Smt. Ch.Hari Priya

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT:­ Kum. CH. HARI PRIYA,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram. 24th day of May, 2019.

C. C. No.894 of 2014

Between: The State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police,

Ambajipeta Police Station.... Complainant.

And

Saladi Jaya Krishna @ Raju, S/o Venkata Rao, 39 Years, C/Kapu, K.Pedapudi Village,

Ambajipeta Mandal....Accused. 

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Md. Azam, Advocate for accused and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta Police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.120/2014 of Ambajipeta Police Station for the offence punishable under section 354­A IPC against the accused.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

It is the case of prosecution that the accused used to follow the defacto­ complainant and harassed her by asking her to fulfill his lust since long time. He made bad propaganda against her that he got physical intimacy with her in the village. On coming to know about the propaganda the defacto­complainant questioned him and he asked that if she fulfill his lust he will stop the bad propaganda against her in the village otherwise he will continue the same on her.

Due to fear she did not inform the same to her family. On 20.10.2014 on coming to know the same through villagers, LW2/M.Reddamma @ Reddy questioned the accused and both of them disputed with each other. Later LW3/M.Srinivasa Rao and his family members entered and pacified the matter. The accused intentionally harassed LW1/M.Kanaka Durga for his lust and made bad propaganda against her and caused mental agony to her. Hence the accused is liable to be punished U/Sec.354­A IPC. LW1/M.Kanaka Durga preferred a report in Ambajipeta Police station and the same was registered in Cr.No.120/2014,

U/Sec.354­A IPC. LW8/D.Vijaya Kumar, S.I of Police, Ambajipeta P.S registered this case and investigated into. 

3. The then Court has taken cognizance of the case U/Sec.354­A IPC against

Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 

5. The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charged U/Sec.354­A IPC were framed by the then Court against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu under sec.240(2) Cr.P.C., After having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witness for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf but Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.354­A

IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

10. POINT :

Sec.354­A IPC runs as follows :­ Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. 1) A man committing any of the following acts :­

i)Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or ii)A demand or request for sexual favours ; or iii)Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or iv)Making sexually coloured remarks,

Shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. 

2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub­section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub­section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

11.It is the case of prosecution that the accused has a wicked eye on the defacto­complainant since long time and made bad propaganda in the village against her by stating that he has a physical intimacy with her and on questioning by the defacto­complainant he replied that he would stop the bad propaganda if she fulfill his lust. LW2/M.Reddamma @ Reddy i.e., the husband of the defacto­ complainant came to know about this through his villagers and asked the accused on which both of them disputed with each other. Later LW3/M.Srinivasa Rao and his family members intervened and pacified the matter. Thereafter the defacto complainant filed this present case against the accused as she suffered mental agony due to the bad propoganda made by the accused against her.

12.In order to establish the case of prosecution it must be established that the accused has made any of the above mentioned acts specified in Sec.354­A IPC.

The defacto­complainant is examined as PW1 and she categorically stated the facts of the case which were already discussed earlier and mentioning the same again amounts to mere repetition of case facts.

13.PW2 is the husband of PW1 and his evidence in brief is that on 20.10.2014 at about 10.30 AM while he was present at his house, he heard some sounds outside of his house and he found PW1 and the accused disputing with each other.

On enquiry PW1 stated that the accused insisted her to spend one night. On that he admonished the accused.

14.PW3 is brother­in­law of PW1 and he deposed in his evidence that about four years ago on one day he heard some sound at field of the accused and he came to know through PW1 that accused was insisting PW1 to spend one night with him.

15.PW4 to PW6 are nephews of PW1 deposed in their evidence more or less the same. Their evidence in brief is that on 20.10.2014 they came to know through

PW1 that there was a dispute with the accused, as the accused insisted PW1 to spend with him one day on that PW2 intervened and admonished the accused.

16.PW7 is an independent witness and he testified that he does not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the Police.

