1 C.C.No.452/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM.
Present :: Smt. B.Vani Sree,
Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2023.
Calendar Case Number 452 of 2019
Between: State, represented by : Sub Inspector of Police,
Pamarru Police Station.... Complainant
And
1.Venneti Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Suryanarayana, aged 67 years, Ex-Secretary, P.A.C.S., Udimudi Village, K.Gangavaram, N/o.Kapileswarapuram, now residing at 2-40-93, Opposite Ladies Hospital, Alcot Gardens, Rajahmundry.
2.Gottumukkala Veera Venkata Suryanarayana Varma, S/o.Rama Chandra Raju, aged 67 years, Chinnakondepudi Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, In-charge Manager, D.C.C.B., K.Gangavaram. … Accused
This case has coming before me on 31.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the LearnedAssistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri.K.Abburam, Sri.V.Gopala Rao and Sri.B.V.V.S.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for Accused No.1 and Sri.K.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for Accused No.2 and upon hearing both sides on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
// J U D G M E N T \\
01.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru
Police Station, laid a charge against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
Number 54/2016 for the offence under sections 409, 477 r/w.34 of Indian
Penal Code.
02.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows that:
L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi, Divisional Cooperative Officer,
Rajamahendravaram conducted the statutory enquiry U/Sec.51 of
A.P.C.S.Act, 1964 as per orders of Joint Registrar-cum-District Cooperative
Officer, E.G.District, Kakinada into the affairs of Udimudi Sita Ramanjaneya
P.A.C.S., Udimudi, Head Quarters at Kotipalli of K.Gangavaram Mandal under 2 C.C.No.452/2019 misappropriation of funds and financial irregularities into the affairs of the society. L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi duly authorized the L.W.2/Sugandham Veera
Venkata Satyanarayana as enquiry officer under section 51 of Andhra
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. As per the directions of
L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi from 02.11.2010 L.W.2/Sugandham Veera Venkata
Satyanarayana conducted statutory enquiry with regards to the role of
Financial Bank, Employees and their responsibilities and misappropriation of amounts by A.1 and A.2 in which L.W.2/Sugandham Veera Venkata
Satyanarayana reported that A.1 misused the amounts i.e., Rs.11,100/-,
Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,12,951/- and Rs.56,222/- (Total Rs.2,80,273/-) in Co- operative society and with intent to misappropriated the said amounts A.1 did not entered the misuse amounts in the concerned records of the
Cooperative Society.
(ii)Further the case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- under the shade of Binami
Loans in the names of L.W.3/Padam Satyavathi, L.W.4/Mulakala Narayana
Rao, L.W.5/Mulakala Srihari, L.W.6/Mulakala Savithri, L.W.7/Rimmalapudi
Satya Sai Rama Prasad, L.W.8/Meka Krishna Kumari, L.W.9/Mulakala Srinivasa
Seshagiri Sri Rama Prasad, L.W.10/Devarapalli Ram Mohan Rao with their falsified attitudes, but A.1 and A.2 did not brought the said amounts into the cash books and thus A.1 and A.2 made the offence by falsification of records and binami exemptions. Thus after obtaining the statutory enquiry report from L.W.2/Sugandham Veera Venkata Satyanarayana on 14.05.2016
L.W.11/G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. received the report of the L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi through registered post and basing on the contents of L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi report, on 14.05.2016 at 12.15 PM L.W.11/
G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. registered the same as a case in Cr.No.54/2016 under sections 409, 477 r/w.34 IPC and investigated into.
(iii)During the course of investigation, on 15.05.2016 3 C.C.No.452/2019
L.W.11/G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. secured the presence of L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi and L.W.2/Sugandham Veera Venkata
Satyanarayana, examined and recorded their detailed statements. After that on 16.08.2016 L.W.11/G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. visited
Udimudi Co-operative Credit Society, where L.W.11/G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. secured the presence of witnesses, examined and recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C. statements in the Part-II of the Case Diary.
(iv)After that he tried to secure the present of Kotipalli Gangayamma to record her statement, during this course he came to know that Kotipalli
Gangayamma was died on 19.11.2011 for which he did not able to record the detailed statement of Kotipalli Gangayamma.
(v)During the examination of L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi, he obtained the documentary evidence from L.W.1/K.Krishna Sruthi with respect to the offence committed by A.1 and A.2 i.e., 1) Loan drawal forms CD Bonds,
Photostat copies of Admission Register, Loan Ledger extracts, 2) Xerox copies of the de-registration CD bonds in the office of the Registry of Assurance,
Draksharama, 3) Cash Book for 2007-08 and 2008-09 (2 volumes), 4) CKCC
Pass Books of Smt.Kotipalli Gangayamma, 5) Photostat copies of Receipts
No.KN 9450, dated 29.09.2007 issued to L.W.10/Devarapalli Ram Mohan Rao,
6) Receipt book containing 50 leaves No.KN 9401, dated 19.09.2007 to 26.09.2007 and the same were being submitting to the Hon’ble Court along with form-66.
(vi)During the course of investigation, on 21.12.2018 at 11.00 AM,
L.W.11/G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. arrested the Accused
No.1 at Pamarru Police Station and forwarded the Accused No.1 to Hon’ble
Court for judicial remand. On 08.01.2019 L.W.12/D.Durga Sekhar Reddy, Sub
Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. assumed charge of Pamarru Police Station and caused efforts to trace out the whereabouts of absconding Accused
No.2, but became futile.
