Sri C Vikram

1C.C.No. 11996 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI C. VIKRAM,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023

C.C. No. 11996/2021

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1. Gadepaga Bharath Kumar @ Bharat, S/o G. Balakrishna, age: 23 yrs, Occ: UN­Employee,R/o H.No. 16­1­298/2RT, VS Residency, Saidabad colony, Hyderabad.

A2. Vuligadda Vikram Yadav, S/o v. Narayana, aged: 33 years, Occ: Police constable, r/o H.No. 8­80, Goutam nagar, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad, N/o Dornala(M), Chilkacharla(V), of Prakasham Dist.

A3. Pandala Bharath Kumar Goud @ Bharath @ Sai Kiran, S/o P. Anjaneyulu, aged: 24 yrs, Occ: Un­employee, R/o H.No. 1­3­176/8, Kavadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, N/o Bollepally(V) Bhonagiri District. …… Accused 

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K. Ravi Kumar and others, Advocates for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 418/2021 for the offence punishable under sections 171,384,419,420 r/w 34 IPC against Accused.

2C.C.No. 11996 of 2021

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case:

(i) PW 1 is the owner of first stone technologies, and he is running training institute in 106 first floor, Annapurna block, Aditya enclave,

Ameerpet. 

On 23/8/21 at 14:30 hours accused No. 1 to 3 projected themselves as police personals belonging to CCS, and made pw1 to believe that they are police personal belonging to CCS. Thereby, demanded Rs. 2 lakh from him. Under the fear pw1 agree to give Rs 2 lakh, as he has Rs. 20000/­ readily available in his account that can be accessed from nearest ATM, he withdraw amount and handed over to accused No.1 to 3..

3. On 24­08­2021 PW.1 filed complaint by narrating above facts.

Basing on which, case is registered in Crime No. 418 of 2021 under sections 171,384,419,420 r/w 34 IPC and issued first information report. 

4.During the course of investigation LW11­K. Gokari­

Investigating officer, secured PW1 and LW2­A. Hima Binud examined and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and checked the CCTV footages with the help of LW8- Ch. Srinivas PC and obtained 65-b certificate, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and deputed the teams to apprehend the accused, on the same day on 24-08-2021 about 1930 hours, as per credible information sent PCs to Saidabad to bring the accused and brought them to SR Nagar Ps, issued 41 Cr.P.C notice and instructed them to submit explanation, on next day accused could not obeyed. On next day I,e 25- 3C.C.No. 11996 of 2021 08-2021 about 1130 hours, received credible information that A1 to A3 are trying to leave Hyderabad, immediately sent LW9- Harish Kumar and

Lw10 N. Poornachander Rao, who are PCs to bring them and accordingly, they brought accused, on interrogation A1 to A3 confessed their guilt, immediately secured panchas and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and one bike bearing

No. AP11AB3178, three cell phones I,e Samsung, Vivo and Oppo, thereafter, sent them to judicial remand. After receiving relevant documents and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

5. Basing on charge sheet and all the material placed by investigation officer, cognizance was taken for the offence U/sec.

171,384,419,420 r/w 34 IPC against Accused and summons were issued.

6. On appearance of Accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to Accused as required U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C.

7. The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both parties, a charge under sections 171,384,419,420 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused has been framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular. The accused denied the accusation levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

4C.C.No. 11996 of 2021

8.Thus trial commenced. During the course of which, Learned prosecution examined PW1–N. Ramesh Babu, PW.2Shaik Ibrahim,

PW3­Ch.V. Rathnam, PW4­Ramesh Babu Narapuram, PW5­K.

Gokari­ Sub­inspector of police and got marked Ex.P1.Complaint,

Ex.P2­Signature of PW.2 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3to P9 ­Signature of PW.3 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Exs.P10 to P17 are signatures of PW.4 on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P18­ First Information Report, Ex.P19 confession cum seizure pancnanama, Ex.P20 is scene of offence panchanama.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused were examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against them, to which Accused denied and reported no defence.

10. Heard arguments on both sides. 

11. Now the point that arise for determination is:

POINT No.1 :  “Whether Learned prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 171,384,419,420 r/w 34 IPC ?.”

POINT No.2 :“If so, to what relief?.”

12.To prove its case, learnerd prosecution has to prove the facts alleged by it; That on 23/8/21 at 14:30 hours accused No. 1 to 3 by projecting themselves as police personals belonging to CCS, and made

PW.1 to believe that, they are police personal belonging to CCS and 5C.C.No. 11996 of 2021 demanded money of Rs. 2 lakh from him. Under the fear PW.1 agree to give Rs 2 lakh, as he has Rs. 20,000/­ readily available in his account that can be accessed from nearest ATM, he withdraw amount and handed over to accused No. 1 to 3. Thereby, committed an offence punishable within the meaning under section 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 34 of IPC. 

13. To prove the said facts in question, learned prosecution relied on

PW 1 to 5. The oral evidence of PW 1 to 4, though show several facts relating to the commission of offence but their evidence has nothing to deal with the person responsible for offence committed. Star witness in the present case that is PW.1 stated that he cannot identify said three persons who demanded and receive money from him.