17.The PW8 is the Investigating Officer and his evidence in brief is that on 23.10.2014 he received a complaint from PW1 and on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.120/2014, U/Sec.354­A IPC, examined PW1 and PW2 and recorded their statements. Thereafter he proceeded to the scene of offence, examined PW3 to

PW7, recorded their statements and prepared Rough sketches of the scene of offence. Later on completion of the investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused.

18.Since the witness PW7 has resiled to the entire case of prosecution, the

Learned Asst., Public Prosecution sought permission of the Court to declare the witness as hostile and also sought permission to examine it’s own witness in the form of putting questions by the adverse party which might be put in the Cross­ examination. After getting permission from the Court U/Sec.154 of Indian

Evidence Act, the Learned Asst., Public Prosecutor examined the PW1, where in she denied of stating before the Police as in his statement recorded U/Sec.161

Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2. Nothing has been culled out by the learned A.P.P by examining the witness after getting permission U/Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act to support the case of prosecution.

19.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution through the evidence of PW1 to PW8 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and sought for conviction of the accused.

On the other hand the learned defence counsel pointed out several contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution and sought for acquital of the accused on benefit of doubt.

20.On perusal of entire record it is found that the alleged incident took place on 20.10.2014 and PW1 preferred a report in the Police station i.e., Ex.P1 on 23.10.2014. there is a delay of three days which was left unexplained by the prosecution. It is settled law that mere delay in filing FIR does not become fatal to the case of prosecution unless it is left unexplained by the prosecution. At the time of advancing arguments the prosecution did not explain anything about the delay in preferring a report in the Police station by the defacto­complainant.

21.It is clear from the evidence that except PW7 remaining all witnesses are interested and related witnesses to the defacto complainant. PW7 is cited as an independent witness but at the time of his entering into the witness box he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not utter a single word against the accused. Though the learned Asst. Public Prosecution cross–examined PW7 nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution.

22.It is clear from the evidence that PW4 to PW6 were not present at the time of incident and they themselves admitted in their chief examination that they came to know about the alleged incident through PW1. It shows that they were deposing only on the instructions given by PW1 and the evidence of PW4 to PW6 can be considered to be just hearsay evidence which lacks evidentiary value in

Criminal jurisprudence.

23.On perusal of the evidence of PW3 it is found that he heard some sound at the field of the accused and later he came to know that PW1 and accused were disputed with each other as the accused insisted her to spend one night with him.

Thus it is clear that PW3 did not witness the incident. He also came to know about the alleged incident only through PW1 and thus his evidence can also be considered as hearsay evidence.

24.In cross­examination of PW1 she stated that she did not state before the

Police that accused lodge a complainant against PW2 and the same was marked as

Ex.D1 which reveals that in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 she herself stated that the accused lodged a case against the PW2 which is a clear contradiction. PW2 in his 161 Cr.P.C statement stated that the alleged incident took place on 24.10.2014 where as it is the version of PW1 that the incident is alleged to have been happened on 20.10.2014. The learned defence counsel further pointed out that there is a diversions of version with respect to the scene of offence. It is the contention of PW1 that the incident took place out side her house, where as on perusal of Rough sketch of the scene of offence, it shows the alleged incident took place in front of the house of Nune Chinnayya. Further it is the version of PW3 that the alleged incident took place at the fields of the accused. Under these circumstances a doubt arises in the mind of the Court that whether the alleged incident has actually happened or not. It is admitted that there are disputes with regard to grazing of cattle of PW1 in between PW1 and the accused. Existence of previous disputes can be viewed in two ways i.e., there is every possibility to file a false case against the accused and at the same time there is every possibility to the accused for commission of the alleged offence. The Court cannot jump in to conclusion that the accused might have committed the alleged offence due to the existence of previous disputes between them. However there are several lacunae in the case of prosecution with regard to the place of offence, date of offence and unexplained delay in preferring a complaint by the defacto­complainant in the

Police station. Though in column No.8 of F.I.R it was mentioned that the reasons for delay in reporting is “issue before the caste elders hence delayed” at the same was over written by using a whitener which creates a doubt in the mind of the

Court. Apart from this, if the matter was placed before the caste elders what prevented the prosecution to examine any of the elders before whom the matter was placed.