4 C.C.No.452/2019
(vii)On 27.06.2019 L.W.13/B.Vinay Pratap, Sub Inspector of Police,
Pamarru P.S. assumed charge of Pamarru Police Station and took up further investigation in this case. On 22.11.2019 L.W.13/B.Vinay Pratap, Sub
Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. received the anticipatory bail orders in respect of A.2 from the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari
District at Rajamahendravaram vide Crl.M.P.No.1327/2019. On the same day i.e., on 22.11.2019 A.2 attended before L.W.13/B.Vinay Pratap, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. and he obtained sufficient sureties from A.2 and released A.2 on the same day. After completion of investigation,
L.W.13/B.Vinay Pratap, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused.
03.On 06.12.2019 in this case the cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused Nos.1 and 2.
04.On 07.01.2020 on appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to
P.W.8, got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Hence, the prosecution side evidence was closed.
06. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 24.03.2023
Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure
Code by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.
07.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and 5 C.C.No.452/2019 the learned defence counsel for accused. Written arguments filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel of A.1 and the same are perused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
08.Now the points for determination are that:
1. Whether the accused persons are Public servants or Bankers or Merchants or Agents within the
meaning of section 21 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the accused persons were entrusted with any property or with any dominion over the said property in the capacity of a public servants or in the way of their business as a Bankers, Merchants etc. ?
3. Whether the accused persons in such capacity dishonestly misappropriate the said property or dishonestly used or disposed the said property in violation of any direction or law prescribing the
grant in which the trust is to be discharged?
4. Whether the accused persons have destroyed, altered, mutilated or misrepresented the books, electronic records, papers, writings, valuable security or account in question in the capacity of Public Servants?
5. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused persons are committed an offence punishable under sections 409 and 477-A r/w.34 of
Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
6. To what finding?” (1)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 409 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients under section 405 of Indian Penal Code, along with section 409 of Indian Penal Code.
(i)the offence must be committed by a public servant, broker, attorney or agent;
(ii)the accused were entrusted with the property;
(iii)the words ‘dishonestly’ in the section portrays the presence of mens rea;
(iv)entrusting the property to any person or with any dominion over the property;
(v)that person had dishonestly misused that property or has converted that property for his own use; 6 C.C.No.452/2019
(v)or that person is dishonestly using are disposing of that property; or willfully causing suffering to any other person in breach of any direction of law or a legal contract; (2)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 477-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.
(i)that the accused has destroyed, altered, mutilated or misrepresented the books, electronic records, papers, writings, valuable security or account in question;
(ii)the accused did so in his capacity as clerk, officer or servant of the employer;
(iii)the books, papers etc. belong to or are in his possession by his employer or were received by him for or on behalf of his employer;
(iv)that the accused had intentionally and with a fraudulent intent; (3)In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 34 of Indian Penal code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-
(i) a criminal act is done by several persons;
(ii) the criminal act must be to further the common intention of all;
(iii) there must be participation of all the persons in furthering the common intention;
09.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined
P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. P.W.1 is the Divisional Co- operative Officer, P.W.2 is the Enquiry Officer who is Assistant Registrar No.2,
Sub Division, Alamuru, P.Ws.3 to 6 are the members of Udimudi Sita
Ramanjaneya Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited,
Udimudi. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers. Ex.P.1 is the report,
Ex.P.2 is the two volumes of enquiry records, Ex.P.3 are the two cash books for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 of the Udimudi Sita Ramanjaneya Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited at Kotipalli, Ex.P.4 are the bunch of 7 C.C.No.452/2019
Declaration Charge Bonds, Ex.P.5 are the Loan Debit Slips (12 in number),
Ex.P.6 are the promissory notes of the Smt.Kotipalli Gangayamma, Smt.Meka
Krishna Kumari and Smt.Mulakala Savithri, Ex.P.7 is the cash receipt which is reflected for an amount of Rs.76,443/- instead of the said Rs.1,76,443/-,
Ex.P.8 is the Kisan Credit Card of the Kotipalli Gangayamma which is reflected that she cleared the loan amount of Rs.11,100/-, Ex.P.9 are the five cheques of the said society which were issued to the rebate holders, Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report in Cr.No.54/2016.
10.The stand of accused is not one of the total denial. They admits that A1 worked as a C.E.O./Secretary of the Udimudi Sita Ramanjaneya
Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Udimudi,
Headquarter at Kotipalli, K.Gangavaram Mandal and A.2 worked as a
Incharge Branch Manager of District Co-operative Central Bank Limited,
K.Gangavaram Branch. It is the stand taken up by the accused by way of suggestion that they did not misappropriate any funds or property of the said society as well as they did not made any falsification of the accounts in furtherance of the common intention.
11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 coupled with the contents of the Exs.P1 to P10 clinchingly established that the accused persons are being public servants entrusted the financial transactions of the said society, but they are dishonestly misappropriate the amounts drawn from the said Society as well as they defraud the members of the said society and made falsification of accounts in furtherance of common intention. Therefore, the accused persons are liable for punishment under sections 409 and 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal
Code.
