Smt B.Ramya

1

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

Present:: Smt B.Ramya, Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Movva. Friday, this the 29th day of October, 2021.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 214 of 2019

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

1. Putti Ramakrishna, s/o Venkateswara Rao, age 44 years, Nidumolu village.

2. Yenduri Lingaiah, s/o Jagannayakulu, age 46 years, Nidumolu village. ::: Accused

This Calendar Case coming on for hearing before me on 28.10.2021 in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor, Movva for the State, and Sri M.P.Kondaiah, Counsel for Accused A1 and of Sri Y.Chinna Rao, Counsel for Accused A2, upon consideration of the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1).The Station House Officer, Kuchipudi P.S filed a charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Cr.No.102/2019 alleging that they committed an offences punishable U/S . 273 IPC & Sec.5, 22 of COTPAct.

2).The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

On 16-06-2019, information received about the sales of baned Tobacco packets,

P.W.3/ S.I of Police, Kuchipudi P.S along with his staff proceeded to Nidumolu village, there they found accused A1 and A2 are selling the Gutka & Khaini packets, on seeing them they tried to skulk away from there, then they surrounded them and found 1. Miraj

Khaini Tobacco packets- 30, RMD pan Masala big packets – 30, RMD Pan Masala Small packets – 30 and seized from the possession of A1 and A2. Then, they confessed that the banned Gutkha, Khaini packets getting from some unknown person and selling higher rate to the people. Basing on the occurrence report P.W.3 registered the same as

F.I.R in Cr.No.102/2019 of Kuchipudi P.S against Accused A1 and A2. Hence the charge sheet.

3). The case is taken on file for the offences punishable U/S . 273 IPC & Sec.5, 22 of COTPAct against the accused A1 and A2. On appearance of the Accused A1 and A2

before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207

Cr.P.C. They were examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C, substance of the accusation for the 2 offences U/S . 273 IPC & Sec.5, 22 of COTPAct were read over and explained to the accused in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4). During the course of trial out of 5 witnesses listed in the charge sheet prosecution has examined LW.1 as PW1 and LW.3 as PW.2 and LW.5 as PW.3 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. MO’s.1 to 3 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced for the defence. PW.1 is the Police Constable, who speak about the occurrence and corroborate with the facts of occurrence report and FIR and PW.2 is the eye witness and neighbor, who speak about the occurrence and corroborate with the facts of occurrence report and FIR., PW.3 is the Sub Inspector of police, who speak about the registration of FIR and investigation. The learned Assistant public prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W.2/ M.Srinivasa Rao, P.C of Kuchipudi P.S, LW.4/S.Krishna,

Independent witness.

The Exhibits P1 to P4 are marked for prosecution. Ex.P1 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P2 is the Occurence report. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Mos. 1 to 3 are marked. M.O.1 is Miraj Khaini Tobacco packets- 30, MO.2 is RMD pan Masala big packets – 30, Mo.3 is RMD Pan Masala Small packets - 30.

5.)After Closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 and A2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused A1 and A2 denied the same did not urge any defence evidence.

6.) Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the evidence on record.

7.)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for the

offences U/S . 273 IPC & Sec.5, 22 of CTPPARTCPSD Act, 2003 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Before averting to the point, it is pertinent to have a glance at the relevant

provisions of law under which the case is filed.

3

U/S .273 IPC reads as follows:-

Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered r has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious , or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Sec.5(1) of COTP Act reads as Follows:-

Sec.5 (1) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in, the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products shall advertise and no person having control over a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisement which directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigarettes or any other tobacco products.

