B.sujay

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NARAYANKHED

: Present :

Sri B. SUJAY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayankhed

On this the 23rd day of March, 2019

C.C. No : 02 of 2014

Between:-

The State of Telangana, through SHO, P.S. Sirgapur (Cr. No.09/2013) …Complainant

And

1. Methari Laxmaiah S/o Pochaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Ex.Sarpanch, R/o: Nagdhar village, Kalher mandal, Sangareddy Dist.

2. Amruth Rao S/o Ramappa, Age: 40 years, Occ: Village Secretary, R/o: Athimyal village, Manoor mandal, Sangareddy Dist.

.... Accused No. 1 & 2.

***

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the prosecution and Sri Anand Swaroop Shetkar, counsel for the accused, and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sirgapur Police Station laid charge sheet against accused/A1 & A2 in Cr. No. 09/2013 for the offence under Section 409 of IPC.

1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 06.03.2013 at 14:15 hours, the PW8 received telugu written complaint from PW1

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 and stated that the accused/A1 & A2 together withdrawn the BRBGF funds Rs. 5,27,000/- in SBI, Nizampet branch account bearing registration No. 3078296909 from 2009 to 26.05.2011, which was issued for development works in a village, misappropriated by the A1 & A2. On receipt of report from PW1, the PW8 registered in crime

No. 09/13 under Section 409 of IPC, took up investigation, and he visited DLPO office and examined the PW1 and recorded his statement and collected the incriminating object bank pass book account bearing registration No. 30782969094 issued by SBI,

Nizampet. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence and examined the LW2 & 3 and recorded their statements. Thereafter he visited the

Gram Panchayath and examined the LW5 and recorded their statements. On 25.07.2013 at 20:00 hours the PW8 arrested the accused/A1 and sent produced before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. On26.09.2013 at 13:00 hours, the accused/A2 surrendered

before PW8 with anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court, the

accused produced sufficient sureties, the PW8 released him on bail on furnishing sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation the

PW8 filed charge sheet before the Hon'ble Court.

2.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section 409 of IPC, against the accused/A1 & A2.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution proposed to place reliance were furnished under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under section 409 of IPC, has been framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution cited eight witnesses, and they were examined. PW1 is complainant. PW2 to 7 are witnesses. PW8 is investigation officer. On the prosecution side the Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and no exhibits were marked. The details of the witnesses and the marked exhibits are mentioned in the appendix.

5.On completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is whether the

prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under Section 409 of IPC, beyond reasonable

doubt?

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

POINT:

8.The PW1, Complainant, deposed in his chief examination that he worked as DLPO Sangareddy from 2009 to 31-08-2015 and he retired on 31-8-2015. On 3-11-2011 at about 2:30 PM, the PW2 came to his office and lodged complaint stating that A1 has misappropriated the gram panchayath funds of Rs. 5,27000/- of

Nagdhar village of Kalher Mandal. The PW2 also lodged a complaint in the District Panchayath Office. On 10-11-2011 the District

Panchayath Officer sent him an order directing him to visit the the

Nagdhar village and conduct an inquiry. He gave a notice to the A1/

Sarpanch of Nagdhar village and also to PW2. Then he visited the

Nagdhar village on 1-8-2012 and conducted inquiry. He recorded the statement of PW2 and also that of A1. Then he seized the panchayath records. Then he verified pass book of the bank account.

Then he sent a letter to District Panchayath Officer reporting that a misappropriation of Rs. 5,27000/- has taken place from the

BRGF( Backward Regional Grant Fund). In the same letter he requested to the District Panchayath Officer to take suitable action against the A2 who was panchayath secretary and who counter signed the cheque for with drawl of the amount which was misappropriated. Then again the District Panchayath Officer has directed him to file criminal case U/s 409 of IPC against the accused vide letter dated 5-3-2013. On his direction he filed

Ex.P1/complainant with the police on 5-3-2013. The District

Panchayath Officer has issued a show cause notice to A2, but the A2 has not responded for several adjournments and at the end the A2

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 was dismissed from the service as he was an employee working on contract basis. He was examined by the police.

In the cross examination he stated that the police called him for recording his statement but as he was busy, his statement was recorded after 2 or 3 days and he told that the police recorded the statements of Senior Assistant Sharma and the Attender Javeed. He admitted that what he stated in his chief examination, he stated

before the police while recording his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement and

that he doesn't remember all the dates and amounts withdrawn by the accused, as there are nearly 17 items. He further admitted that he stated before the police while recording Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement that he lodged complainant with the police on the direction of District

Panchayath Officer and that he scribed the Ex.P1/complaint and that the permission of MPDO and EOPRD is necessary to withdraw the

BRGF amount but the accused without obtaining their permission withdraw Rs. 5,27000/- and misappropriated the amount. He further admitted that he recorded the statements of 4 members when he visited Nagdhar village and he submitted those statements to the police and he submitted that the report to the police in which the items that were seized were mentioned and that the seized records are with him and he ready to produce before the court when he directed to do so. He further stated that on 03-10-2011, the District

Panchayath Officer sent him a letter directing him to conducting inquiry, on 10-11-2011, and he went Nagdhar village for conducting inquiry 01-08-2012 and that the delay was due to administrative grounds. He further admitted that he did not state before the police

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 regarding the delay, and it was caused due to administrative grounds and he stated before the police while recording his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement, that the EOPRD has also done mistake. He further admitted that MB (Measurements Book) has to be prepared by the

Assistant Engineer, Panchayathraj and that after preparation the measurement book bill will be passed for the works done and that no amount can be drawn without preparation of measurement book. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

9.The PW2, witness, deposed in his chief examination that the A1 was elected as Sarpanch of Nagdhar village in the year 2006. The A2 is the panchayath secretary of their village. The Sarpanch and the A2 did not do any works in their village. They misappropriated an amount of Rs. 5,27,000/-. When he questioned the A2 he criminally intimidated him. Then he made a complaint to the MDO. There was no response from MDO. Then he went to Collector office, there also nobody took his complaint and then he went to Lokayukta. Then the

PW1 called him on phone and told him to come to the panchayath office as he was conducting inquiry. The PW1 seized few records in his presence and in the presence of other villagers. Then after 15 or 20 days the police of Sirgapur P.S called him and recorded my statement.

In the cross examination he stated that he did not state before the police that the A2 criminally intimidated him, when he question him and he doesn't know what funds were released in his village and that he doesn't know the account number of the Grampanchayath.

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

He admitted that he did not give the complaint in the police station and that he prepared a draft of the complaint to be submitted in the

Lokayukta, he got the complaint scribed by an unknown person who was present there and he made a complaint against A1 & A2 and also against the persons who co-operated with the accused. He further stated that he went to Lokayukta to lodge a complaint one of his villager by name Shadrek accompanied him. His statement was recorded by the police after 15 or 20 days of complaint made by the

PW1. He further stated that he gave complaint in Lokayukta in the year 2012 and his statement was recorded by the police in the year of 2013 after complaint made by the PW1 and that he stated before the police to take action against A1 and A2 and other who co- operated with them.

10.The PW3 & 4, witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. Nothing could be elicited by the prosecution in their cross examination. The Sec. 161 Cr.PC statements are marked as Ex.P2 & P3 respectively.

11.The PW5, witness, deposed in his chief examination that the A1 was Sarpanch of Nagdhar village of Kalher Mandal and the A2 was village secretary of Nagdhar village. The Central Government has granted Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) in four installments.