During cross examined pw1 at length nothing was elicited against accused. Therefore the oral evidence of PW 1,2,4 is no way useful to to prove charges levelled against accused. 

14. The oral evidence of PW5 is that, on 24/8/201 he received complaint from pw1 basing on which he registered a case in crime No.

418 of 2021 for the offences under section 171, 384, 419, 420 read with 34 of IPC and issued FIR Ex.P18. Further he secured CCTV footages with the help of LW8­ Ch Srinivas. He also examined pw1 and LW 2 and visited scene of offence. There in the presence of

Muhammad Sohail and Sheikh Ibrahim conducted scene of offence panchanama Ex P20.Thereafter, he apprehended accused and that the accused confessed the offence in the presence of Ratnam Naidu 6C.C.No. 11996 of 2021 and Ramesh Babu under the cover of panchanama Ex.P19 and in pursuant of his confession, PW 5 seized cash of Rs 20,000/­ and one bike bearing No. AP11AB3178 and 3 cell phones from the possession of accused.

15. At this juncture, it is essential to note that, section 100 Crpc mandates the presence of mediators for every seizure. Besides, it is settled principle of law that confession made to a police officer is in admissible by virtue of sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

Therefore, by virtue of mandates available in evidence Act, the evidence of mediators becomes the material, to appreciate the transaction of seizure. As observed above, no such material evidence is placed on record to deal with the alleged transaction of confession followed by recovery of material objects as mentioned by PW 5, in the presence of mediators from the possession of accused. Therefore, in the absence of such material evidence, by virtue of section 25 to 27 of

Indian Evidence Act, the evidence of investigation officer/pw5 is not sufficient to believe the alleged transaction of confession of accused followed by recovery of material objects. in the presence of mediators from the possession of accused. In otherwise, in the light of the reasons stated Supra, the sole testimonies of police officer/PW.5 is not sufficient to connect the accused with crime and convict him. 

Hence, in view of the above reasons, it is concluded that, learned prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 of

IPC.

7C.C.No. 11996 of 2021

16. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

Hence Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited vide PI No. 246 of 2021 shall be returned to its original owners after appeal time. 

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1–N. Ramesh Babu ­complainant ­Nil­ PW.2­ Shaik Ibrahim­Panch witness PW3­Ch.V. Rathnam­Panch witness PW4­Ramesh Babu Narapuram­Panch witness PW5­K. Gokari­ Sub­inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1.Complaint. Ex.P2­Signature of PW.2 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3to P9 ­Signature of PW.3 on confession cum seizure panchanama Exs.P10 to P17 are signatures of PW.4 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P18­ First Information Report Ex.P19 confession cum seizure pancnanama Ex.P20 is scene of offence panchanama

FOR DEFENCE

­Nil­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED. 

­Nil­

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

8C.C.No. 11996 of 2021

 CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

C.C.NO. 11996/2021

Date of offence: 23­08­2021 Date of report/complaint : 23­08­2021 Date of apprehension of accused : 25­08­2021 Date of release on bail : 23­09­2021 Taking of cognizance: 29­10­2021 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 07­03­2022 Recording plea of the accused: 07­03­2022 Date of commencement of trial : 09­03­2022 Date of closure of trial : 19­04­2023 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 20­04­2023 Date of Judgment: 20.04.2023 Explanation for delay: ­

Name of the complainant: S.H.O., P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused A1. Gadepaga Bharath Kumar @ Bharat, S/o G. Balakrishna, age: 23 yrs, Occ: UN­Employee,R/o H.No. 16­1­298/2RT, VS Residency, Saidabad colony, Hyderabad. A2. Vuligadda Vikram Yadav, S/o v. Narayana, aged: 33 years, Occ: Police constable, r/o H.No. 8­80, Goutam nagar, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad, N/o Dornala(M), Chilkacharla(V), of Prakasham Dist. A3. Pandala Bharath Kumar Goud @ Bharath @ Sai Kiran, S/o P. Anjaneyulu, aged: 24 yrs, Occ: Un­employee, R/o H.No. 1­3­176/8, Kavadiguda, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, N/o Bollepally(V) Bhonagiri District ___________________________________________ Offence U/Sec.: 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC Finding : Found not guilty 

Result :IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. Hence Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 171, 384,419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited vide PI No. 246 of 2021 shall be returned to its original owners after appeal time .

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

HYDERABAD

To: The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Dis.No. /III ACMM/2023 Date : 

1C.C.No. 2058 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI C. VIKRAM,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023

C.C. No. 2058/2014

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad. …… Complainant A1. Yalamanchili Rajashekaran, S/o Nageshwara Hari Prasad, age: 28 years, Occ: Marketing Executive in Kotak Mahindra Insurance, Begumpet, R/o Room No.7, Stay Well Boys Hostel, Mallepally, Hyderabad, N/o H.No. 1­59C, Sathavahana Nagar, 7th Road, Gouravaram, Eluru, West Godavari district.