Sec.22 of COTP Act reads as Follows:-

The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003

Punishment for advertisement of cigarettes and tobacco products.- Whoever contravenes the provision of section 5 shall, on conviction, be punishable(a) in the case of first conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, and

(b) in the case of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

P O I N T No.1:

8.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the Police Constable of

Kuchipudi P.S as P.W.1, in his evidence PW.1 categorically deposed that on 16.06.2019, the Sub-Inspector of police/PW.3 has received a credible information about the sale of Gutka product at Nidumolu. Then, he along with LW.2 and

PW.3 have proceeded to Rama Krishna General Stores, on seeing them accused A1 and A2 who were present there tried to sulk away by picking up bag in their hands. They have caught hold of the said accused A1 and A2. The Sub-

Inspector of police/PW.3 has enquired the said accused and taken them into the custody. They have verified the bag and found 3 items of banned tobacco products. The Sub-Inspector of police has seized the said products. Later, they proceeded to the police station along with the accused A1 and A2.

P.W.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the suggestions made by the defence counsel that the scene of offence is busy locality and it is a main center of Nidumolu village and on

Ex.P2/occurrence report, the signatures were not obtained from other witnesses and from the accused A1 and A2 also.

9).The Prosecution also examined one Sonti Venkateswara Rao/Neighbor & eye witness of the occurrence as PW.2. In his evidence, PW.2 deposed that he do not know anything about the case. Police not examined and recorded his statement. He denied his statement given to the Police U/s.161 Cr.P.C under Ex.P1.

10.) The prosecution also examined the S.I of Kuchipudi P.S as PW.3, in his evidence PW.3 categorically deposed that on 16.06.2019 at 4.30 p.m, he was received a credible information that some person is selling Gutka products at Nidumolu village .

Then, he along with PW.1 and LW.2 proceeded to Nidumolu village and reached Rama

Krishna General Stores. On seeing them, accused A1 and A2 who were present there, tried to escape with bag in their hands, then he caught hold of them with the assistance of his staff. On enquriy the said accused A1 and A2 disclosed their identity particulars.

He was verified the bag and found gutka packets. On enquiry accused A1 and A2 have stated that some unknown person have been supplying the gutka products to them.

Accused A1 and A2 further stated that they are gaining by selling the gutka products.

Then, he seized the gutka products, and arrested the accused A1 and A2 and later proceeded to the police station and kept the seized tobacco products in the police station for safe custody. He prepared the occurrence report as no mediators are available at the scene offence. He registered the occurrence report as a case in Crime

No. 102/2019 for the offence under Sec. 273 of IPC, Sec.5, 22 of CTPPARTCPSD Act and issued FIR. Ex. P2 is the occurrence report. Ex.P3. is FIR. Next day, he visited the scene offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene offence. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. He examined PW.1 and LW.2 and recorded their statements.

Later, he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on accused A1 and A2. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet U/s. 273 IPC, Sec.5, 22 of CTPPARTCPSD. M.O.1 is Miraj Khaini Tobacco packets- 30, MO.2 is RMD pan Masala big packets – 30, Mo.3 is RMD Pan Masala Small packets – 30.

P.W.3 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the suggestions made by the defence counsel that he did not mentioned in Ex.P2/Occurrence report that he seized the Mos. 1 to 3 from

Accused A1 and signatures were not obtained from other witnesses and from the accused A1 and A2 also on Ex.P2/Occurrence report. He also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy place surrounded by crowd and it took 30 minutes to draft the

Ex.P2/Occurrence report.

11).As stated by Pw.3, he seized the prohibited Gutkha packets from the possession of the accused under the cover of occurrence report. The occurrence report marked as

Ex.P2. As per the contents of occurrence report, the accused A1 and A2 confessed the offence to the PW.3 who is Police officer. As per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act:

Confession to Police officer not to be proved:-

No confession made to Police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”

Whereas PW.3 conducted investigation and registered F.I.R basing on the occurrence report, and the accused confessed the offence, the evidence of PW.3 is hit by Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

12).It is further admitted by PW.3 that the scene of offence is a busy place surrounded by crowd and it took 30 minutes to draft the Ex.P2 and he did not mentioned in Ex.P2/Occurrence report that he seized the Mos. 1 to 3 from Accused A1 and signatures were not obtained from other witnesses and from the accused A1 and A2 also on Ex.P2/Occurrence report. .

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C reads as follows:- Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality of no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

As per S.100(4) of Cr.P.C when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the Police Officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing prescribed above.

It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the investigating officer though scene of offence is located in a busy locality having residential area where there is public movement. It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators, the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard.

As such there is every probability to plant the gutkha packets to the present case and the seized property not sent to the R.F.S.L. Unless and until obtained the R.F.S.L report it is unable to conclude that the seized property is Tobacco products.

13). I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law of

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in the case of Sri Jaganath Enterprises, Eluru,

West Godavari District Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 769 (A.P) held that “Since sale of Tobacco products still not banned in this country but only regulated to a certain extent, Sections. 269 & 270 IPC are not attracted what is banned under COPTA is merely sale of these products to a person, who is below age of 18 years & in area within 100 yards of an educational institution, but not their production trade & supply etc. offences under COPTA Act, can only be launched if Police find Sections. 5, 6, 7 & 10 are not complied with, except on these very limited grounds, genuine/legitimate traders cannot be prosecuted. Accordingly, FIRs/cases registered under provisions of IPC, FSS Act and COPTA, quashed.”

A reading of the COTPA Act, particularly sections 4,5,6 && clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the manufacture/sale of tobacco products. What is banned is merely the sale of tobacco products to a person, who is below the age of 18 years & in an area within 100 yards of an educational institution. The other aspects covered by sections 5 & 7 of the COTPA Act, deal with the advertisement and the warning, which is to be contained on a package, in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a regulatory mechanism only.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions of the COTPA Act, can only pressed into service in these limited circumstances only (violation of Sections 4,5,6,7 & 10). In addition, if the package does not contain any pictorial or other warning, the prosecution can be launched. Therefore, it is clear that the central government imposed certain restrictions on the manufacture, sale, distribution & consumption of tobacco only, but it did not absolutely ban the same.

14).In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence basing on incomplete investigation, the accused cannot be connect with the alleged offence. There is no material produced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence and that the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. As such the accused are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15).In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences

U/S . 273 IPC & Sec.5, 22 of COTPAct and they are acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The case property i.e., in C.P.No. 251/2021 i.e.,

Mos. 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 29th day of October, 2021.

Sd/- B.Ramya

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Movva

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:For Defence: PW1: Oleti Prasanna Kumar, PoliceNIL Constabnle. PW.2: Sonti Venkateswara Rao. PW.3: K.Pratap Reddy, S.I of Police.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P2: Occurence report.

Ex.P3: FIR. Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: Miraj Khaini Tobacco packets- 30. Mo.2: RMD pan Masala big packets – 30 . Mo.3: RMD Pan Masala Small packets – 30.

Sd/- B. Ramya

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MOVVA

//True Copy//

1

P;/0/IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: MOVVA.

Present:: Smt B.Ramya, Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Movva. Wednesday, this the 27th day of October, 2021.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 93 of 2021

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghantasala Police Station. ::: Complainant

A N D

Mande Ravindra Babu, s/o Bhaskara Rao, age 41 years, Dasari malapalli H/o Thadepalli village, Ghantasala Mandal. Mandal. ::: Accused

This Calendar Case coming on for hearing before me on 26.10.2021 in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor, Movva for the State, and Sri T.Rambabu, Counsel for accused, upon consideration of the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1).The Station House Officer, Ghantasala P.S filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.36/2021 alleging that he committed an offence punishable U/S .273

IPC & Sec.5(1), 22 of COTPAct.

2).The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

On 24-01-2021 , Accused selling the baned Tobacco packets at SH-328, Kodali

Village. Then, PW.1/S.I of Police, Ghantasala P.S seized Miraj tobacco packets – 60 with yellow color gunny bag, total worth about Rs.900/- from the possession of Accused.

Basing on the occurrence report P.W.1 registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.36/2021 of

Ghantasala P.S against Accused.Hence the charge sheet.