The MDO of Kalher has deposited the BRGF funds in the joint account of the A1 & A2. The BRGF Funds were granted for laying of CC roads,

Side drains, for laying pipe lines for water supply and digging of

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 borewells and erection of pump sets etc. The A1 & A2 without doing any works have withdrawn the BRGF funds from the joint accounts and utilized for their own purposes. Then some of the villagers made a complaint to DLPO (District Level Panchayath Officer). Then the embezzlement of funds came to light. In a meeting held in the presence of a Spl. Officer/Syed Musthaq/PW6, a resolution was passed and the accused agreed to do the works by utilizing BRGF funds.

Then the accused have brought metal gravel, sand, and put them on the road for doing works. But the accused did not complete the works on time. I gave a progress report saying that the works would be completed in two months. Then the accused did not complete the works in those two months also. Then later the accused have done some works like construction of CC roads and side drains. He entered those works in MB (Measurement book) and handed it over to the village secretary. The cost of the works done by the accused were worth of Rs. 2,92,000/- . He was examined by the police.

In the cross examination he stated that he doesn't remember after how many days of registering this case, the police examined him and his statement was recorded by the SI of Police in the police station. He admitted that he did not mention how much amount was misappropriate by the accused and that what he stated in his chief examination was stated before the police. He further admitted that for doing any work or constructions the Government issues proceedings and that proceedings are sent to him. He further admitted that after completion of works it is entered in the

Measurement Book and submitted to Gram Panchayath Secretary and

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

Sarpanch and based on it they withdraw the amount from the account. He further admitted that only after completion of works it is entered into the measurement book and he further admitted that he stated before the police that works of Rs. 2,92,000/- including the vat and senerage charges of material were done by the accused and he further admitted that he did not question the accused about the works as it is the duty of the MDO. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

12.The PW6, witness, deposed in his chief examination that on 12.08.2011 the MPDO of Kalher Mandal has appointed him as Spl.

Officer of Gram Panchayath of Nagdhar village. The S.I of police made phone call to him on 24.09.2013 and informed him that Rs.

5,27,000/- belonging to Gram Panchayath was mis-appropriated by

A1 & A2. The mis-appropriation took place even before he was appointed as Spl. Officer. He is in no way concerned with the mis- appropriation of the funds and he doesn't know who mis-appropriated those funds. A gram sabha was held on 22.09.2012. As per the resolution passed in the meeting sand, gravel and cement were brought but no works were done. Later works were done and he issued a cheque to the panchayath secretary/A2. He was examined by the police.

In the cross examination he admitted that he issued cheques only after completion of works and that the panchayath raj AE enters the details in the MB (Measurement book) after completion of the works. He further admitted that he did not receive any complaint

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 from any one saying that the funds were mis-appropriated. He further admitted that what ever he deposed in his chief examination was stated before the police and he doesn't know that a false case was foisted by the police on false complaint filed by some villagers who were politically motivated. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

13.The PW7, witness, deposed in his chief examination that nearly four years ago the accused/A1, Sarpanch and A2/village secretary, has mis-appropriated the BRGF central scheme funds of Rs.

5,27,000/- which was issued for developmental works in a village, such as for development of roads, drainages etc. Both the accused together possess joint account in SBI, Nizampet branch, the funds which were allotted were withdrawn by them and mis-appropriated.

He was examined by the police.

In the cross examination he admitted that he never observed the progress of the work done by the A1 & A2 and that he is responsible for the transfer of BRGF fund to the Gram Panchayaths.

He stated that he doesn’t remember how many time he transferred the BRGF funds to Nagdhar Gram Panchayath. He further admitted that the accused have power to withdraw the funds only after completion of works and after it is entered in the measurement book by the panchayath raj department. He further admitted that no villager has complained to him against the accused. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

14.The PW8, investigation officer, deposed in his chief examination that on 06.03.2013 at 14:15 hours, he received a telugu written complaint through post and based on it he registered a crime No.

09/2013, U/s 409 of IPC and issued Ex.P4/FIR. During the investigation he visited the DLPO office at Sangareddy and secured the presence of the PW1 and examined him and recorded his statement and collected the incriminating object ie., bank pass book of A/c No. 3078296904 issued by SBI, Nizampet branch. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence Nagdhar village and secured the presence of potential witness PW2, who complained to the PW1 against the A1 and Ex. Deputy Sarpanch/PW3 and Gram Panchayath ward member/PW4, and examined them and recorded their statements. They stated that the village Ex-Sarpanch A1 neither informed about the sanctioning of BRGF funds of Rs. 5,27,000/- to

Gram Panchayath ward members nor taken the resolution of the

Gram Panchayath members and further stated that the facts of the

FIR. Thereafter he perused the Gram Panchayath register with regard to conducting the meetings to ascertain the facts. Further he visited the MPDO office at Kalher Mandal and examined the PW6/MPDO of

Kalher and recorded his statement. Then he arrested the A1 at his house in his village on 25.07.2013. Then he recorded the statements of PW5 & 6. Then the A2 surrendered before the Hon'ble court on 26.09.2013. Then he collected all the documents and filed charge sheet before this Hon'ble Court.

In the cross examination he admitted that the ExP1/complaint was brought by the Attendar of the MRO office in a sealed cover and

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 that there is no signature of the complainant and on the FIR at coloumn No. 14. He further admitted that the offence occurred between the years 2009 and 2011, and there is a delay of two years in filing the ExP1/complaint due to departmental enquiry. He further admitted that he did not give any explanation for the delay caused in filing the ExP1/complaint and that he did not receive any other complaint before filing of ExP1. He further admitted that the panchayath raj, AE completes the measurement book after completion of works and that the beneficiaries get the amount only on completion of the works. He further admitted that he did not file any copies of measurement books along with the charge sheet and that the show cause notice given to the accused, but he doesn't know whether the amount was recovered from them. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

15.On close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is observed that the PW1 the PW1/complainant/District Panchayath

Officer, deposed that on 3-11-2011, the PW2 came to his office and lodged complaint stating that A1 has misappropriated the gram panchayath funds of Rs. 5,27000/- of Nagdhar village of Kalher

Mandal. The PW2 also lodged a complaint in the District Panchayath

Office, and on 10-11-2011 the District Panchayath Officer sent him an order directing him to visit the the Nagdhar village and conduct an inquiry. He further stated that he gave a notice to the A1 and also to

PW2. Then he visited the Nagdhar village on 1-8-2012 and conducted inquiry and recorded the statement of PW2 & A1, and seized the

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 panchayath records and then verified pass book of the bank account and he further deposed that he sent a letter to District Panchayath

Officer reporting that a misappropriation of Rs. 5,27000/- has taken place from the BRGF (Backward Regional Grant Fund) and he further stated that in the same letter he requested the District Panchayath

Officer to take suitable action against the A2 who was Panchayath

Secretary and who counter signed the cheque for withdrawal of the amount which was misappropriated. He further stated that the

District Panchayath Officer directed him to file criminal case U/s 409 of IPC against the accused vide letter dated 5-3-2013, and on that direction he filed Ex.P1/complainant with the police on 5-3-2013. The

District Panchayath Officer has issued a show cause notice to A2, but the A2 has not responded for several adjournments and at the end the A2 was dismissed from the service as he working on contract basis.