From the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that it is the burden of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if there arises any doubt with regard to the occurrence of alleged offence then the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused. Hence this Court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.354­A IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the

Judgment.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of May, 2019. 

Sd/­ CH. HARI PRIYA,

ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

AMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of :

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1 : M.Kanaka Durga...None... PW.2 : M.Reddamma @ Reddy PW.3 : M.Srinivasa Rao PW.4 : M. Manikanta PW.5 : M. Naga Raju PW.6 : M.Boby PW.7 : P.Bhulakshmi PW8 : D.Vijaya Kumar

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the Report of PW1, dt.23.10.2014 Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW7, dt.23.10.2014 Ex.P3 is the Rough sketch, dt. 23.10.2014

Defence: Ex.D1 is the Relevent portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, dt.23.10.2014 Ex.D2 is the Relevant portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, dt.23.10.2014 Ex.D3 is the Relevant portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, dt.23.10.2014.

Material Objects:

­­­ Nil ­­­

Sd/­ CH. HARI PRIYA,

ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

AMALAPURAM.

// TRUE COPY //

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari.

Calendar of cases tried by Kum. Ch. Hari Priya, Addl.Judl. First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Date of Offence: 20.10.2014

Date of Report or Complaint: 29.12.2014

Date of Apprehension of accused : 13.04.2015

Date of Commencement of trial: 07.02.2019

Date of Close of trial: 26.04.2019

Date of sentence of Order: 24.05.2019

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non­production of Prosecution witnesses in time.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.894 of 2014 on the file of the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate Court, Amalapuram.

Saladi Jaya Krishna @ Raju, S/o Venkata Rao, 39 Years, C/Kapu, K.Pedapudi Village,

Ambajipeta Mandal....Accused. 

Offence: U/Sec.354­A IPC

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.354­A IPC, thereby he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment.

 Sd/­ Ch.Hari Priya, Addl.Judl. First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmahendravaram.

// TRUE COPY //

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AMALAPURAM

C.C. 502/ 2015

Date of Offence: 08.11.2015

Date of Report : 09.11.2015

Date of Arrest of accused09.11.2015

Date of release of accused on : 13.11.2015 bail

Date of commencement of Trial : 10.11.2016

Date of close of Trial: 06.09.2017

Date of sentence or order: 11.03.2020

Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.412/2015 of Amalapuram Town P.S

Name of the Complainant: State : Sub-Inspector of Amalapuram Police Station

Name of the accused: Kota Naga Satyanarayana, S/o Satyanarayana, age: 22 years, C/SC-Mala, K.Pedapudi village, Ambajipeta Mandal. Offence: U/Secs.379 & 411 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: IN THE RESULT, Accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offences U/S. 379 & 411 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code. The property MO.1 which was given for interim custody is made absolute.

Sd/- Ch.Hari Priya

A.J.F.C.MAGISRATE,

AMALAPURAM.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AMALAPURAM

PRESENT: Smt. Ch.Haripriya,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Wednesday, this the 11th day of March, 2020

C.C.No:502/2015

Between:

State represented by Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town PS. ….Complainant.

And

Kota Naga Satyanarayana, S/o Satyanarayana, age: 22 years, C/SC-Mala, K.Pedapudi village, Ambajipeta Mandal.

…..Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10-03-2020 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri. Kasi Sesha Rao, Advocate and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of police,

Amalapuram Town Police Station in Cr.No:412/2015 U/S.379 & 411 IPC against Accused.