3). The case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/S .273 IPC & Sec.5(1), 22 of COTPAct. against the accused. On appearance of the Accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. He was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C, substance of the accusation for the offence U/S .273 IPC &

Sec.5(1), 22 of COTPAct were read over and explained to the accused in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4). During the course of trial out of 3 witnesses listed in the charge sheet prosecution has examined LW.3 as PW1 and got exhibited. Exs.P1 to P4 are marked.

MO.1 is marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced for the defence. PW.1 is the Sub Inspector of police, who speak about the registration of FIR and investigation.

2

The learned Assistant public prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W.1/ V.Veerababu,

P.C of Ghantasala P.S, LW.2/K.Venkateswara Rao, P.C of Ghantasala P.S .

The Exhibits P1 to P4 are marked for prosecution. Ex.P1 is the Occurence report. Ex.P2 is the Signature of accused on Ex.P1. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Mo. 1 is marked. M.O.1 is Meeraj Tobacco packets- 60.

5.)After Closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same did not urge any defence evidence.

6.) Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the evidence on record.

7.)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S .

273 IPC & Sec.5(1), 22 of CTPPARTCPSD Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Before averting to the point, it is pertinent to have a glance at the relevant

provisions of law under which the case is filed.

U/S .273 IPC reads as follows:-

Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered r has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious , or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Sec.5(1) of COTP Act reads as Follows:-

Sec.5 (1) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in, the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products shall advertise and no person having control over a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisement which directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigarettes or any other tobacco products.

Sec.22 of COTP Act reads as Follows:-

The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003

Punishment for advertisement of cigarettes and tobacco products.- Whoever contravenes the provision of section 5 shall, on conviction, be punishable-

(a) in the case of first conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, and

(b) in the case of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. P O I N T No.1:

8.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the SI of Ghantasala P.S as PW.1, in his evidence PW.1 categorically deposed that on 24.01.2021 at about 6

AM., he was received a credible information that some person is selling Gutka products at Kodali village, Ghantasala Mandal . Then, he along with LWs.1 and 2 proceeded to

Kodali village and reached near SH.328. On seeing them Accused tried to escape with yellow colour gunny bag, then he caught hold of him with the assistance of his staff. On enquriy he disclosed his identity particulars. He has verified the bag and found gutka packets. On enquiry accused stated that some unknown person have been supplying the gutka products to him. He further stated that he was gaining by selling the gutka products. Then, he seized the gutka products, and arrested him and later proceeded to the police station and kept the seized tobacco products in the police station for safe custody. He himself prepared the occurrence report as no mediators are available at the scene offence. He registered the occurrence report as a case in Crime No. 36/2021 for the offence under Sec.273 of IPC, Sec.5(1), 22 of CTPPARTCPSD Act and issued FIR.

Ex. P1 is the occurrence report. He also obtained signature of Accused on Ex.P1 i.e.,

Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is FIR. Next day, he visited the scene offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene offence. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. He examined

LWs.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Later, he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on

Accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet U/s.273 IPC, Sec.5(1), 22 of CTPPARTCPSD. M.O.1 is Meeraj Tobacco packets- 60.

P.W.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the suggestions made by the defence counsel that the scene of offence is a busy place surrounded by crowd and it took 30 minutes to draft the

Ex.P1.

10).As stated by Pw. 1, he seized the prohibited Gutkha packets from the possession of the accused under the cover of occurrence report. The occurrence report marked as

Ex.P1. As per the contents of occurrence report, the accused confessed the offence to the PW.1 who is Police officer. As per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act:

Confession to Police officer not to be proved:-

No confession made to Police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”

Whereas PW.1 conducted investigation and registered F.I.R basing on the occurrence report, and the accused confessed the offence, the evidence of PW.1 is hit by Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

11).It is further admitted by PW.1 that the scene of offence is a busy place surrounded by crowd and it took 30 minutes to draft the Ex.P1.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C reads as follows:- Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality of no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

As per S.100(4) of Cr.P.C when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the Police Officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing prescribed above.

It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the investigating officer though scene of offence is located in a busy locality having residential area where there is public movement. It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators, the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard.

As such there is every probability to plant the gutkha packets to the present case and the seized property not sent to the R.F.S.L. Unless and until obtained the R.F.S.L report it is unable to conclude that the seized property is Tobacco products.

12). I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law of

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in the case of Sri Jaganath Enterprises, Eluru,

West Godavari District Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 769 (A.P) held that “Since sale of Tobacco products still not banned in this country but only regulated to a certain extent, Sections. 269 & 270 IPC are not attracted what is banned under COPTA is merely sale of these products to a person, who is below age of 18 years & in area within 100 yards of an educational institution, but not their production trade & supply etc. offences under COPTA Act, can only be launched if Police find Sections. 5, 6, 7 & 10 are not complied with, except on these very limited grounds, genuine/legitimate traders cannot be prosecuted. Accordingly, FIRs/cases registered under provisions of IPC, FSS Act and COPTA, quashed.” A reading of the COTPA Act, particularly sections 4,5,6 && clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the manufacture/sale of tobacco products. What is banned is merely the sale of tobacco products to a person, who is below the age of 18 years & in an area within 100 yards of an educational institution. The other aspects covered by sections 5 & 7 of the COTPA Act, deal with the advertisement and the warning, which is to be contained on a package, in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a regulatory mechanism only.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions of the COTPA Act, can only pressed into service in these limited circumstances only (violation of Sections 4,5,6,7 & 10). In addition, if the package does not contain any pictorial or other warning, the prosecution can be launched. Therefore, it is clear that the central government imposed certain restrictions on the manufacture, sale, distribution & consumption of tobacco only, but it did not absolutely ban the same.

13).In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence basing on incomplete investigation, the accused cannot be connect with the alleged offence. There is no material produced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence and that the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14).In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S .273 IPC &

Sec.5(1), 22 of COTPAct and he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The case property i.e., in C.P.No. 250/2021 i.e., Mo. 1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 27th day of October, 2021.

Sd/- B.Ramya

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Movva

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:For Defence: PW1: T.Rama Krishna, S.I of PoliceNIL

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Occurence report. Ex.P2: Signature of accused on Ex.P1. Ex.P3: FIR. Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: Meeraj Tobacco packets- 60.

Sd/- B.Ramya

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MOVVA //True Copy//

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MOVVA

Present : Smt.B.RAMYA,

Junior Civil Judge, Movva.

Dated 29th day of October, 2021

OS.No.264 /2019

Bondalapati Lakshmi......Plaintiff.

A N D

Bondalapati Naga Srinivasa Rao.......Defendant.

O R D E R

Both parties are called present through web conference by Blue Jeans

APP. Joint compromised memo filed by the parties. Both parties have compromised the case before the Lok-Adalat bench. Their compromised is recorded. Accordingly, the award is passed.

Pronounced by me on this the 29 th day of October, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MOVVA

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff/Dhr For Defendant/Jdr None

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff/Dhr For Defendant/Jdr Nil

J.C.J., MOVVA.

bonda laPat

LalKshm

MC /2||19

re)

CullLs

LmdalaPale pgga Saîmi/aa fao

22/

/ Responlent/ BothVPresent Potitioner Oubto COViD-19pandemic and aspertha of the Honarbte Hig'h Court vkie directions Roc.Ne.192/sC/2020,Dt.21-84-2921,itiara Is ecjgurned to cail on 21/9/

2q/2

22/ate

293l2

yAPo

MatterCalledThrough Blue Jeans App.None Appeare9d

for Examiaiion a pd

o7lzlozlq A

Call on

wadra

muma

etu prlonn a tu

cul-eduoush

opomuaud

tpanlun

beluou

malln

Hentu,7in MC i dhud

was uutdraud n

as

29(tol2/