12.On the other the learned defence counsels are argued that this case is falsely implicated against the accused persons through the higher authorities of the said society. Further they argued that the prosecution did 8 C.C.No.452/2019 not obtain any prior sanction from the concerned authority as well as that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regarding to the misappropriation of the amounts in the said society by the accused persons, hence these are fatal to the prosecution case. Thus the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt.
13.In view of rival contentions of both sides, the entire record is perused.
14. Point No.1:
1. Whether the accused persons are Public servants or
Bankers or Merchants or Agents within the meaning of section 21 of Indian Penal Code?
15. It is admitted fact by the accused persons that A1 worked as a
C.E.O./Secretary of the Udimudi Sita Ramanjaneya Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Society Limited, Udimudi, Headquarter at Kotipalli,
K.Gangavaram Mandal and A.2 worked as a Incharge Branch Manager of
District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, K.Gangavaram Branch. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused persons are being public servants and entrusted the responsibilities and powers of the transactions of the said society, but they had misappropriate the amounts as well as falsification of the accounts of the said society in furtherance of the common intention. There is no doubt the Secretary of the said society is having responsibilities and powers with regarding to the financial transactions of the said society as well as the Branch Manager of the said
D.C.C.Bank would attention to visits to the society in connection with the interrelated affairs. Hence, this court holds that the accused persons are public servants within the meaning of section 21 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
9 C.C.No.452/2019
16. Point Nos.2 to 5:
2. Whether the accused persons were entrusted with any
property or with any dominion over the said property in the
capacity of a public servants or in the way of their business
as a Bankers, Merchants etc. ?
3. Whether the accused persons in such capacity
dishonestly misappropriate the said property or dishonestly
used or disposed the said property in violation of any
direction or law prescribing the grant in which the trust is to
be discharged?
4. Whether the accused persons have destroyed, altered,
mutilated or misrepresented the books, electronic records,
papers, writings, valuable security or account in question in
the capacity of a Public Servant?
5. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the
accused persons committed an offence punishable under
sections 409 and 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond
reasonable doubt?
17.It is the prosecution case that the Ex-Secretary of the said society/ A.1 delinquent by way of misappropriation of funds and committed several financial irregularities as well as to sustain huge loss to the funds of the said society. Further A.2 did not sign in the cash books/Ex.P.3 as well as he put his signatures without verifying the documents. Due to that reason the innocent members of the said society caused loss and lost their confidence of the said society.
18.In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, who spoke about misappropriation and falsification of accounts committed by the accused persons. It is the evidence of P.W.1 in the year 2011 the District Co-operative Office ordered enquiry against
Udumudi Society under section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act of 1964, then P.W.2 was appointed as an enquiry officer and he submitted the report/Ex.P2 after conducting the enquiry. She further testified that basing on the said report the District Collector of East Godavari gave a proceedings to her for lodging complaint/Ex.P1 against A1 and A2.
She further testified that A1 and A2 are gave the Binami loans for an amount 10 C.C.No.452/2019 of Rs.1,98,000/-. She further testified that A1 did not mention the payment of loan recovery amount in the cash book even though he received the receipts of the said clearance of the loan for an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- as well as he collected the less amount of share capital from the members of the society i.e., Rs.1,12,951/- and he paid the excess amount to the members of the society i.e., Rs.56,222/-.
19.P.W.2 who conduct the enquiry and submitted the report under
Ex.P2 has testified that he has been appointed as a Enquiry Officer of
Udumudi, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limitedat Kotipalli on 11.10.2010, then he started his enquiry from 25.10.2010 onwards and he submitted his report to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Rajamahendravaram after six months. He further testified that he found seven binami loans in the said society for an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- and the said binami holders names are Smt.Padma Satyavathi/P.W.3, Sri.Mulakala
Narayana Rao/L.W.4, Sri.Mulakala Srihari/P.W.5, Smt.Mulakala Savitri/L.W.6,
Sri.Mulakala Srinivasa Seshagiri Sreerama Prasad/L.W.9, Sri.Rimalapudi Satya
Sai Ram Prasad/P.W.4 and Smt.Meka Krishna Kumari/P.W.6.
20.He further testified that one Kotipalli Gangayamma taken a loan for an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the said society under Ex.P6 and she repaid the said loan amount along with interest of Rs.1,100/-, but no receipt was given by the society to her and the said amount was closed in Kisan
Credit Card under Ex.P8, but the same was not reflected in cash book.
21.He further testified that he has observed one receipt of one
Devarapalli Ram Mohana Rao/L.W.10 who cleared the loan amount of
Rs.1,76,443/-, but the same was not reflected in the cash book and only reflected Rs.76,443/- in the cash book under Ex.P.7 and the remaining
Rs.1,00,000/- is misappropriated by the officials of the said society.
22.He further testified that this society did not pay the rebates of 14 persons for an amount of Rs.56,220/- but the same was drawn by the C.E.O.
11 C.C.No.452/2019 of the society under Exs.P.5 and P.9.
23.He further testified that at the time of the loan sanction from 103 members that there is a short collection for an amount of Rs.1,12,951/- under Ex.P4.
24.He further testified that he seized the cash books for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 from the Udumudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Society at Kotipalli under Ex.P.3.
25.He further testified that the name of the C.E.O. of the said society is Vinneti Satyanarayana i.e., A.1 and he is misappropriate the said amount with the help of Ex-Manager by name G.V.V.S.N.Varma/A2 Branch Manager of
D.C.C.B. Limited, Gangavaram.