16.In the cross examination the PW1 admitted that the permission of MPDO and EOPRD is necessary to withdraw the BRGF amount but the accused without obtaining their permission withdrew

Rs. 5,27000/- and misappropriated the amount. The PW1 further admitted that the seized records are with him and he is ready to produce before the court whenever he is directed to do so, but the record was not produced and not got marked before the court. The

PW1 further admitted that the PW2 has complained on 03-10-2011, the District Panchayath Officer directed him to conduct inquiry on 01.08.2012 i.e, after more than 10 months. The reason for the delay

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 was due to administrative grounds, but 10 months is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint and he further admitted that that he did not state before the police regarding the delay, and it was caused due to administrative grounds. He further admitted that the Extension

Officer of Panchayath Raj, has done mistake but the police have not registered the case against him. This shows that the investigation was faulty and prosecution has not done proper investigation. The

PW1 further admitted that the measurement book has to be prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Panchayathraj and bills will be passed only after preparation of measurement book. If the measurement book was prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Panchayath Raj, then he is also at fault for preparing it without completion of works. It is not mentioned whether the measurement book was prepared even without completion of the works.

17.The PW2, deposed that he was working as Auto driver and he made a complaint against the A1/Sarpanch & A2/ Panchayath

Secretary of his village Nagdhar. He further deposed that they both misappropriated the amount of Rs. 5,27,000/-, and he further stated that the A2 has criminally intimidated him when he questioned about the funds. The PW2 did not state why a criminal case was booked against A2 when he criminally intimidated him. He further stated that he made a complaint to the Mandal Development Officer and there was no response, he went to Collector Office and he stated that nobody took his complaint. It is unbelievable that nobody took his complaint in the Collector Office. If nobody has taken his complaint

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 he should have a made complaint to the Collector through post. He further stated that he went to Lokayukta and made a complaint.

The PW2 further stated that the PW1 conducted inquiry and seized few records but those records were not produced before the court and they were not marked by the PW1. In the cross examination the PW2 admitted that he did not state before the police that the A2 has criminally intimidated him. This appears to be an improvement from what he was stated before the police and he further admitted that he doesn’t know what funds were released by the Government for his village. Without knowing what funds were released he made complaint regarding the misappropriation of funds and he further stated that he doesn’t know the bank account number of the

Grampanchayath. But in the Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement recorded by the police he has stated the account number of the Gram

Panchayath. This shows that he is not consistent with what he has stated before the police and what he deposed before the court. He further admitted that he made a complaint against the A1 &A2 and also the persons who cooperated with them and he further admitted that the police recorded his statement after 15 or 20 days of complaint made by the PW1 and he further admitted that he made complaint in the year 2012 and his statement was recorded by the police in the year 2013 after complaint made by the PW1.

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

18.The PW3 & 4, who are members of the Gram Panchayath, who are cited as witnesses to this case turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. This gave a death blow to the prosecution case.

19.The PW5, Assistant Engineer of Pancyhayath Raj, deposed that the Central Government has granted Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) in four installments and the Mandal Development Officer of

Kalher has deposited the BRGF funds in the joint account of the A1 &

A2 and that the BRGF Funds were granted for laying of CC roads,

Side drains, for laying pipe lines for water supply and digging of borewells and erection of pump sets etc. He further stated that the

A1 & A2 without doing any works have withdrawn the BRGF funds and utilized for their own purposes. He further admitted that he gave a progress report even though the accused did not complete the works on time. Giving progress report without completion of works is a mistake done by the PW5. In the cross examination the PW5 admitted that he did not mention how much amount was misappropriated by the accused. But when Sec.161 Cr.PC of PW5 is perused it clearly shows that he has mentioned the amount misappropriated by the accused. As per his deposition in the chief examination he has issued the progress report with an intention that the works would be completed within two months but giving such report without completion of work is a mistake.

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

20.The PW6, working as Spl. Officer of Gram Panchayath, deposed that he doesn't know who mis-appropriated the funds. Being a special officer he must have the knowledge of who misappropriated the funds. In the cross examination he admitted that he issued cheques only after completion of works. He further admitted that the

Assistant Engineer of Panchayath Raj, enters the details in the measurement book after completion of the works. If the PW6 has issued the cheque it means that the works were completed and it can be inferred that he issued cheque only after checking the measurement book. As the cheque was issued by him it means that the works were completed and it was entered in the measurement book. If the cheques were issued without completion of works then the PW6 is at fault.

21.The PW7, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, deposed in his chief examination that the accused/A1 & A2, mis-appropriated the

BRGF funds to tune of Rs. 5,27,000/-. In the cross examination he admitted that he was responsible for the transfer of BRGF fund to the

Gram Panchayaths. He further admitted that the accused has power to withdraw the funds only after completion of works and after it entered in the measurement book by the panchayath raj department.

22.The PW8, investigation officer, deposed that he received complaint on 06.03.2013 and issued Ex.P4/FIR and he examined the

PW1 and recorded his statement and collected the bank pass book issued by SBI, Nizampet branch, but the bank pass book was not

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014 produced before the court and it was not marked. He further stated that he collected all the documents and filed charge sheet but not even a single document was produced before the court and not marked by the prosecution. In the cross examination the PW8 admitted that there is a delay of two years in filing the

ExP1/complaint due to departmental enquiry, but a delay of two years is very long time and it is an inordinate delay and this shows the negligence of the persons response for lodging complaint against the accused. The PW8 further admitted that he did not give any explanation for the delay and he further admitted that the Assistant

Engineer of panchayath raj, enters in the measurement book after completion of works. He further admitted that the beneficiaries get the amount only on completion of the works. But here why Assistant

Engineer, has entered the works in the measurement book even without completion of the works is not explained by the

PW8/Investigation Officer. He further admitted that the PW4, 5 & 7 were not included as accused as no fraud has taken place.

23.The PW1 stated in his Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement that Assistant

Engineer of Panchayath Raj, Sri Bala Lingam has given a report stating that the works would be completed within two months and he has given a progress certificate and this progress certificate was shown to him by the Sarpanch and deceived him and he further stated that Assistant Engineer of Panchayath Raj, has colluded with the accused and he further stated in his Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement that Kalher mandal, Panchayath Extension Officer has inspected the

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

Gram Panchayath records and he did not inform the higher officers about the misappropriation of the funds, and the PW1 has expressed his view that Assistant Engineer of Panchayath Raj, and Extension

Officer both are accused. But the investigation officer after completion of investigation has removed these two names and did not take action against them as accused. This shows that the investigation is faulty and not done properly.

24.In view of the above discussion and due to inconsistencies, contradictions and untrustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses and due to turning hostile by the witnesses and due to not filing charge sheet against Assistant Engineer of Panchayath Raj and

Extension Officer and due to uncorroborated evidence of the witnesses, it can be held that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the benefit of doubt goes to the accused/A1 & A2 for the offence punishable U/s 409 of IPC.

In the result the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 409 of IPC, and they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Asst, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed.

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : M.Manohar -None- PW2 : Paruvu Ravinder PW3 : Dudyala Machander PW4 : Chakali Rajamm PW5 : Doodam Balalingam PW6 : Syed Mustaq PW7 : Darmapuri Malleshwar PW8 : Samula Koteshwar Rao, Investigation Officer

EXHIBTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Complaint given to the police by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4 : First information report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed

JMFC, Narayankhed 20 CC No. 02 of 2014

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED

: Present :

Sri B. SUJAY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayankhed

The 23rd day of March, 2019

C.C. No : 25 of 2016

Between:-

The State of Telangana, through SHO, Excise Narayankhed (COR No. 35/2016) …….Complainant

And

1.Ch. Saya Goud S/o Nara Goud, Age: 40 years, Occ: ToddyBusiness, R/o: Narayankhed village, Permanent R/o: Maqdungpur-Galipur village, Nizamsagar mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

2.Narender Reddy S/o Linga Reddy, Age: 40 years, R/o: Dharmabad, Nanded, Maharastra State.