A2. Mohd. Asif Mulge, S/o Mohd. Yousuf Mulge aged 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o room No.11, Stay well boys hostel, mallepally, Hyderabad, N/o Bunken colony, near shivpur road, Basavakalyna, Bider district, Karnataka.

Note: [case against Accused No.2 quashed by the Hon’ble High court vide Crl.MP. No.s 12140 and 12141 of 2015 and criminal petition No.12180/2015] …… Accused No.1 This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. M/s. S. Vijay Kumar, K. Naga Raja Rao, Advocates for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.

2C.C.No. 2058 of 2014 812/2010 for the offence punishable under sections 403 and 420 of

IPC against Accused No.1 and 2.

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case is that ;

On 18­07­2010 as it was Sunday, Accused No.1 and 2 went to

KBR Park where they found one wallet beside the Road; immediately they picked up the wallet and went away and on opening the wallet at NFCL, Panjagutta, found it contained 1) one Black Berry Mobile phone, 2) one Apple I Pod with two ear phones an done battery connector, 3) Two Citi Bank Debit cards, 4) One City bank credit card,

5) One SBI credit card, 6) one SBH Debit card, 7) One Indian

Overseas Bank Debit Cards, 8) One Pan Card, 9) One Voter ID card,

10) One Dell ID Card, 11) Membership cards for cross word and

Hypercity; that accused took Black Berry Cell Phone, Apple I Pod and one SBH Credit Acc SBH Credit Card Acc.No. 5264685321417873, one City Bank Credit Card Acc.No. 4385879905780023 and thrown all the remaining items in a Municipality Dust Bin, they went to

Winner Sports Pvt. Limited, Sports Division at Third Floor City

Centre, Road No.1, Banjaa Hills, Hyderabad and fraudulently purchased two pair shoe's i.e. 1) Sketchers Company Blue colour 2)

Splading Company white colour for Rs. 2,849/­ and sox for Rs. 329/­ by using SBH Credit Card and City Bank Credit Card; that then they went to Sykar Shop in 4th floor of the same building and fraudulently purchased pants and shirts for them for Rs. 4,316/­ and Rs. 649/­ by using same credit cards; that then they went to Liquor Bank Wine shop at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and fraudulently 3C.C.No. 2058 of 2014 purchased liquor for Rs. 1750/­ by using the same cards and then again went to Spykar shop, IV floor City Centre, Road No.1 Banjara

Hills and purchased clothes for Rs. 2,718/­ using the credit cards and later they went to the hostel and kept the Black Berry mobile and I­Pod in A1's bag; that on the next day i.e. on 19­07­2010 A2 filled the petrol in the bike for Rs. 650/­ at KB Fill point by using credit cards and then went to E­Zone, III floor, City Centre, Road

No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and purchased two cell phone i.e. 1)

Nokia Model 6700S, for Rs. 9715/­ and one Samsung Mobile Model

GT­B3210 for Rs. 4990/­ by using the same credits cards fraudulently and then A2 took the credit cards and went to Hasbro

Clothing, I Max theatre and did shopping dishonestly using the same credit cards. On the nest day i.e. on 20­07­2010 they went to Big

Bazar, Abids and purchased a LG Black Colour mobile for Rs. 6525/­ by fraudulently using the same credit cards and on the same day they went to Hyderabad Central, Panjagutta and tried to purchase the Kids

Wear, but both the credit cards were declined. 

3.On 21­07­2010 Smt. N. Afshan Sulthana (LW.1) filed complaint by narrating above facts. Basing on which, case is registered in

Crime No. 812 of 2010 under sections 403 and 420 of IPC and issued first information report. 

4.During the course of investigation LW.6­ B.Ramesh ­

Investigating officer examined complainant/LW1­Smt. N. Afshan

Sulthana and recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence 4C.C.No. 2058 of 2014 examined LW2­ Harish and recorded his treatment, apprehended the accused and recorded their confession statement, in purusance of confession seized the loss property and dishonestly purchased property from the possession of the accused, arrested the accused and for judicial remand, after collecting relevant documents and completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 403 and 420 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

5. Basing on charge sheet and all the material placed by investigation officer, cognizance was taken for the offences U/sec.

403 and 420 IPC against Accused No.1 and 2 and summons were issued.

6. On appearance of Accused No.2 before the court, copies of documents were furnished to Accused No.2 as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. since NBW pending long time case against Accused No.1 split up vide C.C. No. 2058 of 2014. 

7. The accused No.1 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both parties, a charge under sections 403 and 420

IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular.

The accused No.1 denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

5C.C.No. 2058 of 2014

8.As there is no evidence against the accused No.1, the examination of the accused No.1 under section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10)Now the point for determination that arose is:

Point No.1:“Whether the learned prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable u/Sec.403 and 420 of IPC?”

 Point No.2: “To What Result ?”

11. Point No.1 :­ In order to prove charge levelled against accused for the offence under section 403 and 420 of IPC, the learned prosecution is required to prove that, accused cheated the Smt.