26.Further the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 are the persons as well as the members of the said society, who spoke about misappropriation as well as the falsification of the accounts in furtherance of the common intention by accused persons. Further A.1 obtained the loans in the names of the
Binamies i.e., P.Ws.3 to 6, L.W.4/Mulakala Narayana Rao, L.W.6/Mulakala
Savithri, L.W.9/Mulakala Srinivasa Seshagiri Sri Rama Prasad,
L.W.10/Devarapalli Ram Mohan Rao for an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- as per the version of the prosecution as stated supra.
27.P.W.3 who is the member of the said society has testified that she did not obtain any loan from the bank, but the Kotipalli Society bank obtained loan in her name without her knowledge and she received the notice from the society for clearing of the debt and the same was informed to her husband and he look after the said matter. She further testified that she neither put her thumb impression nor her signature before the Society
Bank at Kotipalli.
28.P.W.4 who is the another member of the said society also testified that he is one of the share hold member in the P.A.C.S. of Kotipalli and he applied the loan for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, but the said loan was not 12 C.C.No.452/2019 sanctioned. He further testified that at that time A1 is the Secretary of the said society. He further testified that in the year 2007 he received the notice from P.A.C.S. Kotipalli with regarding to the clearance of loan, though he did not obtain any loan from the said society. He further testified that another 10 members also received the same notices from the said society, then they gave complaint to the District Collector and approached the said society and informed about the said notices.
29.P.W.5 who is another share hold member of the said society has testified that since 1998 he is one of the share hold member in the said society and obtained the crop loan and the same was closed in the year 1999 and he kept the Rs.1,300/- for his share capital. He further testified that in the year 2011 he received the notice from P.A.C.S. for clearing the amount of Rs.28,000/- then immediately he approached the P.A.C.S. and asked the same and filed a petition before the Manager. He further testified that he came to know that A1 forged his signature and obtained the loan and misappropriation of amount in his name and the enquiry was conducted by the concerned authority.
30.P.W.6 who is another share hold member has testified that he is having membership in the said P.A.C.S., but he never obtained any loan from the said society and he received notice from the said society at about eight years back with regarding to the clearance of the debt, then he approached the P.A.C.S. and stated about the fact.
31.In order to substantiate the registration of the F.I.R. and arrest of
A.1 and A.2, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8.
Hence their evidence is chronology of the investigation done by them in the crime, and it is circumstantial in nature.
32.Now it has to be seen whether there is entrusted of the money to the accused persons as well as falsification of the accounts by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention. As per the evidence of 13 C.C.No.452/2019
P.W.2/enquiry officer has clinchingly reveals that A1 was caused misappropriation of the funds of the said society through drawal under seven
Binami loans with the help of A.2 as they are deliberated their duties as
Secretary of P.A.C.S. and Incharge Manager of D.C.C.B.
33.At this juncture on perusal of the Ex.P5, it clinchingly reveals that about the said Binami transactions are held for an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety eight thousand). In the name of P.W.3/P.Satyavathi for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, in the name of P.W.4 for an amount of
Rs.30,000/-, in the name of P.W.5 for an amount of Rs.23,000/-, in the name of P.W.6 for an amount of Rs.25,000/-, in the name of L.W.4/Mulakala
Narayana for an amount of Rs.25,000/-, in the name of L.W.6/Mulakala Savitri for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, in the name of L.W.9/Mulakala Srinivasa
Seshagiri Srirama Prasad for an amount of Rs.35,000/- and at the same time
P.Ws.3 to 6 are deposed at one voice that they are received the notices from the P.A.C.S. though they did not obtain any loans from the said society and the same are reflected on perusal of the said Ex.P.5/Loan debit slips. The learned counsel for defence cross examined the P.Ws.3 to 6, but nothing was elicited to discard the credit worthy of the said witnesses.
34.It is pertinent to note that the stamp of the bank as well as the initial of the A.2 are reflected on the said loan drawal forms/Ex.P.5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for A.2 has argued that the name of the A.2 is mentioned in the enquiry report/Ex.P2 by P.W.2 at the instructions of his higher authorities, except that the involvement of A.2 is not reflected in the enquiry report. P.W.2 has admitted that generally the Bank Manager giving the passing orders whenever his clerks prepared the same. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that when the servant has committed an act either omission or commission on the instructions of Master, the
Master is liable for the act done by his servant as per the concept of vicarious liability. Therefore, though the clerks are prepared any document 14 C.C.No.452/2019 on the instructions of Bank Manager, the Bank Manager himself liable for their acts. Hence on perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.2 as well as document evidence/Ex.P.5 along with arguments of the prosecution with regard to the concept vicarious liability are clinchingly reveals about the entrusted of the work to the accused persons by the said society and they misappropriate the properties of the said society to their personal use as stated supra. Then the prosecution has established the contents of the documents by convincing and legal definite evidence coupled with the oral evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, the above contention of the learned defence counsel does not hold the ground.
35.Further as per the contention of the prosecution that one Kotipalli
Gangayamma cleared her entire loan amount of Rs.11,100/-, but the same was not brought to the cash book by A.1. At this juncture, on perusal of the
Ex.P4, Ex.P6, Ex.P8 are clinchingly reveals that the said Kotipalli
Gangayamma obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the said society by mortgage of her landed property extent of Ac.0.94 cents on 01.06.2007, subsequently she repaid the said loan amount along with interest to the said society on 28.03.2009. But the said amount not credited in the cash book in the year 2008-09/Ex.P.3. At this juncture on perusal of the said cash book/Ex.P3 in the year 2008-09 Page Nos.115 to 120 that the said transaction not credited to this cash book and misappropriate by the accused.
36.The accused have taken a defence that the prosecution did not cite the said Gangayamma as a witness as well as not examined by the prosecution. At this juncture on perusal of the charge sheet it clinchingly reveals that the said Gangayamma was died on 19.11.2011, then they did not recorded her statement as per the version of P.W.7. Further on perusal of the record the xerox copy of the death certificate of the said Gangayamma was filed by the prosecution and it is reveals that on 19.11.2011 the said 15 C.C.No.452/2019
Gangayamma was demised. Mere because the prosecution has not examined some witnesses, it cannot be said that the prosecution case must failed. It is for the prosecution to choose and examine any witnesses from the memo of evidence appended to the charge sheet. Therefore, the contention of the defence counsel does not hold the ground.
37.Further the case of the prosecution is that there is fraud taken with regarding to the collection of the amount of Rs.1,76,543/-. At this juncture on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 he has observed receipt of one
Devarapalli Rama Mohana Rao/L.W.10 and he cleared the loan amount of
Rs.1,76,443/- but the same was not credited in the cash book and credited only Rs.76,443/- in the cash book/Ex.P.3. At this juncture on perusal of the
Ex.P7 it clinchingly reveals that the Receipt No.KN 9450, dated 26.09.2007 the amount was reflected of Rs.9,655/- + Rs.66,788/- the total amount is
Rs.76,443/- in the name of the said Devarapalli Rama Mohana Rao as well as on perusal of the cash book in the year 2007-08, dt.26.09.2007/Ex.P3, Page
No.124, the said amount was reflected as Rs.66,788/- + Rs.9,655/- in the name of the said Devarapalli Rama Mohana Rao. As per the version of the prosecution on 29.09.2007 the said Rama Mohana Rao cleared the entire amount of Rs.1,76,443/- and A.1 gave the receipt under No.KN 9450, after that A.1 manipulated the receipt with the help of the Carbon Paper for an amount of Rs.76,443/- as stated supra as per Ex.P7 as well as A.2 help to the
A.1 with regarding to the misappropriation of the said Rs.1,00,000/-.
Therefore it clinchingly reveals that A.1 misappropriated an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the said society with the help of A.2.
38.At this juncture the contention of the accused that the President of the said society falsely implicated the accused with political influence. It is pertinent to note that P.W.2 has admitted in his cross examination that the said society is having President and Committee members. He further admitted that the District Co-operative Audit Officer is having powers to 16 C.C.No.452/2019 audit, inspect and enquiry of the said society as per section 50 of the A.P.
Co-operative Societies Act. He further admitted that the society is having bye-laws and as per bye-laws, 21 the President is having all powers in the administration of the society i.e., all assets, cash are under control of the
President and all the bonds and papers are relating to the Society in the name of the President as well as the President used to put his signatures in the Cash books/Ex.P3. He further admitted that the President can delegate his powers to the Secretary if he wants, but there is no documentary proof to that effect. He further admitted that the Co-operative Kisan Credit Card loans are not liable against the President of the said Society as per the
C.K.C.C. System.
39.At this juncture on perusal of the cash book in the year 2007-08,
Page No.124, dt.26.09.2007 the signature of the President is not reflected on it and A.1 only signed on it. Further on perusal of the Ex.P2/enquiry reports shows that the Secretary should work under the control of the President as per Bye-law No.27 as well as the Secretary shall issue the receipts of the amount received by the Society and he is the responsible for the cash balance as well as he maintained all the records of the said society. Further as per the Bye Law No.21 the President may delegate his powers to the
Secretary if he wants. Therefore, it is the evident that the Secretary credit the said amount Rs.76,443/- in the cash book/Ex.P.3 on 26.09.2007 in the
Page No.124 without obtained the signature of the President. Furthermore the evidence of P.W.2 is clinchingly reveals that he had submitted entire his enquiry report/Ex.P.2 after verification of the entire documents, cash books, receipts etc. of the said society. The learned defence counsel has suggested
P.W.2 that the said C.K.C.C. System is not implicated in the year 2007, except that nothing could elicited to discard the credit worthy of the evidence of
P.W.2. Then the contention of the accused has not taken into consideration.
40.Further the case of the prosecution is that A.1 has withdrawn an 17 C.C.No.452/2019 amount of Rs.56,220/- in the name of the rebate holders of 14 persons without giving any amount to them under rebate. At this juncture on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 has has testified that the said society did not pay the rebates of 14 persons for an amount of Rs.56,220/- but the same was withdrawn by C.E.O. of the said society/ A.1 under Ex.P.9. On bare perusal of the Ex.P.9 it clinchingly reveals that the prosecution filed the five original cheques of the rebate holders with regarding to the misappropriation of the amount by A.1 in the year 2008-09 as well as the seal and initial of the
Branch Manager are reflected on them. Therefore the oral and documentary evidence are established that accused persons are made the excess payments and paid the incentive to ineligible members in respect of 14 cases as stated supra under Ex.P.9 and there is amount involved in the irregular transactions of Rs.56,222/-.
41.Further the case of the prosecution is that the accused misappropriated of an amount of Rs.1,12,951/- funds short collection of share capital from the 103 society members, hence it is huge loss to the said
Society with regarding to the working capital. P.W.2 has testified that at the time of the loan sanction from 103 members that there is a short collection of amount of Rs.1,12,951/- and the same was found whenever he verified the entire documents of the said society i.e., cash books/Ex.P.3. Hence the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.P2 to P9 are categorically proved that the accused persons misappropriation of the amounts of the said society by using the same for their personal use as well as they made a falsification of the accounts in furtherance of the common intention.
42.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there is no prior sanction orders by the concerned authorities in the prosecution case. At this juncture to prove their contention they are relied upon the following decisions.
18 C.C.No.452/2019
1)In 2007 C.J. (KAR) 522 the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in between S.Mariswamy, I.P.S.S.Siddayya and Rama
Subba, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (West Division) Vs.
S.Venkannarao, whereintheir lordships are held that; “without their being a previous sanction, no court can take cognizance of an offence against a public servant who is in service or a retired public servant” , and it is the specific bar under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2)In 2008 C.J. (P & H) 827 the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in between N.K.Mittal Vs. Dilawar Singh, whereintheir lordships are held that; “the complaint cannot be entertained before obtaining sanction from the competent authority as envisaged” under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
43.At this juncture on perusal of the entire record, it is pertinent to note that Ex.P1/report reveals that under proceedings R.C.No.3703/2010-H, dt.05.05.2015 the District Collector of the East Godavari got issued the sanction orders. At this juncture on perusal of the entire record, the said sanction order, dt.05.05.2015 filed by the prosecution as well as the District
Collector of the East Godavari District, Kakinada by virtue of powers conferred on him under section 83(3) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1964 r/w. G.O. 6, he gave a sanction order against the accused persons. Further as per section 51 of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies
Act, 1964 was ordered under the proceedings R.C.No.3703/2010-A, dt.11.10.2010 of the Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, East
Godavari District, Kakinada to conduct the enquiry of the affairs of the
Udumudi Sita Ramanjaneya Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society
Limited.
44.It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 has testified that in the year 2011 the District Co-operative Officer ordered enquiry against the said society under section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act of 1964 and P.W.2 was appointed 19 C.C.No.452/2019 as a enquiry report and he submitted his entire report. She further testified that basing on the said report the District Collector of the East Godavari gave the proceedings to her, then she lodged a complaint against the A.1 and A.2 and at the same time the evidence of P.W.2 as well as the Exs.P.1 to P.9 are clinchingly reveals the same as stated supra. But the said sanction orders are not got marked by the prosecution.
45.At this juncture the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions.
1) In 2014 (11) SCC 709 in between the State of Tamilnaidu, by Inspector of Police Vs. N.Suresh Ranjan and ors., wherein their lordships are held that; “defect in investigation cannot be ground to discharge of acquittal of accused”.
2) In AIR 2003 SC 1164 in between Amarsingh Vs. Balvindar
Singh and Ors., where their lordships are held that; “if the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the investigation officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful”.
(ii)In the present case on hand also the prosecution filed the prior sanction order of the Collector with regarding to the proceedings against the accused persons as stated supra, but the said sanction order was not marked by the prosecution. Hence the facts of the decisions filed by the defence counsel are entirely different from the facts of the present case on hand, hence with due respect not followed. And at the same time the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decisions as stated supra are aptly applicable to the present case on hand. Hence the contention of the accused has not taken into consideration.
46.The learned defence counsel of A.2 has argued that P.W.2 did not submit his entire report at one time as well as at his first enquiry report (Ex.P.2) does not disclose the name of A.2 after that P.W.2 filed the 2nd volume of the enquiry report (Ex.P.2) and in that report only the name of the 20 C.C.No.452/2019
A.2 was added at the influence of his higher authority. At this juncture on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 he has categorically admitted in his cross examination that in his primary report/Ex.P.2 Book No.1 the involvement of
A.2 is not shown. Further P.W.1 categorically admitted in her cross examination that the entire misappropriation done to A.1 as well as the role of the Supervisor is there in between the Secretary and Branch Manager, but they did not shown the name of the Supervisor in the report. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of the enquiry report/ Ex.P.2 along with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P.5 (Loan Debit Slips 12 in number), Ex.P.9 (Five cheques of the said society which were issued to the rebate holders) are clinchingly established that the involvement of the A.2 in the alleged offence along with
A.1 as well as that there is no piece of evidence for involvement of the said
President and Supervisor of the said society. Therefore the minor inconsistency with regarding to the submitting of the enquiry report by P.W.2 is not arose any benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.
47.The learned defence counsel for A.1 has vehemently argued that
P.W.2 did not file his report within six months as per the section 51 of the
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. At this juncture, P.W.2 has categorically admitted in his evidence that he did not submitted his enquiry report within six months, but he submitted the same after six months to his higher authorities i.e., Divisional Co-operative Officer. Further P.W.2 has admitted that he did not prepare any mediator report at the time of the seizure of the said Exs.P3 to P9 from the said society, but he had taken the acknowledgment from the C.E.O. of the P.A.C.S. and he seized the said records. He further testified that he mentioned about the said exhibits i.e.,
Exs.P3 to P9 in the last page of his report/Ex.P.2. At this juncture on perusal of the Ex.P2 the list of Exs.P3 to P9 are mentioned in the last page of the said enquiry report. Hence mere non filing of the enquiry report by P.W.2 within six months cannot create any benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and it 21 C.C.No.452/2019 is minor inconsistency of their official duties. Hence the above contention cannot be taken into consideration.
48.Further the learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that the said misappropriation was taken place in the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and the report was prepared by Auditor Officer in every year and the same was sent to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, but P.W.2 did not seized the said
Audit report of the alleged years. Further he has argued that A.1 transfer from the said society in the March, 2009 to the Draksharama Branch as well as P.W.1 also categorically admitted in her evidence that the said misappropriation in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of the entire evidence of the record, it clinchingly reveals that the alleged misappropriation as well as the falsification of the amounts are done in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 as stated supra. Hence mere admission of P.W.1 in her oral evidence cannot be struck out the entire route cause of the case.
49.Further the learned counsel for A.1 has contended that there is delay for registering the F.I.R. against the accused, but the same was not explained by the prosecution. At this juncture on perusal of the record, Ex.P1 report was sent to the concerned S.H.O. 20.04.2016 through Tapala and the same was received by the S.H.O. on 14.05.2016 and on the same day he registered the F.I.R. P.W.1 has admitted in her evidence that she gave a report to the police by hand and immediately they registered the same and she does not remember in which date the police examined her as well as she did not submit any documents to the police at the time of her examination.
Hence the minor discrepancy cannot be considerable one. Therefore that there is no delay for registering the F.I.R., hence contention of the accused cannot be hold any ground as well as the decisions relied upon by the defence counsel in this aspect are entirely different from the present case on hand, hence with due respect not followed. Further the accused are failed to 22 C.C.No.452/2019 show that they used the said amounts for a particulars purpose as well as for the development of the said society, hence their version are unbelievable and not credit worthy.
50.Therefore the offence of criminal misappropriation by the public servant will be proved by the prosecution if it establishes that they were under duty to account their Master and have not done so. This court also comes across a decision reported in Jai Krishna Das, Manohar Das Desai
Vs. State of Mumbai, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 889 wherein their lordships are help that; “dishonest misappropriation or not conversion may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, but when it is established that property, is entrusted to a person or he had dominion over it and he has rendered a false explanation for his failure to account for it, then an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent may readily be made”.
(ii)In the criminal case, misappropriation even a temporary misappropriation could be sufficient to warrant a conviction under this section. The misappropriation or breach of trust done by public servant needs more severe punishment since he has social responsibility and he must discharge his duties with honesty and he has dominion and control over the property entrusted to him. There must be some carelessness i.e., there should be dishonest intention to keep the government out of money where under the rules the public servant is guilt of misappropriation.
51.This court is of the considered view that entrustment has nexus to the public office held by the accused persons. Since the accused persons are being a C.E.O./Secretary of the said society as well as the Incharge
Manager of the said Branch and they are involved the entire transactions of the said society as well as for the development of the members of the said society, but the accused are not discharged their legitimate duties with utmost care and caution as they are public servants in their official capacity.
52.Therefore the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the criminal breach of trust as stated supra as well as the accused persons are 23 C.C.No.452/2019 misappropriated the funds of the society and falsification of accounts in furtherance of common intention. Furthermore, the accused persons are public servants and public amount is entrusted to them in discharge of their official duty and there is nexus with the entrustment money with their official functions and accused persons dishonestly misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are proved. Even though the prosecution could not prove with dates and exact amount of misappropriation the accused persons cannot be allowed to escape from the clutches of law. As already discussed above a temporary injunction would amount to criminal breach of trust under section 409 of I.P.C. as well as they made a fraud entries as well as altered the receipts under the falsification of the accounts in the cash books/Ex.P.3 in furtherance of common intention as stated supra, hence the accused are liable for punishment under section 477-A r/w.34 of I.P.C. Hence this court comes to conclusion that the accused persons are liable to be punished for the offence under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code for the reasons mentioned as stated supra. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Accordingly, these Point Nos.2 to 5 are answered.
53.Point No.6:
In view of the above discussion on Point Nos.1 to 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that Prosecution proved the offence punishable under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered.
54.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the charge punishable under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal
Code and accordingly they are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- B.Vani Sree
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM
24 C.C.No.452/2019
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
55. When Accused No.1 was questioned about the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is aged about 72 years and he is suffering with blood pressure and Diabetic and his mother is depend upon him who is old aged woman. When Accused No.2 was questioned about the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is aged about 71 years and he is suffering with spinal card pain and his father is depend upon him who is old aged man.
However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the age and conduct of the accused, I am inclined to take lenient view in imposing of sentence on the accused.
56.On considering the facts of this case, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Hence, in view of the submissions of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, this court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.
57.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year to each one and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) in total
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence under section 409 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month to each one.
Further the accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year to each one and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) in total
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence under section 477-A of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month to each one.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention
undergone by the convicted/Accused No.1 from 21.12.2018 to
04.01.2019 (15 Days) shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
25 C.C.No.452/2019
Accused No.2 was not detained in judicial custody.
