge summary of Tulasi Hospital. Ex A.7Original Final Bill of Tulasi Hospital. Ex A.8Xerox copy of Discharge summary of Yashoda Hospital. Ex A.9Xerox copy of Final Bill of Yashoda Hospital. Ex A.10Original Investigation reports of Yashoda Hospital. Ex A.11X Ray Films (4).

For the respondents :

NIL Sd/­ (B.Papi Reddy) Chairman (MACT) cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 

1 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri B. Papi Reddy, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 39/2019

Crime Number & Police StationCrime No. 107/2018 of PS Excise Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the AccusedA1) Reddi Veda Sai Kumar S/o Veera Raju, Aged 23 yrs, R/o H.No 2-2-647/95/1, Bagh Amberpet Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad A2) Mancham Manikanta @ Mani S/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Aged 28 yrs, R/o H.No 8-2-295/K/309/310, Sri satya Sai apartment, Kamalapuri colony, Hyderabad Permanent R/o H.No 1-143/ Ratnapuram near Poleramma temple, Peddapatnam, Mamidikuduru Mandal, Tatipaka, East Godavari Dist. A3) Abhilash @ Javed S/o Shaik Tajuddin, aged 24 yrs R/o H. No 5-3-86, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through Excise ComplainantInspectorofPolice,Kachiguda Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySri Durga jee Public Prosecutor of this Court.

Accused defended bySri Thomas Loyd advocate for A1. Sri Rakesh Pathak Advocate for A2, Sri Mohit Kaasliwal Jain Advocate for A3,

Offence ChargedUnder Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the court The accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.

2 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019

ResultIn the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. MOs 1 and 3 are directed to be destroyed, on expiry of appeal time. MO2/cellphone and the unmarked case property I.e, Duke Bike bearing no.TS-11EH-6536 shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time on proper identification and ownership.

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

1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kachiguda Excise Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offence under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act in Cr.No.107/2018.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2018, PW2/Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector received information about illegal sale of dry ganja near traffic signal, six number, near Sherton Hotel, Amberpet, Hyderabad, informed to immediate superior officer under section 42(2) of NDPS Act, then PW2 and

PW1/gazetted officer went to the spot by securing two panch witnesses/E.Ganesh and P.Balaiah (Lws 1 and 2), at about 1.15 pm found A1 coming on motorcycle stopped the vehicle, appraised about his right to search before the gazetted officer or Magistrate, on his consent to search before gazetted officer, PW1 being a gazetted officer served notice on the accused, during the search found one cloth plastic bag containing 1.2 kgs of ganja and one cellphone, drawn two samples containing 50 grams each, seized the samples remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama, seizure and arrest intimation given to immediate superior officer under section 57 of NDPS Act.

3.Basing on the panchanama, PW3 registered a case in

Cr.No.107/2018 under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.

4.During the course of investigation PW3 sent the samples for analysis and report and on receipt of report from FSL stating that the sample is ganja and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A1 for illegal possession of ganja and against A2 and A3 for selling ganja to A1 for the offence under 3 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019 section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

6.That on appearance of the accused on consideration of the material and upon hearing for the prosecution as well as the accused, a charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PW1 to

PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8, exhibited Mos 1 to 3.

8.The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the evidence and reported no evidence.

9.Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charges under sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The specific charge framed against the accused is that on 26.10.2018, A1 was found in possession of 1.2 kgs of dry ganja to sell the same to needy customers purchased from A2 and A3, which is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance without any valid licence or permit as such the charge was framed under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act which reads as under:- “Section 8 -- Prohibition of certain operations:-- No person shall---

(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-state, export inter- state, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.” 4 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019

Section 20 – Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis:- Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder---

(b)produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable---

(ii)where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),-- (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

11.The prosecution cited 7 witnesses but out of which examined PW1 to

PW3 so as to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the gazetted officer, PW2 is the complainant and PW3 is the investigating officer.

12.That in this case the prosecution filed a memo stating that Lws 1 and 2/mediators for search and seizure whereabouts are not known, as such except the official witness evidence there is nothing on record against the accused as such their evidence has to be examined carefully.