Afshan Sulthana (LW1) dishonestly detained the wallet containing various articles articles viz., 1) one Black Berry Mobile phone, 2) one

Apple I Pod with two ear phones an done battery connector, 3) Two

Citi Bank Debit cards, 4) One City bank credit card, 5) One SBI credit card, 6) one SBH Debit card, 7) One Indian Overseas Bank Debit

Cards, 8) One Pan Card, 9) One Voter ID card, 10) One Dell ID Card,

11) Membership cards for cross word and Hypercity, and used the credit cards and other articles fraudulently for his personal needs by purchasing various items at various places. 

12. Having gone through record, the record reveals that no evidence is a placed by the prosecution and further the record reveals 6C.C.No. 2058 of 2014 following aspects. 

13. Firstly, as mandated under 242(1)Cr.P.C, this court fixed a date for examination of witnesses. Hence, Trial commenced on 02­03­ 2023.

14. Secondly, as mandated under 242(2)Cr.P.C, the learned prosecution did not move any application to summon it's witness.

However, basing on the oral submissions made by Learned prosecution, this court issued summons to witnesses who were cited in list of witnesses, filed along with charge sheet.

15. Thirdly, as mandated under 242(3)Cr.P.C, this court made all its endeavour, to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of prosecution. 

16. Fourthly, from the date fixed for examination of prosecution witnesses ie. 02­03­2023 till 19­04­2023, summons of LW1 to 6 not returned and no justified reasons was placed on record. Several multiple adjournments were granted in favour of prosecution, with an endeavour to provide sufficient opportunity for Learned prosecution, in order to make use of its rights and duties that are mandated under 242(2) and 242(3) of Cr.P.C. Besides, the fact that in the absence of material star witness evidence, any amount of evidence by other witnesses and investigation officer will not prove the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, this court 7C.C.No. 2058 of 2014 proceeded for next stage available under 313 Cr.P.C.

17. Finally, the overall record reveals that, there is no incriminating material against accused. In otherwise, no legal and acceptable evidence is available on record, in order to connect the accused with crime. Besides no proof in support of texts messages is available on record. Therefore, in view of all the above reasons and in view of the fact, that no evidence is available on record to hold accused guilty of offence u/sections 403 and 420 of IPC, it is concluded that learned prosecution fail to prove the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under sections 403 and 420 of

IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of learned defence against the learned prosecution.

18.  Point No.2: In the result the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 403 and 420 of IPC. Hence Accused

No.1 is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 403 and 420 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property already returned to its original owners shall be made absolute after appeal time is over. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

8C.C.No. 2058 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either side

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

9C.C.No. 2058 of 2014

1C.C.No. 563 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI C. VIKRAM,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023

C.C. No. 563/2017

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

Irfan Ali Khan, S/o Liyakath Ali Khan, age: 35 years, Occ: business on the name of “ I contact Consultants” (Overseas Placements & HYR Service) at Premises No. 9­4­57/12/8/A, 2nd Floro, Opp: Limra Cafe, near Apollo Hospital, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. …… Accused 

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Shashikanth Tiwari, CH. Gopal, Advocates

for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing

the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 965/2016 for the offence punishable under sections 24(1)(b) Emigration act, 406 and 420 IPC and Sec. 12(b) of Indian Passport Act. against Accused.

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case:

(i) On 3/11/2016 at 17:00 hours complainant/Pw1 while conducting patrolling duty received a credible information that accused without 2C.C.No. 563 of 2017 having any valid licence or permit is indulging into business of sending manpower to abroad by establishing an office under the name and style has "I contact consultants". Upon that, complainant appraised the same to his superiors and as per instructions of DCP task force Hyderabad, he secured presence of two mediators, Lw2:

Mohammed Muneeruddin and LW3 : Mohammed Abdul Waheed

Khan, and in their presence he along with his staff at 17:30 hrs, searched the said premises and found Irfan Ali Khan son of Liyakath

Ali Khan, who confess that for the purpose of his livelihood he is processing manpower to overseas, and under the guise of providing jobs he is earning money, in pursuant of his confession complainant recovered ((8) Indian passports, one laptop make Lenovo, application forms of biodata, printer, four entry books, four fee receipt books, 20 pamphlets, 50 visiting cards on cell phone with SIM number 720798 47 41, one Samsung cell phone with SIM number 897777 1482, one

Nokia cell phone SIM number 81430 15430, one Samsung cell phone with SIM number 814 367 0734 and cash of Rs.10000/­ from the possession of accused under the cover of panchanama.

3. By narrating the entire incident, complainant file his complainant/Pw1 before SHO Banjara hills, and handed over accused to SHO. Basing on which SHO registered the case in crime number 965 of 2016 and issued FIR. After which he investigated into the matter..... 

3C.C.No. 563 of 2017

4. During the course of investigation LW8­B. Goverdhan Reddy­

Investigating officer, collected the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, search proceedings, Panch chits form PW1 along with seized material, examined PW.1 and recorded his statement, also examined LW3­ Mohd. Abdul Waheed Khan,LW4­ S.A.