3.Edige Eshwar Goud S/o Venka Goud, Age: 25 years, Occ: Labour, R/o: Madwar village, Narayankhed village and mandal.

4.T. Venka Goud S/o Rama Goud, Age: 48 years, Occ: Toddy business, R/o: Narayankhed village and mandal.

5.Linga Goud S/o Saya Goud, Occ: Business, R/o: Nizampet village, Narayankhed mandal.

6.Malakeri Nagesh S/o Sithaiah, Occ: Business, R/o: Narayankhed village and mandal.

...... Accused/A1 to A6

***

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the prosecution a Sri G. Narsa Reddy, counsel for the accused, and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Prohibition & Excise, Narayankhed filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A6 in COR No. 35/2016 for the offences U/s 34(a) & 37(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 and Rule 4(a), 5(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate Rules 1973.

2.The case of prosecution that the PW3 to 5 along with staff conducted raid on 29.01.016 at 05.15 PM, at A1's house at, Satya Sai

Colony, Narayankhed village and found 3 plastic bags in the western side bed room each containing 25 kgs chloral hydrate and a total 7of 5 kgs and opened the bag and found it was light yellow coloured crystalline substance with a pungent smell. On enquiry A1 revealed that the bags filled with chloral hydrate and further he also revealed that he purchased 9 bags of chloral hydrate each bag containing 25 kgs @ Rs.6000/- per bag and Rs. 54,000/- for 9 bags from A2. A1 further disclosed that A3 to A6 purchased the chloral hydrate from him. The A3 purchased 3 bags, The A4 purchased 1 bag, The A5 purchased 3 bags and A6 purchased 1 bag. The left over 3 bags of chloral hydrate was kept in the house for sale.

Further we found one plastic can containing 50 litres of toddy. Then the chloral hydrate in 3 bags was seized and along with the accused/A1 we brought to the Excise Station, Narayankhed. Then we handed over the seized property and the A1 to the PW5 and effected the arrest of A1 and produced before the court for judicial remand.

Then the PW5 took up the investigation and conducted further

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016 investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

before the Hon'ble Court.

2.The case was taken on file for the for the offences U/s 34(a) & 37(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 and Rule 4(a), 5(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate

Rules 1973., against the accused/A1 to A6.

3.After appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution proposed to place reliance were furnished under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under section 34(a) & 37(a) of AP

Excise Act 1968 and Rule 4(a), 5(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate Rules 1973., have been framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the guilt, prosecution cited five witnesses, and they were examined. PW1 & 2 are mediators for seizure panchanama. PW3 to 5 investigation officers. On the side of prosecution, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked. No witnesses and no exhibits were examined on behalf of the defence. The details of the witnesses and the marked exhibits are mentioned in the appendix.

5.On completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused were denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is whether prosecution

proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable

under Section 34(a) & 37(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 and Rule

4(a), 5(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate Rules 1973., beyond

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.The PW1 & 2, mediators for the panchanama, deposed in their chief examination that on 29.01.2016 at about 6:00 PM, they went to

Sri Satya Sai colony, on the instructions of MRO. There at a house of excise officials were conducting panchanama. On their request the

PW1 & 2 acted as mediators. The excise officials seized three bags and they doesn’t know the contents of those bags. On request of the excise officials they signed on the panchanama marked as Ex.P1 &

P2 respectively, and they doesn’t know the contents of the panchanama and for what purpose it was conducted.

In the cross examination they admitted that there were no written order from the Tehsildar, Narayankhed to attend the panchanama proceedings along with the excise officials and that they cannot say the door numbers of the house where excise officials conducted the panchanama and the door numbers of the neighbouring houses and they further admitted that they signed on the written documents and they doesn’t know its contents.

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

9.The PW3, Investigation Officer, deposed in his chief examination that he along with PW4 & 5 and staff conducted raid on 29.01.016 at 05.15 PM, at A1's house at, Satya Sai Colony,

Narayankhed village and they found 3 plastic bags in the western side bed room each containing 25 kgs chloral hydrate and a total 7of 5 kgs and opened the bag and found it was light yellow coloured crystalline substance with a pungent smell and identified that it was chloral hydrate which is used to mix in the toddy for intoxication. On enquiry A1 revealed that the bags filled with chloral hydrate and further he also revealed that he purchased 9 bags of chloral hydrate each bag containing 25 kgs @ Rs. 6000/- per bag and Rs. 54,000/- for 9 bags from A2. A1 further disclosed that A3 to A6 purchased the chloral hydrate from him. The A3 purchased 3 bags, The A4 purchased 1 bag, The A5 purchased 3 bags and A6 purchased 1 bag.

The left over 3 bags of chloral hydrate was kept in the house for sale.

Further we found one plastic can containing 50 litres of toddy. Other investigation conducted by LW4. I signed on panchanama and other proceedings were conducted by PW5. After conducting panchanama

I signed on it. Then the chloral hydrate in 3 bags was seized and along with the accused/A1, brought to the Excise Station,

Narayankhed. Then they handed over the seized property and the

A1, to the PW5. Then the PW5 effected the arrest of A1 and produced before the court for judicial remand. Then the PW5 took up the investigation and conducted further investigation.

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

In the cross examination he admitted that the PW1 and 2 are the VROs and he further admitted that he did not file any proof with regard to the place where the raid was conducted and he further admitted that they did not enquire the ownership of the house and did not file the proof of ownership before the court. He denied all other suggestion given by the defence counsel.

10.The PW4, Investigation officer, deposed in his chief examination that on he along with PW3 & 5 and staff conducted raid on 29.01.016 at 05.15 PM, at A1's house at, Satya Sai Colony,

Narayankhed village and found 3 plastic bags in the western side bed room each containing 25 kgs chloral hydrate and a total 7of 5 kgs and opened the bag and found it was light yellow coloured crystalline substance with a pungent smell. They identified that it was chloral hydrate which is used to mix in the toddy for intoxication. On enquiry A1 revealed that the bags filled with chloral hydrate and further he also revealed that he purchased 9 bags of chloral hydrate each bag containing 25 kgs @ Rs. 6000/- per bag and

Rs. 54,000/- for 9 bags from A2. A1 further disclosed that A3 to A6 purchased the chloral hydrate from him. The A3 purchased 3 bags,

The A4 purchased 1 bag, The A5 purchased 3 bags and A6 purchased 1 bag. The left over 3 bags of chloral hydrate was kept in the house for sale. Further we found one plastic can containing 50 litres of toddy. Other investigation conducted by PW5 and he conducted panchanama and he signed on Ex.P3/panchanama and other proceedings were conducted by PW3 & 5. Then the chloral

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016 hydrate in 3 bags was seized and along with the accused/A1, brought to the Excise Station, Narayankhed. Then they handed over the seized property and the A1, to the Pw5. Then he effected the arrest of A1 and produced before the court for judicial remand. Then the PW5 took up the investigation and conducted further investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

before the Hon'ble Court.