13.PW1 deposed that on 26/10/2018 on reliable information he and

PW2, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector proceeded to Six Number near

Sherton Hotel, Amberpet, and before proceeding they informed to the Assistant

Prohibition and Excise superintendent under Ex.P1, proceeded to that place and secured two mediators, LW1/ Ganesh, LW2/Balaiah, at about 1.15 PM they found

A1 was coming on bike from Ramanthapur to Shivam road and he was apprehended, on enquiry A1 stated that he was in the possession of dry ganja in a bag kept on the bike and then he obtained consent to search before the gazetted officer as he is the Gazetted officer in the raided team, Ex.P2 is the search memo, Ex.P3 is the option notice and acknowledgment, on search they found 1.2 Kgs of Ganja, motor bike TS11 EH 6536 and one cell phone and seized 5 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019 the same after drawing two samples each 50grms, MO1 is the Contraband, MO2 is the cell phone, MO3 is the sample, he handed over A1 along with case property to PW3 who registered the case, he informed about the case under Ex.P4 and he lodged complaint/Ex.P5 before the SHO PS Excise Kachiguda.

14.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that he is the member of raiding party, sample contains his signature, he did not conduct any panchanama but LW5 conducted the same.

15.PW2 deposed that on 26/10/2018 on reliable information he along with PW1 proceeded to Six Number near Sherton hotel, Amberpet, before proceeding they informed to the Assistant prohibition and Excise superintendent under Ex.P1, proceeded to that place and secured two mediators, LW1/ Ganesh,

LW2/Balaiah, at about 1.15 PM they found A1 was coming on bike from

Ramanthapur to Shivam road, and was apprehended, on enquiry A1 disclosed his identity and stated that he was in possession of dry ganja in a bag kept on the bike, then he obtained consent to search before the gazetted officer but PW1 acted as gazetted officer who was in the raiding team, Ex.P2 is the search memo,

Ex.P3 is the option notice and acknowledgment, on search they found 1.2 Kgs of

Ganja, motor bike TS11-EH-6536 and one cell phone and seized the same after drawing two samples each 50grms, MO1 is the Contraband, MO2 is the cell phone, MO3 is the sample, thereafter brought A1 along with case property and handed over to PW3 who registered the case and investigation conducted by

LW7, he informed about the case under Ex.P4, Ex.P6 panchanama conducted by him.

16.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that the report was given at 3.50 PM but it is mentioned at 4.00 PM, the distance between the place of offence and police station is about 2 kilometers, they have not given any separate notice to exercise the option to search before any other gazetted officer who were not present in the raiding team.

6 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019

17.PW3 deposed that on 26/10/2018 she received Ex.P5/report along with MO1 to MO3 and confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P6, basing on the same she registered a case in COR No. 107/2018 and issued Ex.P7/COR, thereafter LW7 conducted the investigation and collected Ex.P8/FSL report by stating that the sample is ganja, after completion of investigation LW7 filed the charge sheet.

18.During the course of cross-examination she admitted that as per

Ex.P8 there is a delay of 20 days in sending the sample, they have not mentioned the reason for such delay and in whose custody the property was kept for that period, she has not recorded the reason for reporting the complaint with delay of two hours.

19.That as per the decision between Abdul Rashid Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SC 2422 it is held that “since excise officer is police officer under section 25 of the Evidence Act, confessional statement made by the accused

before such officer is inadmissible in evidence.”

20.That in a case between Union of India Vs. Leen Martin and another reported in AIR 2018 SC 991 it was held that “ when the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused.”

21.That in a case between Krishnapal Singh Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh (now state of Chattisgarh) 2013(2)ALT(Crl.)30(NRC) the Hon’ble High

Court doubted the prosecution case by considering the delay in sending the sample.

22.The above decisions squarely applicable to the present case.

Admittedly in this case the prosecution failed to examine the mediators for the confessional cum seizure panchanama/Lws 1 and 2 before this court. PW1 is the gazetted officer who went along with PW2/complainant admitted that he did not conduct any panchanama but PW2 conducted the same but in his chief examination stated that he lodged the complaint/Ex.P5, PW2 the complainant admitted that the report was given by 3.50 PM but it is mentioned at 4.00 PM, 7 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019 they have not given any separate notice to exercise the option to search before any other gazetted officer who were not present in the raiding team, which itself shows that the complainant and the gazetted officer went together to the spot and it is a clear violation of procedure, PW3 the investigating officer admitted that as per Ex.P8 there is a delay of 20 days in sending the sample and they have not mentioned the reason for such delay and in whose custody the property was kept for that period, she has not recorded the reason for reporting the complaint with a delay of two hours. Thus, the lapses in investigation cast a doubt on the case of prosecution and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Therefore, the accused/A1 to A3 are entitled to acquittal.

23.In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. MOs 1 and 3 are directed to be destroyed, on expiry of appeal time. MO2/cellphone and the unmarked case property I.e, Duke Bike bearing no.TS-11EH-6536 shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time on proper identification and ownership.

Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of March,2023.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1. P. Narender PW.2. Mohd Nazeer Hussain PW.3. M. Padma

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1. Report U/sec 42(2) of NDPS Act Ex.P.2. Search memo Ex.P.3. Option notice and acknowledgment Ex.P.4. Report Ex.P.5. Complaint Ex.P.6. Confession cum seizure Panchanama 8 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.39/2019

Ex.P.7. COR Ex.P.8FSL

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

MO1: Contraband MO2:Cell phone MO3:Sample

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

1 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 29th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri B. Papi Reddy, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

SESSIONS CASE NO.93/2019

Crime Number & Police StationCrime No. 357/2018 of PS Osmania University, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the AccusedKaliwala Chandini W/o Kaliwala Lingam, Aged 20 yrs, Occ: Onion Vendor, R/o H.No 12-12-192/27, Pardhi Basti, Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through the ComplainantInspector of Police, PS. Osmania University, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySri Durga Jee Public Prosecutor of this Court.

Accused defended bySri V. Sudhakar Babu Advocate

Offence ChargedUnder Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the court The accused is found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and therefore acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.

ResultIn the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and therefore acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. MO1 to MO3 are directed to be destroyed, on expiry of appeal time.

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Osmania University PS, Hyderabad has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 8(c) read with 20(b) of the NDPS Act in Cr.No.357/2018.

2 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2018 at 1800 hours PW1 lodged a report stating that on the same day at about 1700 hours he along with his staff were performing patrolling duty near

Seethapalmandi Flyover, OU Campus, noticed the accused and found 21 sachets of ganja weighing about 250 grams in a polythene bag.

3.Basing on the report, PW3 registered a case in

Cr.No.357/2018 under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

4.During the course of investigation PW3 recorded the statements of witnesses, secured the presence of two mediators/PW2 and B.Sudershan(LW6), served notice under section 50 of NDPS Act to the accused apprising her right to search before the gazetted officer or

Magistrate, on her consent to be searched before the gazetted officer,

summoned PW4 who also issued notice under section 50 of NDPS Act to the accused, PW3 recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused, seized ganja weighing about 250 grams packed in 21 sachets, drawn the sample, in pursuance of the confession of the accused they went to the two wheeler parking of Seethaphalmandi

Railway Station where he seized 1000 grams of ganja in a cover, seized the same under the cover of separate seizure report before the mediators, drawn the sample, affected the arrest of accused, sent the detailed report under section 57 of NDPS Act to his superior officer, sent the seized samples to TSFSL for examination and report, collected FSL report stating that the sample is “ganja”, thereafter on completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

6.That on appearance of the accused in this Court, on consideration of the material and upon hearing for the prosecution as 3 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019 well as the accused, a charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained the accused in her vernacular language, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined

PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5, exhibited MOs 1 to 3.

8.The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but the accused denied the evidence and reported no evidence.

9.Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charges under sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

NDPS Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2018 at about 1700 hours the accused was found in possession of 1250 grams of ganja, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance which is in the possession of accused without any valid licence or permit as such the charge was framed under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS

Act which reads as under:- “Section 8 -- Prohibition of certain operations:-- No person shall---

(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-state, export inter-state, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.”

Section 20 – Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis:- Whoever, in contravention of any 4 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019 provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder---

(b)produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable---

(ii)where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),-- (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

11.The prosecution in order to prove its case cited 9 witnesses but examined PWs 1 to 4 only. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the mediator for confession of accused and seizure, PW3 is the investigating officer, PW4 is the gazetted officer.

12.PW1 deposed that on 21.11.2018 at about 5.00 PM while he was performing patrolling duty along with his staff near Seetaphalmandi fly over, OU Campus, noticed the accused holding white colour polythene bag in front of Samruthi Apartment and found the accused was carrying 21 sachets of ganja in a small polythene bag weighing about 250 grams, Ex.P1 is the complaint.

13.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that there are so many persons at the spot, he did not conduct any search as such he did not give any notice, he took the accused along with the property and handed over in the police station, he does not know the weight of the ganja but on information given by the accused only he came to know about the ganja.

14.PW2 deposed that on 28.11.2018 at about 8.00 PM on the instructions of his MRO, he along with LW6/Sudershan proceeded to OU 5 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019

PS where PW3 was present, the police seized 250 grams of ganja from the possession of the accused, prepared confession cums seizure panchanama, the accused lead them to the two wheeler parking of

Seetaphalmandi Railway Station where police seized 1000 grams of ganja from nearby dustbin, police drawn the samples, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the seizure report, MO1 is the contraband, MO2 is the sample.