Qadri­HC, LW­5­C. Ravinder­PC and LW6­G. Vinay Yadav­PC and recorded their statements, enquired the accused and he voluntarily confessed this commission of offence, arrested and produced him

before the court for judicial remand. After receiving relevant

documents and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

5. Basing on charge sheet and all the material placed by investigation officer, cognizance was taken for the offence U/sec. 24(1)

(b) of Emigration Act and Sec. 12(b) of Indian Passports Act and section 420 IPC against Accused and summons were issued.

6. On appearance of Accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to Accused as required U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C.

7. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both parties, a charge under sections 420 of IPC against

Accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular. The accused denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

4C.C.No. 563 of 2017

8.Thus trial commenced. During the course of which, Learned prosecution examined PW1–C. Ravinder­Complainant/PC, PW2­ Syed

Abdulla Quadri­ Retd ASI and G. Vinay Yadav – PC.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him, to which Accused denied and reported no defence.

10. Heard arguments on both sides. 

11. Now the point that arise for determination is:

POINT No.1 :  “Whether Learned prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 420 of IPC?.”

POINT No.2 :“If so, to what relief?.”

12.To prove its case, learned prosecution has to prove the facts alleged, the accused under the guise of providing jobs at abroad, made innocent unemployed persons to believe that he is going to send them to abroad on payment of certain money. Thereby, causing them to believe the same, the accused on every application charged an amount of Rs.20000 to Rs.25000/­ thereby he cheated innocent unemployed persons and committed offence within the meaning of section 420 of IPC.

5C.C.No. 563 of 2017

13. To prove the said facts in question, learned prosecution relied on

PW 1 to 3. The oral evidence of PW1 to 3 is that, on 31­1­2016 between 5 to 6:00 p.m. hrs, PW1 along with his police personals

PW.2 and 3 and along with mediators visited to the office of accused situated at Limra hotel. There they found accused, and on enquiry with accused, the accused confessed offence and in pursuant of confession, recovered books and cash some passport laptops and visiting cards from the possession of accused, by reducing the same into writing in the form of a panchanama. Further, brought accused along seized property to police station and lodged complaint.

14. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, it is essential to note that, after securing the presence of mediators they found accused along with the crime property. It is pertinent to note that, the evidence of the alleged mediators is not placed on record. It is also pertinent to note that no independent evidence is available on record against accused.

15. At this juncture it is essential to note that, section 100 Crpc mandates the presence of mediators for every seizure. Besides, it is settled principle of law that confession made to a police officer is in admissible by virtue of sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

Therefore, by virtue of mandates available in evidence Act, the evidence of mediators becomes the material, to appreciate the transaction of seizure. As observed above, no such material evidence 6C.C.No. 563 of 2017 is placed on record to deal with the alleged transaction of confession followed by recovery of material objects as mentioned by PW 1 to 3, in the presence of Mediators from the possession of accused. Therefore, in the absence of such material evidence, by virtue of section 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the evidence of investigation officers/PW1 to 3 is not sufficient to believe the alleged transaction of confession of accused followed by recovery of material objects in the presence of mediators from the possession of accused. In otherwise, in the light of the reasons stated Supra, the sole testimonies of police officers is not sufficient to connect the accused with crime and convict him. 

Hence, in view of the above reasons, it is concluded that, learned prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 420 IPC.

16. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 420 IPC. Hence Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 420 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited vide PI No. 10 of 2017 shall be returned to its original owners after appeal time.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

7C.C.No. 563 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1– PW1–C. Ravinder­PC ­Nil­ PW2­ Syed Abdulla Qadri­ HC PW3­G. Vinay Yadav – PC

EXHIBITS MARKED

 ­Nil­

FOR DEFENCE

­Nil­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED. 

­Nil­

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

8C.C.No. 563 of 2017

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

C.C.NO. 563/2017

Date of offence: 03­11­2016 Date of report/complaint : 03­11­2016 Date of apprehension of accused : 03­11­2016 Date of release on bail : 16­11­2016 Taking of cognizance: 31­05­2017 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 01­03­2018 Recording plea of the accused: 12­09­2022 Date of commencement of trial : 27­09­2022 Date of closure of trial : 17­04­2023 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 17­04­2023 Date of Judgment: 20.04.2023 Explanation for delay: ­

Name of the complainant: S.H.O., P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused Irfan Ali Khan, S/o Liyakath Ali Khan, age: 35 years, Occ: business on the name of “ I contact Consultants” (Overseas Placements & HYR Service) at Premises No. 9­4­57/12/8/A, 2nd Floro, Opp: Limra Cafe, near Apollo Hospital, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad ___________________________________________ Offence U/Sec.: 420 of IPC Finding : Found not guilty 

Result :IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 420 IPC. Hence Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 420 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited vide PI No. 10 of 2017 shall be returned to its original owners after appeal time

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

HYDERABAD

To: The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Dis.No. /III ACMM/2023 Date : 

1C.C.No. 2432 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI C. VIKRAM,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2023

C.C. No. 2432/2021

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1. Kum. K. Srividhya, D/o K. Gangadhar Reddy, age: 23 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o Annapurna Ladies Hostel, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.