1.In a Nutshell the facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this case are:

On 08.11.2015 at about 6.00 PM the complainant came to Ganapathi

Bar & Restaurant, near Clock Tower center on his motor cycle for taking biryani parcel. Where he parked and locked his motor cycle and went into

Ganapathi Bar & Restaurant. After half-an-hour he came back and found his motor cycle was missed. On that he searched surrounding areas for his motor cycle, but in vain. Some un-known culprits committed theft of his motor cycle and escaped with booty. His motor cycle worth Rs.20,000/-. Hence, he gave a report in Amalapuram Town Police Station. Basing on the report of complainant, LW7/V.Peddiraju registered a case in Cr.No.412/2015, Under

Sections. 379 or 411 I.P.C.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/S. 379 & 411 IPC. On appearance, the accused was supplied with the copies of case papers in compliance of section, 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

by explaining the allegations made against him for which he pleaded not guilty for the offences and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to drive home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P.4.

5.The accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence found against him for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for accused.

7.Now the sole point that arises for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution could prove the case U/S. 379 & 411

IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts or not?

8.Now it is pertinent to take a look at the relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution to see, whether the above facts have been proved through legal evidence or not.

9.PW.1 is the defacto complainant and he deposed that on 08-11-2015 at about 6:00 PM, he parked his vehicle Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 AF 0050 i.e., MO.1opposite of Ganapati Restaurant and went inside the restaurant to get a food parcel. After 15 minutes when he came back he found his motor cycle missing. He searched for his motor cycle but in vain. On the next day, he lodged a report at Amalapuram Town PS.

After one month Police handed over his vehicle.

10.PW.2 is the VRO and his evidence in brief is that on 09-11-2015 he was called by the Amalapuram Town PS with a request to act as mediator. He went to the Amalapuram Town PS and from there along with the search party,

LW.6, they went near Red bridge, Amalapuram at about 12:30 PM. There they found one person in possession of motorcycle i.e., Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 37 AF 0050. On equiry the accused revealed his name as Kota

Naga Satyanarayana and further confessed that he committed theft of

Motorcycle from Ganapathi bar and restaurant, Amalapuram. PW.2 Drafted mediator report and on that basis PW.3 seized the motorcycle under the cover of mediator report. On the mediator report i.e., Ex.P2, PW.2, LW6, PW.3 and the accused signed.

11.PW.3 is the investigating officer and he deposed in his evidence that on 09-11-2015 he received a written report from PW.1 and he registered a case in Cr.No.412/2015 U/S.379 & 411 IPC. He examined PW.1, LWs.2 to 4, recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

On the same day at about 1:00 PM he received credible information with regard to the accused and secured PW.2 and LW.6, proceeded to SBI ATM, red bridge, Amalapuram and noticed the accused in possession of the said motorcycle. On seeing the police, the accused tried to flee away but the police nabbed him and on enquiry he confessed that he has committed theft of the motorcycle. On that PW.2 drafted Ex.P2. PW.3 arrested the accused.

After completion of charge sheet he laid charge sheet against the accused.

12.However in order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/S.379 and 411 IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused has committed theft of the Motorcycle or in possession of the stolen property i.e., Motorcycle. In order to prove this case the prosecution must establish that the accused has taken away the motorcycle from the possession of its owner without the consent of such owner. From the evidence of PW.1 and

Ex.P1, it is clear that the motorcycle of PW.1 was committed theft by some unknown offender. PW.1 stated that he parked his motorcycle outside the

Maruthi restaurant and when he returned after 15 minutes he found that someone committed theft of his bike. Thus, PW.1 did not see who committed theft of the said motorcycle.

13.The prosecution examined PW.2 who is a VRO and an independent witness and he deposed that the motorcycle was seized in their presence from the possession of the accused but when it is coming to the cross examination of PW.2 he stated that Ex.P2 i.e., Mediator report was prepared at the police station. Whereas PW.3 i.e., Investigating officer stated that he seized the motorcycle from the possession of the accused in the presence of

PW.2 and LW6 under the cover of Ex.P2 which was drafted by PW.2. But PW.2 who is alleged to have been prepared Ex.P2 himself stated that Ex.P2 was drafted at the Police station. Ex.P2 i.e., Mediator report must be prepared at the place of arrest or the place of seizure but when it is prepared at the police station, it loses its credibility and a doubt arises to the court that Ex.P2 might have been prepared on the instructions of the Investigating Officer and it has every possibility.