In the cross examination he admitted that he did not file any document to show that A1 was owner of house where they raided and conducted scene of offence panchanama and in the search memo he did not mention the house number and owner's name where he conducted seizure panchanama. He further admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of adjacent house owners on search memo and that he found only one person in the house where they conducted seizure panchanama. He further admitted that the PW1 & 2 are VRO's of Narayankhed and that Tehshildar office and Excise

Narayankhed are adjacent to each other. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

11.The PW5, Investigation Officer, deposed in his chief examination that on he along with PW3, 4 and staff conducted raid on 29.01.016 at 05.15 PM, at A1's house at, Satya Sai Colony,

Narayankhed village and they found 3 plastic bags in the western side bed room each containing 25 kgs chloral hydrate and a total 7of 5 kgs and opened the bag and found it was light yellow coloured crystalline substance with a pungent smell and identified that it was

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016 chloral hydrate which is used to mix in the toddy for intoxication. On enquiry A1 revealed that the bags filled with chloral hydrate and further he also revealed that he purchased 9 bags of chloral hydrate each bag containing 25 kgs @ Rs. 6000/- per bag and Rs. 54,000/- for 9 bags from A2. A1 further disclosed that A3 to A6 purchased the chloral hydrate from him. The A3 purchased 3 bags, The A4 purchased 1 bag, The A5 purchased 3 bags and A6 purchased 1 bag.

The left over 3 bags of chloral hydrate was kept in the house for sale.

Further we found one plastic can containing 50 litres of toddy. He conducted Ex.P3/panchanama and other proceedings were conducted by PW3 & PW4. Then the chloral hydrate in 3 bags was seized and he arrested the A1 and brought to the Excise Station,

Narayankhed. Then on 29.01.2016 he produced A1 before the

Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. Subsequently on 01.02.2016 he

arrested the A3 and produced before the court for judicial remand and the A6 was arrested on 02.02.2016 and produced before the court for judicial remand.

In the cross examination the admitted that he did not file any document to show that A1 was owner of house where they raided and conducted scene of offence panchanama and that the search memo was issued by him, except, no other officer are signed it. He further admitted that he did not file any documentary proof in this case to show the source of alleged property seized from the A1. He further admitted that the alleged property involved in this case was not deposited before the Hon'ble Court. He denied all other suggestions given by the defence counsel.

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

12.On close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is observed that the PW1 & 2 who are mediators for seizure panchanama, did not depose anything incriminating against the accused in the chief examination. The PW1 mediator for the panchanama and who is working as village revenue officer has stated in his chief examination that he doesn’t know the contents of the panchanama and for what purpose it was conducted. This gave a death blow to the prosecution case. In the cross examination also he admitted that he doesn’t know the contents of the panchanama.

The PW1 & 2 have stated that the excise officials has seized three bags but from whom they were seized was not mentioned and whether it was seized from the accused was not mentioned by the

PW1 & 2. The PW1 & 2 have deposed on the same lines and both of them stated that they don’t know the contents of the panchanama and the PW1 & 2 both are village revenue officers and they did not support the prosecution version completely. This gave a death blow to the prosecution case.

13.The PW4 & 5, who are investigation officers, who raided the place have deposed on the same lines and both of them stated that they conducted raid on 21.09.2016 at the house of A1 and seized three bags each containing 25 kgs of chloral hydrate and on inquiry the A1 revealed that he purchased 9 bags of chloral hydrate from A2 and that A3 to A6 purchased chloral hydrate from him. They both further deposed that they found one plastic can containing 50 litres of toddy.

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

14.The PW3 stated that the panchanama was conducted by the

PW5 and they further deposed that chloral hydrate was seized and handed over the seized property to PW5. In the cross examination the PW4 admitted that in the search memo the house number and owners name was not mentioned at the time seizure panchanama was conducted. This shows that they did not obtain search memo properly.

15.The PW5 almost deposed on the same lines as that of PW4 and he stated that he conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators but the mediators turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. They both mediators stated that they doesn’t know contents of the panchanama. This gave a death blow to the prosecution case. The PW5 admitted in his cross examination that he issued search memo and he further admitted that the seized property was not deposited before the court.

16.The PW3, Investigation Officer, who raid the place deposed on the same lines as that of PW4 & 5. The PW3 to 5 are investigation officers and PW1 & 2 who are village revenue officers acted as mediators to the panchanama and both the mediators turned hostile and not even single independent witness was cited as witness. This gave another death blow to the prosecution case. It is not safe to convict the accused based on the evidence of the PW3 to 5 who are investigation officers. Hence due to inconsistencies, contradictions and due to uncorroborated evidence and due to untrustworthy

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016 evidence of the prosecution witnesses it can be held that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the benefit of doubt goes to the accused/A1 to A6 for the or the offences U/s 34(a) & 37(a) of AP

Excise Act 968 and Rule 4(a), 5(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate Rules 1973.

In the result the accused/A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences U/s 34(a) & 37(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 and Rule 4(a), 5(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate Rules 1973., and they are acquitted U/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the day 23rd day of March, 2019.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1 : Chakali Anjaiah -None- PW-2 : Sheik Feroz PW-3 : Raj Prakash, I.O PW-4 : Alishala Gangadhar, I.O PW-5 : Rangu Kiran Kumar, I.O

JMFC, Narayankhed12 CC No. 25 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1 : Signature on seizure panchanama by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P-2 : Signature on seizure panchanama by PW2 Ex.P-3 : Seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

-Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed.

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANKHED.

PRESENT : SRI B.SUJAY, Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

O.S. No. 80 of 2016

Between:

Devasoth Gopi Naik S/o Baddu Naik Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture & business, R/o: Hangirga K village, Narayankhed village and mandal, Sangareddy Dist..…Petitioner/Plaintiff.

A N D

1. K. Ravindra S/o K.S.R. Raju, Age: 45 years, Occ: Company Director, R/o: H.No. 401-1-8-3-226, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad.

2.Dr. Durga Prasad S/o Chandra Mouleshwara Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Self Employed, R/o: Rudraram, Patancheru mandal, Medak Dist.

3.The Sub Registrar, Narayankhed, Medak District (Formal Party).

4.Tehsildar, Manoor Mandal, Medak District. (Formal Party).

.… Respondents/Defendants.

This suit is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Maruthi Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner/Plaintiff, and defendants remained ex-parte, and heard, this court made following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for perpetual injunction in restraining the defendant No.1, from alienating and not to interfere over the suit schedule lands situated in Karamungi, Morgi, Nagalgidda, Vallur,

Muktapur, Sheligra and Gudur villages of manoor mandal,

Sangareddy District.

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

2. The brief averments of the plaint are follows:

The plaintiff is a resident of Hangirga (K) Village of Narayankhed

Mandal and he is doing Real Estate business i.e., acting as middle man in land deals. That the defendant No. 1 and 2 contacted the plaintiff in the year 2007 and requested him to arrange the lands to their companies and the defendant No. 2 executed an agreement on 19.04.2007 on behalf of “Yandavalli Durga Prasad Vyavasaya

Parishodana Samstha” and agreed to purchase 3600 Acres on commission basis. The defendant No. 2 introduced defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff as one of the directors of their companies and instructed them to purchase the land on behalf of their companies and asked the plaintiff to get registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant

No. 1 by the land owners on behalf of their companies. In pursuance to the said agreement executed by the defendant No. 2 the plaintiff arranged nearly 1500 Acres land and got registered in the name of the deferent companies and in the name of Defendant No. 1 on behalf of their companies. That the suit schedule lands are among those lands which were purchased by the plaintiff and got registered in the name of defendant No. 1. It is submitted that the defendant No. 1 kept everybody in dark and postponed the payment of agreed commission of Rs. 500 per Acre has not been paid to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff demanded for the commission to the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to take the commission at the time of further transactions and further requested the plaintiff to sell the suit lands to third parties and make payment to him at the rate of

Rs. 30,000/- per Acre and orally handed over papers of the suit lands and also possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016 with a hope that he will realize his commission when he sells the suit lands on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 and gets the sale deeds of the suit lands executed in favour of third parties through defendant No. 1.

as such the lands are presently in possession of the plaintiff. That the defendant No. 1 promise the plaintiff to sell the suit lands. That the defendant No. 1 orally agreed to sell the suit lands through the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to enter into an agreement with others and he will execute sale deeds in favour of the persons whom the plaintiff agrees to sell. That the defendant No. 1 in collusion with

Defendant No. 2 trying to sell the suit lands to other parties by over looking and breaching the oral agreements and promises made by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant

No.1 orally agreed to sell the lands through the plaintiff and in pursuance of that oral agreement handed over the physical possession of suit schedule lands and the plaintiff promised to sell the lands to third parties. According to the oral agreement between defendant No. 1 and plaintiff, that the defendant No. 1 handed over the physical possession of the suit schedule lands in favour of the plaintiff and entrusted the work of alienation through him. As such the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule lands presently. That the defendant is in collusion with the defendant No. 1. That the defendant

No. 3 & 4 are being official formal parties to the suit.