A2. M. Chaithanya, S/o M. Chalapathi Rao, age: 26 yrs, Occ: Salesman, R/o H.No. 11­20­8/1, Rammurthypeta, Kavali(Mondal), Nellore(District) 

A4. V. Ashok Reddy, S/o v. Subbarami Reddy, age: 28 years, Occ: Driver, R/o 9th Mile (Vill) Kavali(Mon), Nellore(Dist). A.P.

A3. Vicky Sharma, S/o Bhagath Ram Sharma, age: 34 yrs, Occ: labour at Sankranthi Dhaba, R/o Sankranthidhaba, Damaram Road, Damaram, Kavali, Nellore. 

( Case against A3 abated since died) …… Accused This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. M/s. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, D. Ravi Kumar reddy and others Advocates for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 958/2015 for 2C.C.No. 2432 of 2021 the offence punishable under sections 506,507,120(B),182 of IPC against Accused.

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case is that ;

Initially, on 27­10­2015 Srividhya D/oK. Gangadhar Reddy filed a complaint against one Sai Avinash before SHO, S.R. Nagar, which was registered. Having not satisfied with the action taken by

SHO, S.R. Nagar, Srividhya again filed second complaint.

While this being so, Srividhya alleged that on 7­12­2015 at 9.30

A.M she received a threat call from 9704983431 to her number 9030066882, the recordings of which she saved and basing on which she filed the complaint against Sai Avinash, and the same was registered vide Cr. No. 958 of 2015 

3.As per the permission of the Hon’ble court vide Dis. No. 2485

LW7­S. Ravi Kumar­ SI of police registered a case in Cr.No. 958 of 2015 U/sec. 506 and 507 IPC. 

4.During the course of investigation LW7 recorded the statement of LW1­Kum. K. Srividya, he served the notice accused Y. Sai

Avinash U/sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C at that time the alleged person stated that he never called to LW1/A1 on the day of 7­12­12015 from his phone or other phone to lW1 cell phone, on that information LW7 recorded the statement of LW2­ Sai Avinash, Later Lw7 got some suspicious about the threatening call to LW1, on that he filed requisition to the Dy. Commissioner of police for call data of alleged 3C.C.No. 2432 of 2021 cell phone No. 9704983431, the same was analyzed it is came to know that number was found at Kavali Rauilway station and also the numbers is the coin box, on that suspicious again LW7 filed the requisition to Dy. Commissioner of police, West zone and collected the

LW1/A1’s call details cell phone No. 9030066882. on analysis

LW1/A1 number of times she called to other cell phone No.

9052067949, 9652444890, 7660005908, on suspicious LW7 obtained the call details the above cell phone nos and analyzed the above said nos, on the number 9652444890 was found the same location of the alleged cell No. 9704983431 on the day same time on 7­12­2015 at 0930 hours and also two numbers 9052067949 and 7660005908 and also found tower location at Kavali town. On the same day LW1/A1 number of times called to the 9052067949 and 7660005908, on that suspicious LW7 tried to apprehended the suspected no. 9052067949, 9652444890, 7660005908.

5. On 25­12­2015 at about 1230 P.M. one of the cell Phone No 7660005908 tower location was found at B.K.Guda. On that LW­7 along with LW­5 and LW­6 rushed the B.K.Guda Park, Balkampet, on seeing of the police one person tried to escape, immediately LW­5 &

LW­6 apprehended the person take the cell phone and check the No.

found that having cell phone No.7660005908 and interrogated him, he confessed that guilty of in this offence and he revealed that his name M.Chaithanya, S/o M.ChalapathiRao, age:­26yrs, Occ:­Sales

Man, R/o H.No.11­208/1, Ram Murthy Peta, Kavali(Mon),

Nellore(Dist), A.P. Immediately LW­7 summoned IWs­3 & LW­4 and conducted the confession cum seizure the two mediators i.e panchanama of A­2 in the presence of LW­3 to LW­4. A­2 confessed that A­1 along with A2 went to Kavali town of Nellore dist on 21­11­ 4C.C.No. 2432 of 2021 2015 and met the A­3 and A­4 at A­2 went to the Kavali ¢«.

Sankranthi Dhaba, Kavali, Al to A­4 plan the criminal conspiracy against the LW­2. A­1 and A­2 gave the amount Rs.4,000/to A3 and

A4 for criminal conspiracy. A­2 & A­3 agreed to call the A­1 cell phone and talk some threatening words from Kavali. On that on 07­12­2015

A­4 called the LW­1/Al over the coin box No.9704983431 Kavali

Railway station. As per their plan A­4 threatened the LW­1/A1, as per their plan A­1 recorded voice in A­1 cell phone. Later A­1 & A­2 came to police station and lodged the complaint with false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person and also A­2 stated that A­3 & A­4 was available at

Balkampet Yellammapet Temple, meanwhile LW­7 deputed the LW­5 & LW­6, they rushed to Yellamma Temple and apprehended two persons by namely A­3 Vicky Sharma, S/o Bhagath Ram Sharma, age:­34yrs, Occ:Labour at SankranthiDhaba R/o Damaram Road,

Damaram, Kavali(Mon), Nellore(Dist), A.P, A­4 V.Ashok Reddy, S/o

V.Subbarami Reddy, age:­28yrs, Occ:­Driver, R/o 9% Mile(Vill),

Kavali(Mon), Nellore(Dist) and produced before the LW­7 at B.K.Guda

Park. On interrogation they also admitted their guilty and criminal conspiracy of in this offence the LW­7 confession­cum­seizure panchanama of A2, A­3 and A­4 and LW­7 seized cell phones

Sumsung Black, Ph No. 7660005908, SIM 8991073250, 1403­ 187764 MNP from A2 possession, 2) Nokia Black cell phone

No.9052067949, SIM 8991130240, 862564652 H­3 Model from A3 possession, 3) Samsung white cell phone No.9642444890, SIM 89914905040909409334, H­4 Model from A4 possession in the presence of LW­3 & LW­4 and brought them to police station al about 1530 hrs afler completion of the arrest formalities, and effected their arrest by issuing arrest memo on 25.12.2015 at 1600 hours informing the ground of arrest and produced before the court for judicial remand. Further A1 surrender before this court and released on bail.

After collectin relevant documents and completion of investigation filed charge sheet. 

5C.C.No. 2432 of 2021

6. Basing on charge sheet and all the material placed by investigation officer, cognizance was taken for the offences U/sec.

506,507,120(B),182 IPC against Accused and summons were issued.

7. On appearance of Accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to Accused as required U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C.

8.The substance of the accusation has been read over and explained to the accused No.1,2 and 4 in Telugu under section 251

Cr.P.C. The accused denied the accusation levelled against them for the offence under sections, 506,507,120(B),182 IPC, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Case against A3 abated since he died. 

9.Thus trial commenced. During the course of which, Learned prosecution examined PW­1 and got marked Ex.P1. 

10.Since there is no incriminating material against the accused

No.1,2,4, examination U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. 

11. Heard both sides’ arguments.

12. Now the points that arise for determination is:

1).“Whether the Learned prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1,2,4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 506,507,120(B),182 of IPC”?.

6C.C.No. 2432 of 2021

2)“ To What result?.”

13. POINT:­ In order to prove charge levelled against accused for the offence under sections 506,507,120(B),182 of IPC, the learned prosecution is required to prove that, A1 to A4 criminal conspiracy and planned to false information with intention to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.

14.In the present case, the star witness whose evidence is crucial in this case, I.e LW1­Kum. K. Srividya was not examined. The only witness I.e PW.1 examined by learned prosecution exhibited hostile attitude, and nothing elicited from him against his evidence, except marked Ex.P1. This apart, no other evidence is placed on record to deal with alleged offence. Under these circumstances, examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed. Since, examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed due to absence of incriminating material against accused. It is concluded that learned prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of defence against accused.

15.(I) IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1,2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 506,507,120(B),182 IPC. Hence,

Accused No.1,2 and 4 are acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 506,507,120(B),182. The bail bonds of the

Accused No.1,2 and 4 shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

7C.C.No. 2432 of 2021

The unmarked property deposited vide PI No. 201 of 2016 shall be returned to its original owners after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2023.

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

LW1/PW1 –K. Raghavendra – Panch witness ­ None ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Confession cum seizure panchanama. 

FOR DEFENCE

­Nil­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED. 

­Nil­ 

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

8C.C.No. 2432 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI C. VIKRAM, 

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD.

Friday, the 17th day of June, 2022

C.C. No. 13754/2021

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Excise Station, Doolpet, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1. Chandu Singh @ Bada Chandu, S/o Prathap Singh, aged: 36 years,

A2. Gayathri Bai, W/o Chandu Singh, aged: 31 years,

Both R/o H.No. 13­1­1235/a/35, Ganga Bowli, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 

…… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri Gulab Singh, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.

871/2016 for the offence punishable under section 7­A read with 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act (now Telangana Prohibition Act).

2.The indictment against the accused, in brief, is as follows:­ 2

(i)On 19­09­2016 at about 9.30 A.M, in front of H.No. 13­1­ 1235/a/95, Ganga Bowli, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad the Excise officials apprehended the accused while Accused were in possession of ID liquor in plastic bag containing (75) sachets and of each about 100 ML., at above place, which was seized under a cover of panchanama in the presence of [Lw.1]­N. Srinivas and [Lw.2]­M. Sai

Kumar.

(ii)Basing on the panchanama a case in crime No. 871/2016 was registered and investigated. The accused were arrested and sent for judicial custody. The samples drawn, from out of the seized contraband, were sent for analysis and the Chemical Examiner of the

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad, sent his report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Hence, charge sheet is filed against Accused. 

3.Basing on the material available and charge sheet filed, the case was taken on file as C.C. 13754/2021 against Accused or the offence under section 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. 

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.After examining the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel, a charge under section 7­A read with 8(e) of the

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed against Accused. The accused 3 denied the accusation levelled against them and pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to sustain the said charge, has examined PW1­G. Yadaiah­ the Investigation Officer and got marked

Ex.P1 panchanama, Ex.P2 is Crime Occurrence Report, Ex.P3 is

Analyst Report and Ex.P4 is form­60. Learned A.P.P given up by the evidence of [Lw.1]­ N. Srinivas and [Lw.2]­M. Sai Kumar who are the panch witnesses in this case. 

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of Pw.1. The accused denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not choose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel. Perused the record.

9.The point for determination is:­ “Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused were found in conscious and physical possession of the illicitly distilled liquor without valid licence or permit punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of the

A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT: The accused stood charged for the offence punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition 4

Act, alleging that Accused were found in conscious and physical possession of the illicitly distilled liquor without valid licence or permit on 19­09­2016 at about 9.30 A.M, in front of H.No. 13­1­ 1235/a/95, Ganga Bowli, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. The accused denied the said charge.

11.To prove the said charge, the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e Pw.1. Pw.1 is the Prohibition & Excise Sub­Inspector who has seized the contraband and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. According to him, on 19­09­2016 at about 9.30 A.M, he apprehended the accused and the Accused in physical possession of

ID liquor in plastic bag containing (75) sachets and of each about 100 ML., each without licence or permit which was seized by

Accused under a cover of panchanama under Ex.P1 and drew samples which were sent for analysis and which was certified to be illicitly distilled liquor as per the Analysis Report­Ex.P3 by the

Chemical Examiner. In the cross examination, he admitted that he did not examine any neighbour at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence, never apprehended the accused, never conducted panchanama and for the purpose of statistics, he filed false case against the accused by planting the property. He did not examine any neighbours at the scene of offence. He did not collect any document to show that the place of offence belongs to the accused.

12.Pw.1 failed to take independent and respectable inhabitants of the place of offence. Thus, he has not complied with the mandatory 5 provisions of section 100 Cr.P.C., read with section 18 of the

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

13.At this juncture, it is essential to note that Section 100 Cr.P.C mandates the presence of mediators for every seizure. Hence, they are the material witnesses to appreciate the transactions of alleged seizure. Here, in the present case, the mediators were not examined and their evidence is not available before this court to deal with the alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. On the other hand, the investigating officers has every reason to support the investigation done by him. Therefore, in the absence of such material evidence, the evidence of investigating officers is not sufficient to accept and believe the transaction of alleged confession cum seizure. 

14.Even Pw.1 did not serve the sample of the contraband alleged to be seized from the accused as required under Rule 24, 24­A to 24­C of the A.P.Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions)

Rules, 1969.

15.Hence, under these circumstances, in view of the above infirmities and discrepancies in the investigation and evidence of

Pw.1, it is highly unsafe to place reliance upon the solitary and interested testimony of Pw.1 to base conviction on the accused.

Hence, it is concluded that the learned prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

6

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of learned defence against learned prosecution .

16.(i) In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 7­A read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition

Act (now Telangana Prohibition Act). Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 7­A read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act (now Telangana

Prohibition Act). Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. Unmarked property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of

June, 2022.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC I­ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

LW3/PW1 – G. Yadaiah, P&ESI/IO ­ None ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Panchanama,conducted by Pw.1 dated 19­09­2016 ­ Nil ­ Ex.P2 ­ Crime and Occurrence Report issued by Pw.1 

dated 19­09­2016

Ex.P3 – Analysis Report issued by the Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Hyderabad dated 26­09­2016 Ex.P4 – Form­60

 MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

 ­ Nil ­ 

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC I­ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

7

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT 

C.C.NO. 13754/2021

Date of offence: 11­07­2017 Date of report/complaint : 11­07­2017 Date of apprehension of accused : 11­07­2017 Date of release on bail : 13­07­2017 Taking of cognizance: 27­09­2021 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 03­06­2022 Recording plea of the accused: 03­06­2022 Date of commencement of trial : 14­06­2022 Date of closure of trial : 14­06­2022 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 15­06­2022 Date of Judgment: 17­06­2022 Explanation for delay:­

Name of the complainant: Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused 

A1. Chandu Singh @ Bada Chandu, S/o Prathap Singh, aged: 36 years, A2. Gayathri Bai, W/o Chandu Singh, aged: 31 years, Both R/o H.No. 13­1­1235/a/35, Ganga Bowli, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. ___________________________________________________________________

Offence U/Sec.: 7­A read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act (now Telangana Prohibition Act). Finding : Found not guilty. Result : In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 7­A read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act (now Telangana Prohibition Act). Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 7­A read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act (now Telangana Prohibition Act). Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. Unmarked property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

FAC III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

To:

The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dis.No. /III ACMM/2022 Date :