14.Thus, from the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed theft of the said motorcycle, so also recovered from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.379 & 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

15.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offences U/S.

379 & 411 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. The property MO.1 which was given for interim custody is made absolute.

Typed by me in my personal laptop and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 11th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Ch.Hari Priya

A.J.F.C.MAGISRATE,

AMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: Tikka Nageswara Rao -None-

P.W.2: V.Voswamadham

P.W.3: V.Peddiraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

Prosecution :

Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W1 to the S.H.O of Amalapuram Town P.S.

Ex.P.2: Mediator report.

Ex.P.3: Rough sketch.

Accused : NIL

M.O.’S MARKED : Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle.

Sd/- Ch.Hari Priya

A.J.F.C.MAGISRATE,

AMALAPURAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AMALAPURAM

PRESENT:- Smt. CH. HARI PRIYA,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

Monday, this the 11th day of April, 2022

Calendar Case No. 408 of 2015

Between:

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Amalapuram Town P.S ... Complainant

And

Guthula Subash Babu, S/o.Devadanam, A/38 years, C/SC Mala, Opp.Library, Ambajiepta Village and Mandal

... Accused

This case is coming on 07.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri D.B.Lok, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed under Section 417, 420, 384 IPC in Cr.Nos.274/2015, 277/2015, 278/2015 of Amalapuram Town P.S.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows :

i) on 26.07.2015 at about 01.00 PM, the accused Guthala Subhash Babu went to the complainant/Vanteddu Venkanna Naidu's resorts reception counter, introducing himself as V6 reporter and showed his identity card to the resort manager and the accused record a video in his cell phone to newly married couple at that place. Later, the accused came to the complainant and demanded bribe an amount of Rs.5,000/- to him and warned the complainant if the complainant do not give money, he telecast the video visuals in his TV channel and bad propaganda against the complaint's resort. Later, on 06.08.2015, the accused called to the complainant, as per the version of the accused, the complainant went to Municipal Circular Bazar, Amalapuram. The accused committed extortion money an amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant. Basing on the report of LW1, LW27 YRK Srinivas, the then SI of 2

Police, Amalapuram Town P.S registered a case in Cr.No.274/2015

U/sec.417,420,384 IPC ii) Prior to 03.08.2015 at Mini goods vehicle, near RTC complex,

Amalapuram where in the complainant Kolisetti Trimurthulu reported that he is working as President in Goddess Subbalamma Mini Goods vehicle in

Amalapuram. Subsequently, the accused came to the complainant, introduced himself as V6 reporter by name Subhash, he taken photographs for transporting of the buffaloes in their vehicles, he publish the images in the news paper and informed the RTO and RDO and Police and seized their vehicle and otherwise an amount of Rs.2000/- bribe to him for did not publish the images and also demanded to the complainant for every month paid the amount to him and the accused committed extortion money an amount of

Rs.2000/- from the complainant. Basing on the report of complainant/Kolisetti

Trimurthulu, LW27 registered a case in Cr.No.277/2015 U/sec.417, 420, 384 IPC.

iii) On 02.08.2015 at Lorry Union office, Amalapuram, wherein the complainant/Vakapalli Swamy Naidu reported that he is working as the president of Amalapuram Lorry union since 8 years. The accused went to his office and introduced himself that he is reporter and he threatened them he taken photographs by the time of transporting in huge materials in their lorries, unload the lorries on the road side with cell phone, for which is extort nearly an amount of Rs.5,000/- monthly on behalf of their union, otherwise he would explore the photos through news papers and news channels and the accused was taken an amount of Rs.2000/- from him. Later on 02.08.2015 he went to lorry union office extort him for amount and also threatened him on the point of death. Basing on the report of complainant/Vakapalli Swamy Naidu, LW27 registered a case in Cr.No.278/2015 U/sec.417, 420, 384 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.417, 420, 384 IPC against the accused.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge

U/Sec.417, 420, 384 IPC against accused was framed by the then Court which 3 was read over and explained to him in Telugu under Section 240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.417, 420, 384 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

10. POINT :

In this case, the prosecution examined the the informant in

Cr.No.274/2015 as P.W1, he deposed that he do not know the accused. He do not know PWs.2 and 3. Previously, he is running a resorts by name Samudra

Beach Resorts, Odalarevu, Allavaram Mandal. About six years ago when he went to Allavaram P.S to submit sureties, by that time police obtained his signature on a written paper. But he do not know its contents. Ex.P1 is his signature. Police did not examine him and he do not know anything about this case. Finding this non-cooperation the learned Asst., Public prosecution posed the leading questions to their own witness in order to elicit the incriminating evidence against the accused but nothing was elicited except marking of his earlier statement before the Police as Ex.P1.

11.The prosecution examined the informants in Cr.Nos.277/2015, 278/2015 as PWs.2 and 3 respectively. They deposed that they do not know the accused.

When they went to Allavaram Police station with regard to their union issue, by that time police obtained their signature on a written paper. But they do not know its contents. Police did not examined them and they do not know 4 anything about this case. Nothing could be elicited from P.Ws.2 and 3 by the learned APP in support of the prosecution case though, they were subjected to cross examination with the permission of the Court

11.When the complainants not supported the case of the prosecution and in the absence of incriminating evidence against the accused, the prosecution reported the closer of the remaining witnesses by contending that no useful purposed would be served by examining the remaining witnesses.

12.In cases of this sort, when the material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution can no longer edifice the case against the accused for the offences charged, thereby the court determined the POINT holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence

U/Sec., thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Ch.Haripriya

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1/07.04.2022: V.Venkanna Naidu ----None ----

P.W.2/07.04.2022: K.Trimurthulu

P.W.3/07.04.2022: V.Swamy Naidu @ Peda Kapu 5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on complaint filed by him, dt.06.07.2015

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, dt.26.08.2015

Ex.P3: Signature of PW1 on complaint filed by him, dt.09.08.2015

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, dt.09.08.2015

Ex.P5: Signature of PW3 on complaint filed by him, dt.10.08.2015

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, dt.10.08.2015

FOR DEFENCE: ---- NIL ----

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- Ch.Haripriya

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AMALAPURAM

C.C.No. 408 /2015

Date of offence: 26.07.2015, 03.08.2015 and 02.08.2015

Date of Complaint: 06.08.2015, 09.08.2015 and 10.08.2015

Arrest of accused: 19.08.2015

Release of accused on: 16.09.2015 bail

Commencement of : 07.04.2022 trial

Closing of trial : 07.04.2022

Sentence or order: 11.04.2022

Reasons for delay: Due to non-production of Prosecution witnesses in time.

Name of the : Sub-Inspector of police, Amalapuram complainantTown Police Station

Name of the accused : Guthula Subash Babu, S/o.Devadanam, A/38 years, C/SC Mala, Opp.Library, Ambajipeta Village and Mandal

Offence: Under Section 417, 420, 384 IPC

Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty

Finding: Not Guilty

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

In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence U/Sec., thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Sd/- Ch.Haripriya

Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Senior Civil

Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AMALAPURAM:

PRESENT:- Smt Ch.Haripriya,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

Friday, this the 08th Day of April, 2022.

C.C.No.169 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector,

Amalapuram. ...Complainant.

AND

Geddada Naga Raju, S/o.Venkateswararao, age 35 years,

C/Settibalija, R/o.Peruru, Amalapuram...Accused

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri D.Venkateswararao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Amalapuram Police station has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.39/2020 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act.1968 against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 18.02.2020 at about 01.00 PM, LW1/R.V.L.Narasimharao, the then Proh &

Excise Sub Inspector, Amalapuram P.S along with his staff and conducted raid in

Peruru village limits near Mekala Kalava Bridge, found the accused sitting on a three wheeler motor cycle with a mica hand bag hanging to the handle bar. On suspicion LW1 detained the accused with the help of staff. Tried mediators through excise constable, but in vain and on examination of the bag found 1)Royal street

Deluxe Grain whisky 180 ml - 12 bottles 2) old Admiral Deluxe VSOP Brnady 180 ml - 7 bottles. When questioned the accused about the liquor bottles, he revealed that he purchased the said liquor bottles from various Brandy shops at M.R.P rate for selling same at higher rate and LW1 arrested the accused and brought to the police station and handed over the case property along with accused to the

LW3/L.Vijayalakshmi, the then Proh & Excuse sub Inspector. LW3 registered the case against the accused Cr.No.39/2020 U/sec.34(A) of A.P.Excise act She sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis under the letter of advice. After completion of investigation, she laid Charge Sheet against accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu U/Sec.240(2)

Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, so also MOs.1 and 2. The Learned APP has given up the evidences of LWs.2.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which he denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(A) of A.P.

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

10. POINT:-

In this case, the prosecution examined the LW1 the then Proh & Excise Sub

Inspector, P & EPS, Amalapuram who conducted raid and arrested the accused as

PW1. PW2 is the then Proh & Excise Sub Inspector, Amalapuram who received case property along with accused from PW1 and sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis. Through PW1 Ex.P1, so also MO.1 and 2 received in evidence. Through PW2

Exs.P2 to P4 received in evidence.

11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, what emerges clear is that the scene of offence is a busy locality as it is situated at Peruru village limits near

Mekala Kalava Bridge which is surrounded by a number of residential houses. The evidence of Investigating officer is that he deputed his constable for securing the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain.

12. After analysis of the above evidence what emerges clear is that the alleged scene is situated in a busy locality. Despite this topography of the scene, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the excise Party in deputing the constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed constable failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all the excise party tried best to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed report of the deputed constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the excise party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing on the special Report appears to be doubtful virtually. Thus there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

13. With this what emerges clear is that, by the time the search was conducted and seizure was made, there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality including village MRO and other official witnesses and that, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other words, the local inhabitants were not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus, the entire search is against the spirit of law of search, thereby the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in contravention of the above law. In this way, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the Special

Report on which the case of the prosecution is edificed, thereby the Special Report doubted, consequently, the entire case of the prosecution.

14. So, in the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of the prosecution filled with doubts, and that, the evidence of excise party alone is not inspiring confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the

POINT is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.34 (A) of

A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of the accused shall be in force for

Six months.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of April, 2022.

A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE: P.W.1/16.03.2022 : R.V.L.Narasimha Rao -None-. P.W.2/30.03.2022: L.Vijayalakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Special Report, dt.18.02.2020

Ex.P2:First Information Report, dt.18.02.2022

Ex.P3:Letter of Advice

Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report, dt.13.04.2020

DEFENCE : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle of Royal Street Delux whisky 180 ml

M.O.2: Sample bottle of Old Amire whisky 180 ml

A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Addl.Judicial First Class of Magistrate :: Amalapuram

C.C. 169 / 2022

Date of Offence:18.02.2020

Date of Report :18.02.2020

Date of arrest of Accused :19.02.2020

Date of Release of accused on bail:20.02.2020

Date of commencement of Trial :16.03.2022

Date of close of Trial:30.03.2022

Date of sentence or order:08.04.2022

Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.39/2020 of Proh & Excise P.S, Amalapuram

Name of the Complainant:State : Sub-Inspector of Proh & Excise P.S., Amalapuram

Name of the accused:Mokati Ramesh, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 28 years, C/SC Mala, R/o.Magam, Ainavilli Mandal Offence:U/Sec. 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act.1968

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

A.J.F.C.MAGISRATE,

AMALAPURAM

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

AMALAPURAM:

PRESENT:- Smt Ch.Haripriya,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

Thursday, this the 07th Day of April, 2022.

C.C.No.161 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector,

Amalapuram. ...Complainant.