58.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are informed of their right to file appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When they are asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they are having means to engage a legal counsel and they does not need legal aid.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court on this the 13th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- B.Vani Sree
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum,
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
RAMACHANDRAPRAM
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-
For Prosecution
P.W.1/17.02.2022: K.Krishna Sruthi
P.W.2/07.04.2022: Sugandham Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
P.W.3/23.09.2022: Padam Satyavathi
P.W.4/13.01.2023: Rimmalapudi Satya Sai Rama Prasad
P.W.5/20.01.2023: Mulakala Srihari
P.W.6/03.02.2023: Meka Krishna Kumari
P.W.7/03.03.2023: G.Naresh, Sub Inspector of Police
P.W.8/24.03.2023: B.Vinay Pratap, Sub Inspector of Police
For Defence: --- None ---
/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1Dt.20.04.2016Report of P.W.1
Ex.P2Dt.22.11.2011Two volumes of enquiry records
Ex.P3During the period of Two cash books for the years 2007-08 and years 2007-08 and 2008-09 of the Udimudi Primary 2008-09Agricultural Co-operative Society at
Kotipalli.
Ex.P4Dt. ----Bunch of original Declaration Charge Bonds 26 C.C.No.452/2019
Ex.P5Loan Debit Slips (12 in number) in the names of members of the said society
Dt.01.06.2007 Kotipalli Gangayamma Dt.16.07.2007P.Venkata Ramana Dt.28.06.2007K.Gopala Krishna Dt.31.03.2007T.Seetamahalakshmi Dt.05.06.2007A.Satyavathi Dt.30.10.2007M.Venkata Rao Dt.05.06.2007M.Krishna Kumari Dt.01.08.2007R.S.S.Prasad Dt.18.09.2007M.Savithri Dt.21.11.2007M.Nageswara Rao Dt.14.06.2007P.Satyavathi Dt.28.09.2007M.Srihari
Ex.P6P romissory notes of the members of the said society
Dt.01.06.2007Smt.Kotipalli Gangayamma Dt.05.06.2007Smt.Meka Krishna Kumari Dt.18.09.2007Smt.Mulakala Savithri
Ex.P7Dt.26.09.2007Cash receipt under KN No.9450 of D.Rama Mohana Rao/L.W.10
Ex.P8 -----Kisan Credit Card of the Kotipalli Gangayamma
Ex.P9 F ive cheques of the said society which were issued to the rebate
holders
Dt.13.12.2008M.Srinivasu Dt.07.01.2009P.Venkata Ramana Dt.07.01.2009P.Gopala Krishna Dt.11.12.2008T.Manikyam Dt.11.12.2008K.Nagalakshmi Ex.P10Dt.14.05.2016First Information Report in Cr.No.54/2016
For Defence: --- NIL --- // Material objects marked //
--- NIL ---
Sd/- B.Vani Sree
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-CUM- J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM.
27 C.C.No.452/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM.
CALENDAR IN C.C.No.452/2019
1.Date of offence 19.11.2007
2.Date of Report or complaint14.05.2016
3.Date of taken on file 06.12.2019 21.12.2018 (A.1) Date of apprehension of 4. accused 22.11.2019 (A.2) 04.01.2019 (A.1)
5.Date of release on bail Accused No.2 obtained anticipatory bail and released on 22.11.2019
Date of commencement of
6.17.02.2022 trial
7.Date of close of trial31.03.2023
8.Date of Sentence or Order13.04.2023
STATE: Sub Inspector of police,
9.Complainant Pamarru Police Station.
1.Venneti Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Suryanarayana, aged 67 years, Ex-Secretary, P.A.C.S., Udimudi Village, K.Gangavaram, N/o.Kapileswarapuram, now residing at 2-40-93, Opposite Ladies Hospital, Alcot Gardens, Rajahmundry.
10Description of accused 2.Gottumukkala Veera Venkata Suryanarayana Varma, S/o.Rama Chandra Raju, aged 67 years, Chinnakondepudi Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, In-charge Manager, D.C.C.B., K.Gangavaram.
Under Sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of 11Section of LawIndian Penal Code.
12Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 found guilty for 13Finding of Courtthe charge punishable under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
14. Sentence or Order :
In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 found guilty for the charge punishable under sections 409, 477-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.
28 C.C.No.452/2019
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year to each one and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) in total
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence under section 409 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month to each one.
Further the accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year to each one and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) in total
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence under section 477-A of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month to each one.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention
undergone by the convicted/Accused No.1 from 21.12.2018 to
04.01.2019 (15 Days) shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
Accused No.2 was not detained in judicial custody.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are informed of their right to file appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When they are asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they are having means to engage a legal counsel and they does not need legal aid.
15. Explanation for delay and Remarks:
This case was taken on file on 06.12.2019. On 07.01.2020 case copies furnished to Accused Nos.1 and 2 andthey were examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code. A charge under sections 409 and 477-A r/w.34of Indian Penal Code was framed against the Accused Nos.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 are examined, Exs.P1 to P10 got marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 24.03.2023 Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence is closed. Heard the arguments on both sides on 31.03.2023. Judgment pronounced in open court on 13.04.2023. Hence, the delay.
Sd/- B.Vani Sree
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-CUM- J.F.C.MAGISTRATE
RAMACHANDRAPURAM
Copy submitted to :
The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
The Superintendent of Police, Konaseema District, Amalapuram.