3.That the defendant No. 1 is K. Ravindra who is one of the directors of companies owned by defendant No. 2 and few others defendant No. 3 and 4 are formal parties. It is submitted that the defendant No. 1 has got executed sale deeds from his vendors on

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016 behalf of the companies wherein he is one of the director but he has got transferred the lands in his name in Revenue records and trying to alienate the suit schedule lands to third persons keeping aside the promise made to the plaintiff to sell the lands to third parties and realize his commission thereby. It is submitted that the plaintiff sensing the attitude of the defendant No.1 asked the defendant that there are some purchasers who are ready to purchase the suit schedule lands and requested him to come and execute sale deeds in favour of the proposed purchasers and pay his commission and receive the balance. That the plaintiff on one pretext or other trying to postpone the transaction. Finally on 10th April 2015 the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to come forward and execute registered sale deeds.

4.That the defendant No. 1 with malafide intention is not coming forward to execute sale deeds and to make payment of commission to the plaintiff and it is learnt that the defendant No. 1 is trying to alienate the suit schedule lands to third parties to cause loss to me as such left with no option I crave the leave of this Hon’ble court and filed this suit. It is submitted that if the defendant No. 1 is not restrained from alienating the suit schedule lands to third parties taking advantage of the lands standing in his name the plaintiff will be put to grate loss which cannot be compensated by any means. That the plaintiff is filing this suit praying this Hon’ble court to restrain the defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit schedule properties to third parties without the knowledge of the plaintiff as the entire transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is oral and the documents

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016 filed by the plaintiff unclinchingly establish the said facts of the plaintiff being in possession of the suit lands. Hence filed the suit.

5.When the summons were not served on defendant No.1 & 2 , this court ordered substitute service on defendant No.1 & 2 by way of publication in Eenadu (Telugu) News paper of Sangareddy District on 15.03.2019, even after that the defendant No.1 & 2 failed to appear

before this court and they were remained ex-parte on 18.03.2019.

6.In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

POINT

7.The present suit is filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor not to alienate the suit schedule properties. In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff is bound to establish his possession as on the date of filing the suit, but in the instant case the plaintiff is seeking the relief of not to alienate and not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

8.The plaintiff himself was examined as PW1. He filed his chief examination affidavit. On perusal of his chief examination affidavit, it revealed that he reiterated the avernments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 is Agreement executed by the defendant No.1. The document which was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff shown that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule lands.

9.The above oral and documentary evidence which is unchallenged, prove the case of the plaintiff. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction .

9.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs, restraining the defendant No.1, his men, agents any other person or persons from alienating the suit schedule lands in favour of third parties, and restraining them from interfering the suit schedule lands.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined for:

Plaintiff:Defendants:

PW.1 : Devasoth Gopi Naik NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

Plaintiffs:Defendants:

Ex.A1 : Agreement executed by the NIL Defendant No.2.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

DECREE

THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARAYANKHED.

PRESENT : SRI B.SUJAY, Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

Between:

Devasoth Gopi Naik S/o Baddu Naik Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture & business, R/o: Hangirga K village, Narayankhed village and mandal, Sangareddy Dist. .…Petitioner/Plaintiff.

A N D

1. K. Ravindra S/o K.S.R. Raju, Age: 45 years, Occ: Company Director, R/o: H.No. 401-1-8-3-226, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad.

2.Dr. Durga Prasad S/o Chandra Mouleshwara Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Self Employed, R/o: Rudraram, Patancheru mandal, Medak Dist.

3.The Sub Registrar, Narayankhed, Medak District (Formal Party).

4.Tehsildar, Manoor Mandal, Medak District. (Formal Party).

.… Respondents/Defendants.

CLAIM: Suit for Perpetual injunction

Suit filed on:23.12.2016.

Suit registered on:23.12.2016.

Cause of action arose on:19.04.2007,

Court Fee:- Suit for Perpetual Injunction, and the plaint notionally valued for the purpose of relief of injunction not to alienate and not to interfere over the suit lands at Rs. 2,50,000/- upon which the plaintiff paid court fee of Rs.5500/- U/sec.26 (c) of A.P. & S.V. Act.

This suit is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.Maruthi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and the defendants remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments, this Court doth order and decreed as follows:-

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

1.That the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby decreed without costs.

2.That the defendant No.1, his men, agents any other person or persons from alienating, creating any charge over the suit schedule properties and further restrained them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands.

3.That there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

COST OF THE SUIT.

Plaintiffs Defendants.

1.Stamps on plaint Rs. 5500-00---

2.Stamps on VakalathRs. 2-00---

3.Stamps on exhibitsRs. 0-00---

4.Service of processRs. 35-00---

5.Advocate’ fee -------

6.Misc.Rs. 100-00--- ( Costs memo not filed and not allowed). __________________________________

TotalRs. 5637 Rs. –- __________________________________

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

All the agriculture lands particulars of Survey number and extent details shown in the table which are situated in Karamungi, Morgi, Nagalgidda, Vallur, Muktapur, Shelgira & Gudur Villages of Manoor Mandal, Medak District particulars of boundaries shown in the registered sale deeds.

S.Name of theName of theExtent Sy. No. No.VillageMandalIn Acres 1KaramungiManoor9/A25.20 2KaramungiManoor9/A2/13.13 3KaramungiManoor9/A33.14 4KaramungiManoor9A43.13 5KaramungiManoor9A1/15.22 6KaramungiManoor9A15.22 7KaramungiManoor28/A12.00 8KaramungiManoor28/AA2/12.00 9KaramungiManoor68/AA2.00 10KaramungiManoor67/E33.00 11KaramungiManoor67/EE13.00 12KaramungiManoor33/AA5.21 13KaramungiManoor28AA23.09 14KaramungiManoor28AA13.09 15KaramungiManoor5/A10.27 16KaramungiManoor42A23.06 17KaramungiManoor20/A12.11 18KaramungiManoor21/E10.33 19KaramungiManoor28/EE4.14 20KaramungiManoor205/AA38.04 21KaramungiManoor198/EE21.29 22KaramungiManoor198/EE16.14 23MorgiManoor533.39 24MorgiManoor564.25 25MorgiManoor35/AA14.00 26MorgiManoor69/AA14.00 27MorgiManoor204.00 28MorgiManoor16/A32.10 29MorgiManoor06/A1.07 30MorgiManoor616.00 31MorgiManoor062.14 32MorgiManoor04/1/AA/11.00 33MorgiManoor572.36 34MorgiManoor60/35.38 35MorgiManoor9/AA/2/12.00 36MorgiManoor9/A/1/12.00 37MorgiManoor9/A1/22.00 38MorgiManoor75A8.00 39MorgiManoor61/A26.00 40MorgiManoor139.00 41MorgiManoor4113.23 42NagalgiddaManoor1133.28

JCJ, Narayankhed 7OS 80 of 2016 43NagalgiddaManoor1125.05 44NagalgiddaManoor1156.20 45NagalgiddaManoor1113.35 46NagalgiddaManoor101A5.04 47NagalgiddaManoor1093.01 48NagalgiddaManoor108/AA10.36 49NagalgiddaManoor108/A20.36 50NagalgiddaManoor107/A20.11 51NagalgiddaManoor106/A20.19 52NagalgiddaManoor119/A19.10 53NagalgiddaManoor38/A9.38 54NagalgiddaManoor107/A/1/10.28 55NagalgiddaManoor117/E/32.17 56NagalgiddaManoor1060.36 107/AA/2/ NagalgiddaManoor1.00 572 58NagalgiddaManoor106/A30.37 59VallurManoor398.35 60VallurManoor37/A/11.25 61VallurManoor37/EE/20.21 62VallurManoor3625.30 63VallurManoor37/A21.25 64VallurManoor37/EE20.21 65VallurManoor37/U20.32 66VallurManoor49/A110.06 67VallurManoor30/A24.15 68VallurManoor4611.03 69VallurManoor4611.03 70VallurManoor70/A112.00 71VallurManoor37/U/11.25 72MuktapurManoor6225.38 73MuktapurManoor63/A2.27 74ShelgiraManoor107/E/11.29 75ShelgiraManoor108/E21.19 76ShelgiraManoor107/E21.29 77ShelgiraManoor107/A10.12 78ShelgiraManoor108/A8.20 79Gudur34/A15.00 TOTAL 375.09

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ZAHEERABAD

Wednesday, Dated this the 02nd day of January, 2019

Present: Sri B. Sujay Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narayankhed FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

M.C.No.19 OF 2016

Between:-

Kuncharam Nagamani W/o. Kuncharam Bhaskar, Aged 29 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Presently H.No.1-64/1, Satwar Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District, Telangana. …Petitioner A N D

Kuncharam Bhaskar S/o. Kuncharam Pochaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occupation : Govt.Employee at TSRTC Bus Mechanic, Presently working at BHEL Depot (Batch) ID.No.218665, C/o. BHEL Bus depot, Ramachandrapuram Village, Medak District, Telangana. … Respondent

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 28-11-2018 in the presence of Sri G. Srinivas (Kanna), Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Panduranga Reddy, Advocate for Respondent, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.125 of Cr.P.C., against respondent for monthly maintenance.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 9-6-2004 as per customs prevailed in their community. During the time of marriage sum of Rs.10,000/-, 2 tulas gold, Rs.2,00,000/- worth of household articles and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle were given to respondent as dowry. Soon after the marriage the petitioner joined matrimonial society at his village and lived happily for a period of 3 years.

2 The petitioner accompanied the respondent wherever he worked and lived with him. In the year 2013, the respondent, his parents, brother and sisters and their husbands harassed the petitioner physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent and his family members forcibly taken away the gold presented to petitioner. The respondent did not provide minimum facilities to petitioner and starved her and taken away her cell phone and broken it. The respondent did not maintain physical relationship with the petitioner and he insulted her before the family members and neighbors stating that she is not a good looking lady. Panchayaths were held for three times and advised the respondent not to ill-treat the petitioner and tried to pacify the issue and on 13-04-2014, the respondent left the petitioner at Sangareddy. Finally on 6-5-2015, the petitioner was driven out by the respondent and his family members with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Then petitioner lodged a report with Police, P.S.Chiragpally and Police registered a case in Cr.No.32/15 under section 498-A IPC. Further the respondent has got illicit relationship with one Priyanka Jani. It is submitted that the respondent willfully deserted her and the petitioner is unable to maintain herself. Apart from this, the respondent is working as an Government

Employee at TSRTC as Mechanic at BHEL Depot and getting monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per month. Apart from this, they own house at

Bilalpur village and the father of the respondent is having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.5-00 Acres and getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. Though the respondent is having sufficient means he neglected to maintain the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner pray to award maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and also for costs.

3

3.On the other hand, the respondent filed his counter by admitting his relationship but denied other allegations made in the petition.

Further submitted that after marriage the petitioner lived with him happily for some time and thereafter the petitioner left his company by taking away the gold ornaments and clothes to her parents house, without informing the respondent or his parents. Further submitted that he has to maintain his old aged parents but the petitioner is not interested to look after the welfare of his parents and whenever the parents of the respondent visit their house, the petitioner used to quarrel with them and abused them in filthy language. The respondent denied of getting an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards his employment, and having agriculture lands. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.In order to prove their respective contentions, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and the Respondent examined as RW1. No documents were marked on behalf of both parties.

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel

for respondent and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for Maintenance? If so to what extent?

7.POINT:-For claiming maintenance under section 125

Cr.P.C, the petitioner has to establish the relationship with respondent as legally wedded wife and the respondent being husband neglected to 4 maintain her and the petitioner is unable to maintain herself. In view of above essential elements, this Court proceed to weigh the evidence on record.

8.In the instant case the parties are not in dispute with regard to their relation and PW1 and RW1 admitted about their marriage. Therefore in view of admission of the parties with regard to marriage, this court holds that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent.

9.Now the next point arises for consideration is whether respondent neglected the petitioner and there is just reason for separate stay of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that her marriage with respondent took place in the year 2004 and lived happily with respondent till 2013. Thereafter the respondent started harassing petitioner by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the year 2013 after necking her out from the house of respondent, the respondent brought 10 elders to her house and conducted a panchayath forcing her to give consent for second marriage of the respondent. Further contended the illicit relationship of the respondent with one Priyanka and also birth of a daughter through respondent.

10.The case of the respondent is that after the petitioner deserted his company, the respondent made efforts to bring back the petitioner to his house and nearly 3 panchayaths were held to bring back the petitioner and after 3 panchayaths, he lodged a complaint with the police stating that the petitioner is not ready to return to his conjugal society. He admitted that no documentary proof is placed before this court to show that he filed the complaint against the petitioner. He stated that he did not send any 5 legal notice to petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and also did not file any case for restitution of conjugal rights under the provisions of Hindu

Marriage Act. He stated that he did not mention the specific gold ornaments that were stolen by the petitioner. Further it is the contention of the respondent that his father is the possessor of Ac.3-00 guntas of agricultural land which was assigned by the Government. He stated that they own house in their village standing in the name of his father. He admitted his employment as Mechanic in the TSRTC, BHEL depot and earning Rs.19,598/-. The respondent denied his illicit relationship with one

Priyanka Jani.

11.Now the next point arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance. In this regard the petitioner testified that she has no source of income to maintain herself. Further she testified that the respondent is a TSRTC employee and getting salary of

Rs.25,000/- per month and having own house at Billalpur village and also having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.5-00 Gts. She testified these facts in her evidence. On the other hand the respondent denied the same and he testified that he is earning Rs.19,598/- per month and his old aged mother depends on him. Expect the oral testimonies of PW1 there is no other documentary evidence available to prove the holding of land an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., and as well as house at Bilalpur and also agriculture land. In the absence of such documentary evidence it is very difficult to come to a conclusion about the agriculture income and as well as income arising from the house at Bilalpur.

6

12. The evidence on record is not clear about the income of respondent. But at the same time the evidence discloses that Respondent is working as Mechanic in the TSRTC, BHEL depot and earning

Rs.19,598/-. However, it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and the Respondent herein being is able body person is under obligation to maintain his wife.

13.Though there is no specific income available on record but respondent being able body person it is his obligation to provide maintenance. This Court taking into consideration of social status of the parties and the basic requirements of the petitioners and also the income of the respondent is of the view that an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Petitioner is just and fair for her maintenance. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.In the result, petition is partly allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of this petition. The respondent is directed to pay the said amount on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The petitioner is also entitled for Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this petition.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 02 nd day of January, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayankhed FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class Zaheerabad 7

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

PETITIONERRESPONDENT

PW1 Kuncharam Nagamani RW1 Kuncharam Bhaskar

Exhibits marked for

PETITIONERRESPONDENT

-NIL- -NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayankhed FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class Zaheerabad 8

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016

THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARAYANKHED.

PRESENT : Sri B. SUJAY, Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

O.S. No. 49 of 2016

Between:

Baswaraj S/o: Vittal Rao, Age: 52 years, Occ: Driver, R/o: Karamungi village, Now R/o: Yarnali village, Bidar Dist, Karnataka State..…Plaintiff.

A N D

1.Shakuntala Baii W/o Late Vittal Rao, Age: 75 years, Occ: Household,

2. Gurunath S/o Late Vittal Rao, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Navanath S/o Late Vittal Rao, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: Yarnali (Deshmukh) Taluq, Bidar Dist., Karnataka State.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Narsa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and the defendants called absent and remained ex-parte, and upon hearing, and upon considering material papers on record, this court delivered the following.

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession with a prayer to pass preliminary decree allotting 1/4 share to the plaintiff in agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 188, admeasuring Ac. 6-11 guntas, situated at Karamungi village, Manoor mandal, Medak District.

2.The brief avernments of the plaint is that the plaintiff and defendant

No. 2 & 3 are the sons of defendant No.1 and Late Vittal Rao. That one

Hanmanth is the common ancestor of the parties, and died long back

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016 leaving Shivaray as his son and legal heir. Later Shivaray died leaving behind Vittal Rao as his son and legal heir. Vittal Rao also died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs and successors.

Hence the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 to 3 and the Hindu Joint Family coparceners and Hindu Law governed on them. It is submitted that the joint family have inherited the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 188, admeasuring Ac. 6-11 gts, situated at Karamungi village, Manoor mandal,

Medak Dist., from their ancestor by way of succession. After the death of ancestor, the land was mutated and transferred in the name of defendant

No.1 in the revenue records, hereinafter called the suit schedule land.

3.It is further submitted that there is no partition and separate possession of the above mentioned properties in between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 by metes and bunds. The plaintiff and defendant No.

1 to 3 are in joint possession and enjoying the usufructs from the suit schedule lands. The defendant No. 1 being elder in the joint family has managed the joint family undivided properties. The defendant No.1 used to give the share of the produce and income arrived from the suit schedule land to the plaintiff every year. After the death of Vittal Rao, the defendant

No. 1 to 3 colluded with each other and mismanaging the suit schedule lands and trying to alienate the same and the said entries are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 to 3 colluded with each other and tried to alienate the same to third parties in order to cause loss to the plaintiff and to deprive his legitimate share. The defendant No. 1 to 3 have no exclusive right to alienate the Hindu Joint family undivided properties. The plaintiff came to know about the same he demanded the defendant No. 1 to 3, for partition of the suit schedule lands on 24.07.2016 by metes and bunds and to allot his legitimate share, but the defendants

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016 refused to partition the same. The plaintiff is entitled his legitimate 1/4 share and the defendants are also entitled 1/4rd share each in the suit schedule land. Hence the suit.

4.When the summons were not served on defendant No.1 to 3 this court ordered substitute service on defendant No.1 to 3 by way of publication in Uttara Karnataka daily News paper on 28.01.2019, even after that the defendant No.1 to 3 failed to appear before this court and they were remained ex-parte on 19.02.2019.

7.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of plaintiff, PW.1, is examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 are the documents marked. Ex.A1 is CC of

ROR for the year 1978-80. Ex.A2 is CC of Pahani for the year 1990-91.

Ex.A3 is TC of pahani for the year 2016.

8.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties by declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4 share?

3. To what relief?

POINT No.1:-

7.In order to prove point No.1, the plaintiff himself is examined as

PW.1 and his chief evidence affidavit is replica to the contents of plaint.

The plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 is CC of ROR for the year 1978-80. Ex.A2 is

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016

CC of Pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.A3 is TC of pahani for the year 2016, the plaintiff is able to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants.

8. The crucial question in this case is that whether the plaintiff is able to prove the relationship with the defendants No.1 to 3. Admittedly the defendants No.1 to 3 after receipt of the summons appeared before this

Court and sought time to file written statement, but failed to file the written statement. That itself proved that the defendants admit the relationship of the plaintiff with them. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 share in the suit schedule properties. Hence point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

POINT No.2.

9.In view of finding on point No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of his 1/4 share in the suit schedule properties. Hence point No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

POINT NO.3.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is preliminarily decreed without costs declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is at liberty to take steps for appointment of

Advocate-Commissioner in Final Decree proceedings.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23 rd day of March, 2019

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined for: Plaintiff:

PW.1 : Karamungi Baswaraj

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:CC of ROR for the year 1978-80.

Ex.A2:CC of Pahani for the year 1990-91.

Ex.A3:TC of Pahani for the year 2016.

Defendants:

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016

DECREE

THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARAYANKHED.

PRESENT : Sri B.SUJAY, Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

O.S. No. 49 of 2016

Between:

Baswaraj S/o: Vittal Rao, Age: 52 years, Occ: Driver, R/o: Karamungi village, Now R/o: Yarnali village, Bidar Dist, Karnataka State..…Plaintiff.

A N D

1.Shakuntala Baii W/o Late Vittal Rao, Age: 75 years, Occ: Household,

2. Gurunath S/o Late Vittal Rao, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Navanath S/o Late Vittal Rao, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: Yarnali (Deshmukh) Taluq, Bidar Dist., Karnataka State.

… Defendants.

CLAIM: Suit for Partition and Separate Possessions

Suit filed on:01.08.2016.

Suit registered on:01.08.2016.

Cause of action arose on:24.07.2016,

Court Fee:-Suit for Partition and Separate Possession, and the suit schedule properties comes to Rs. 76,000/- per acres and the total value comes to Rs. 4,76,900/- and the plaintif 1/4th share comes to Rs. 1,19,225/-, upon which the plaintif paid court fee of Rs. 200/- U/sec. 34 (2) of A.P. & S.V. Act.

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016

This suit is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Narsa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and the defendants remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments, this Court doth order and decreed as follows:- 1.That the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby decreed without costs.

2.Declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff is at liberty to take steps for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner in Final Decree proceedings.

3.That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 23 rd day of March, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

COST OF THE SUIT.

Plaintifs Defendants.

1.Stamps on plaint Rs. 200-00---

2.Stamps on VakalathRs. 2-00---

3.Stamps on exhibitsRs. 0-00---

4.Service of processRs. 35-00---

5.Advocate’ fee -------

6.Misc.Rs. 100-00--- ( Costs memo not filed and not allowed). __________________________________

TotalRs. 402-00 Rs. –- __________________________________

JCJ, Narayankhed3OS 49 of 2016

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

1.The Agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 188, ad-measuring Ac. 6-11 guntas, situated at Karamungi village, Manoor mandal, Medak District and bounded by:-

East:Land of Gundappa and others,

West:Land of Bagwan Rasheed,

North:Land of K. Sharnappa,

South:Land of others.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.