AND

Mokati Ramesh, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 28 years, C/SC Mala, R/o.Magam,

Ainavilli Mandal...Accused

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Ch.Pattabhi Ramarao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Amalapuram Police station has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.40/2020 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act.1968 against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 20.02.2020 at about 03.00 PM, LW1/R.V.L.Narasimharao, the then Proh &

Excise Sub Inspector, Amalapuram P.S along with his staff and conducted raid in

K.Jagannadhapuram limits near Saibaba temple, found the accused standing with a mica hand bag carrying with his right hand. On suspicion LW1 detained the accused with the help of staff. Tried mediators through excise constable, but in vain and on examination of the bag found Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml - 15 bottles.

When questioned the accused about the liquor bottles, he revealed that he purchased the said liquor bottles from various Brandy shops at M.R.P rate for selling same at higher rate and LW1 arrested the accused and brought to the police station and handed over the case property along with accused to the LW3/L.Vijayalakshmi, the then Proh & Excuse sub Inspector. LW3 registered the case against the accused

Cr.No.40/2020 U/sec.34(A) of A.P.Excise act She sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis under the letter of advice. After completion of investigation, she laid Charge Sheet against accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu U/Sec.240(2)

Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, so also MOs.1 to 4. The Learned APP has given up the evidences of LWs.2.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which he denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(A) of A.P.

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ...

10. POINT:-

In this case, the prosecution examined the LW1 the then Proh & Excise Sub

Inspector, P & EPS, Amalapuram who conducted raid and arrested the accused as

PW1. PW2 is the then Proh & Excise Sub Inspector, Amalapuram who received case property along with accused from PW1 and sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis. Through PW1 Ex.P1, so also MO.1received in evidence. Through PW2

Exs.P2 to P4 received in evidence.

11. On perusal of the evidence available on record, what emerges clear is that the scene of offence is a busy locality as it is situated at K.Jagannadhapuram limits near

Saibaba temple which is surrounded by a number of residential houses. The evidence of Investigating officer is that he deputed his constable for securing the mediators in and around the scene of offence but in vain.

12. After analysis of the above evidence what emerges clear is that the alleged scene is situated in a busy locality. Despite this topography of the scene, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the excise Party in deputing the constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed constable failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all the excise party tried best to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed report of the deputed constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the excise party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing on the special Report appears to be doubtful virtually. Thus there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

13. With this what emerges clear is that, by the time the search was conducted and seizure was made, there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality including village MRO and other official witnesses and that, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other words, the local inhabitants were not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus, the entire search is against the spirit of law of search, thereby the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in contravention of the above law. In this way, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the Special

Report on which the case of the prosecution is edificed, thereby the Special Report doubted, consequently, the entire case of the prosecution.

14. So, in the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of the prosecution filled with doubts, and that, the evidence of excise party alone is not inspiring confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the

POINT is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.34 (A) of

A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

Typed to the dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of April, 2022.

A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE: P.W.1/16.03.2022 : R.V.L.Narasimha Rao -None-. P.W.2/30.03.2022: L.Vijayalakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Special Report, dt.20.02.2022

Ex.P2:First Information Report, dt.20.02.2022

Ex.P3:Letter of Advice

Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report, dt.13.04.2020

DEFENCE : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle of Old Timer Delux whisky 180 ml

A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Addl.Judicial First Class of Magistrate :: Amalapuram

C.C. 161 / 2022

Date of Offence:20.02.2020

Date of Report :20.02.2020

Date of arrest of Accused :21.02.2020

Date of Release of accused on bail:26.02.2020

Date of commencement of Trial :16.03.2022

Date of close of Trial:30.03.2022

Date of sentence or order:07.04.2022

Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.40/2020 of Proh & Excise P.S, Amalapuram

Name of the Complainant:State : Sub-Inspector of Proh & Excise P.S., Amalapuram

Name of the accused:Mokati Ramesh, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 28 years, C/SC Mala, R/o.Magam, Ainavilli Mandal Offence:U/Sec. 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act.1968

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

A.J.F.C.MAGISRATE,

AMALAPURAM

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.