15.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that 250 grams of ganja seized in the police station, the panchanama was started at 8.45 PM and concluded by 9.30 PM, no notice was issued to the accused and material objects does not contain his signature.

16.PW3 deposed that on 21.11.2018 he received report from

PW1 under Ex.P1, basing on the same registered a case in

Cr.No.357/2018 under section 8(C) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and issued FIR/Ex.P4, he recorded the statements of the witnesses, served notice under section 50 of NDPS Act to the accused in the presence of PW2, LW6/B.Sudershan, on the option he summoned PW4,

Inspector of Police, Kachiguda and conducted search and found 250 grams of ganja packed in 21 packets, drawn 15 grams of samples for

FSL, seized MO1 ganja, MO2 sample, in pursuance of the confession of the accused, they went to two wheeler parking of Seetaphalmandi

Railway Station where the accused shown 1000 grams of ganja in a cover and seized the same as MO3, recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P3, drawn samples of 15 grams and affected arrest of the accused, he forwarded report under section 57 of

NDPS Act to ACP, Kachiguda, forwarded the sample to FSL for examination, on receipt of FSL report/Ex.P5 stating that the sample is ganja and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

6 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019

17.During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that the material objects does not contain the panch slips, he did not issue notice under section 43 of NDPS Act to the accused as it is a public place, they did not weighed the ganja packet wise, they did not examine any independent witness of any of the locality of two places, the place of offence is busy area, gazetted officer also belongs to his department only, he admitted that all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are official witnesses only except mediators.

18.PW4 deposed that on 21.11.2018 on the requisition of PW3 proceeded to Osmania University PS and from there to RD Basthi,

Seethaphalmandi, where he found the accused, mediators/PW2 and

LW6, where PW3 conducted search and seized 250 grams of ganja packed in 21 sachets and separated and drawn 15 grams as sample, thereafter PW3 prepared confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P2.

19.During the course of cross-examination he admitted that

Ex.P2/panchanama does not disclose that he was present through out the panchanama, there is no written requisition from PW3, material objects does not contain the panch slips and signature.

20.That as per the decision between Abdul Rashid Vs. State of

Bihar reported in 2001 SC 2422 it is held that “since excise officer is police officer under section 25 of the Evidence Act, confessional statement made by the accused before such officer is inadmissible in evidence.”

21.That in a case between Union of India Vs. Leen Martin and another reported in AIR 2018 SC 991 it was held that “ when the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused.” 7 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019

22.The above decisions squarely applicable to the present case.

PW1 the complainant admitted that there are so many persons at the spot, he did not conduct any search, he took the accused along with the property and handed over in the police station, he does not know the weight of the ganja but on the information given by the accused only he came to know about the ganja, PW2 the mediator for confessional cum seizure panchanama, admitted that 250 grams of ganja seized in the police station, the panchanama was started at 8.45 PM and concluded by 9.30 PM, but the evidence of PW1 shows that on 21.11.2018 at about 5.00 PM he noticed the accused along with ganja and gave complaint at about 6.00 PM, which is quite contrary to the evidence of PW2, PW2 admitted that no notice was issued to the accused but PW3 stated that in the presence of two mediators/PW2 and

LW6 he served notice to the accused, PW2 admitted that material objects does not contain any signature, PW3 admitted that material objects does not contain the panch slips, he did not issue notice under section 43 of NDPS Act to the accused as it is a public place, they did not weighed the ganja packet wise, they did not examine any witnesses of any of the locality of two places which is the clear violation under section 100(4) of CrPC and the place of offence is a busy area, PW3 admitted that gazetted officer belongs to his department and also admitted that all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are official witnesses only except mediators, PW4 the gazetted officer admitted that Ex.P2 panchanama does not disclose that he was present through out the panchanama, there is no written requisition from PW3, material objects does not contain the panch slips and signature, when the prosecution relies on the official witnesses evidence it must be without infirmities as such the accused is clearly entitled for benefit of doubt.

8 of 8 NDPS S.C. NO.93/2019

Hence, this point is answered in favour of accused and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and therefore acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. MO1 to MO3 are directed to be destroyed, on expiry of appeal time.

Typed on my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 th day of

March,2023.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1. M. Sai Kumar PW.2. N. Vijay Kumar PW.3. S. Raja Shekar Reddy PW.4. Janaki Reddy

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1. Complaint Ex.P.2. Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.3. Seizure report Ex.P.4. First information Report Ex.P.5. FSL report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- Nil

MO1.Contraband MO2.Sample MO3.Ganja

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD