Sri Ch. Rajagopala Rao

•1

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri. Ch. Rajagopala Rao, B.A., LL.M., IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

CALENDAR CASE NO.306/2011

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.306/2011 b.The date of Offence:17-11-2010 c.The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City d.The name of the accused:

1Botta Eswaramma, W/o.Narasinga Rao, Age 35 years, Yadav by caste, R/o.Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2 3Vayuboina Narendra Kumar, S/o.Trinadha Rao, Age 33 years, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. 4 5Mukka Subha Rao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Age 43 years, R/o.28-6-8, Jagadamba, Visakhapatnam. 6 7Kayath Narasinga Rao, S/o.Pothi Raju, Age 50 years, Yadava by caste, Jagadamba junction, Visakhapatnam. 8 9Doddi Appala Raju, S/oYerakayya, Age 42 years, R/o.F/10, Vambey Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

e.The offence complied of :Punishable under Section 341, 283, 186 & 188 of IPC f.The plea of the accused & his examination if any:Accused pleaded not guilty

This case was come on 21-03-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri N.Haranadh, Advocate for the

Accused A.1 to A.5, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.653/2010 for the offence punishable •2 under Section 341, 283, 186 & 188 of IPC of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is as follows:

In the recent past the GVMC Authorities increased the property tax. In this connection on 17.11.2010 at 11.15 hours the accused A.1 to A.5 projected themselves as leaders brought 30 to 35 CPI party workers near to care hospital junction, Ram Nagar to stop the convey of HOnourable Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and sat on the four road junciton with placards and raising slogans demanding to reduce the property tax and restraining the movements on the four raod junction and thereby wrongfully restrained and causing hindrances to the movement of general public and vehicles passing on the road and staged Rastaroka on the four road junction. The accused did not obtain any prior permission from the competent authority to conduct Rastaroko, as the regulatory order under Section 30 Police Act has been in existence in the Visakhapatnam city. On receiving information about the gathering of the accused, the Pw.3 along with his staff PW.1, PW.4, Lw.2, LW.4 to LW.6 went to the care hospital junction and found the accused committing the offence. Then the PW.3 addressed the accused to disburse from that place, as they are committing cognizable offences by restraining the movement of vehicles or public on the main road, they put deaf ear and further addressed their party workers not to quit the place till the arrival of convoy of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, AP and to stop the convoy. On that when PW.3 tried to scatter them from the above place with the assistance of LWs.1 to 6, the accused revolted on LWs.1 to 6, pushed and assulted them. As the acts of the accused A.1 to A.5 constitute the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 IPC, and no elders are readily available and any futher delay would precipitate the matter involving further breach of peace by stopping the convey of the Hon'ble CM of AP, the Pw.3 arrested A.1 to A.5 to 10.00 hours under the cover of an occurence report. Pw.3 brought all the accused to police and registered the above occurence report as a case in Cr.No.653/2010 under Sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 IPC of III Town P.S, Visakhapatnam city and investigated into. During investigation PW.3 examined the scene and witnesess 1 to 9, recorded their statements. Later, all the accused were enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation, PW.3 filed charge sheet.

3.The above case was taken into cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 IPC against accused A.1 to A.5. On •3 appearance of accused, copies of documents have been furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.,. When accused were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Charges under sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them.

3 On behalf of prosecution PW-1 to PW-5 were examined and Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.5 were marked.

4 After completion of prosecution side evidence, Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence.

5 Heard arguments and perused relevant records.

6.Now the point for determination is

“whether the prosecution proved its case against the

accused for the offence alleged beyond reasonable

doubts?”

7.Pw.1-D.Sanjeeva Rao deposed, that On 17-11-2010 his inspector of

Police (PW.3) received information that CPM party workers started agitation by holding play cards to stop the convey of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. . Then immediately Pw.3 along with him and LW2 to LW6 proceeded to Care Hospital

Junction about 10 am. There noticed A.1 to A.5 along with 20 or 30 CPM party numbers raising sologons by holding play cards and demanding to reduce the property tax increased by government and restraining the movement of the public in 4 road junction and also causing obstruction for vehicles. Then requested to disburse from that place as they have not taken any permission from concerned authorities. They did not heed the words of the LW10. Then LW10 arrested the accused of you under cover of occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report

dt. 17-11-2010.

•4

8.Pw.3-Irapakurti Satish Kumar deposed, that on 17-11-2010 at about 10 am on receipt of reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to Care

Hospital Junction there they noticed A.1 to A.5 along with some other sat on the road and they displayed playing cards and raised sologons and demanded to reduce the property tax raised by GVMC authorities and abstracted the free flow of traffic and restrained the passers proceeding on the road. Immediately he informed them Sec. 30 AP Police Act is in force. Even though they did not head his words and his staff tried to disburse from the road. Then A.1 to A.5 along their followers pushed his staff immediately as there is no alternative he arrested them under cover of occurrence report. He brought the accused to the station.

Basing on the occurrence report He registered a case in Cr.No. 653/2010 U/sec.

341, 283, 186, 188 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P.3 FIR Then he examined PW1,

LW2 to LW6 and recorded their statements. Later he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.4 rough sketch. At the scene he examined two witnesses (PW2 and LW8) and recorded their statements. he came back to the PS as the offences are bailable in nature. he released on bail after obtaining sufficient surety bonds.

On 19-11-2010 he examined LW7 and recorded his statement. he also obtained the copy Sec. 30 Police Act to prove that the order was inforce at the scene of offence. Ex.P.4 is the order of LW7. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

9.Pw.4-A.Bhadra Rao deposed, that on 17-11-2010 his inspector of

Police (PW3) received information that CPM party workers started agitation by holding play cards to stop the convey of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. . Then immediately PW3 along with him and LW2, LW4 to LW6 proceeded to Care

Hospital Junction about 10 am. There noticed A.1 to A.5 along with 20 or 30 CPM party numbers raising sologons by holding play cards and demanding to reduce •5 the property tax increased by government and restraining the movements of the public in 4 road junction and also causing obstruction for vehicles. Then requested to disburse from that place as they have not taken any permission from concerned authorities. They did not heed the words of the PW3. Then PW3 arrested the accused of you under cover of occurrence report.

10.PW.5-B.Venkata Ramana deposed, that while he was in ACP East Sub

Division office his duties are to verify the tapals and doing office work and receiving phone calls. In the year 2010 to control Law and order problems and avoid the Dharnas and any untoward incidents from different parties to avoid law and order problem. The ACP has promulgated orders U/sec. 30 Police Act. After preparing the orders through Tappals he forwarded to all Police stations. The

Promulgated order already marked as Ex.P.5.

11.A galaxy of facts gleaned from the record it is clear, that A.1 to A.5 projected themselves as a leaders of CPM party and stop the convey of Hon'ble

Chief Minister, raising slogans demanding to reduce the property tax and restraining the movements of the public, thereby wrongfully restrained and causing hindrance to the movements of general public and vehicles, on knowing the same PW.3 along with PW.1, Pw.5, Lw.2, PW.4, Lws.4 to 6 rushed to the scene of offence and requested the accused not to cause any hindrance to the public.

They did not heed the words, thereupon PW.3 arrested the accused and prepared

Ex.P.1 occurrence report and brought to the accused to the station and on basis of

Ex.P.1, PW.3 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.653/2010 and issued Ex.P.3

FIR. He examined Pw.1, Lws.2 to 6 and recorded their statements, he also prepared Ex.P.4 rough sketch and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12.To prove the essential ingredients under Sections 341, 283, 186, 188 •6

IPC the prosecution sought to rely upon oral testimony of Pws.1 to 5 and documentary testimony of Exs.P.1 to P.5.

12.Pw.1 testified that Pw.3 received credible information about

Rasttaroko of A.1 to A.5 caused obstruction the then Chief Minister at Care hospital and he secured Lws.1 to 6 rushed to the scene of offence and questioned the accused. PW.3 and Pw.4 deposed in tune with Pw.1.

13.Pw.3 is the Investigation Officer who arrested the accused stated in clear terms that he received information about Rastaroca and secured Pw.1,

Pw.4, Pw.5, Lw.2, 4 to 6 and rushed to the scene of offence, Pw.2 is the eye witness who exhibited hostility towards the case of prosecution. Pw.5 is the Head

Constable through him Ex.P.5 marked.

14.Having gone through the evidence of Exs.P.1 to P.5 what obvious is that the A.1 to A.5 are CPI party workers started hesitation and stopped the convoy of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and raising slogans to reduce the property tax, which was abnormal in prices. During the course of cross examination Pw.1 & Lw.4 candidly deposed that the GVMC Authorities increased the property tax 200 or 300 times upon the existence tax in the year 2008-09. They further admitted that all the parties in the city collectively secured signature campaign.

15.From the above admitted evidence it would be plain that all parties raised their eyebrows relating to the property tax increased for the year 2008-09 mere hindrance does not 妬 pso factoto create an offence against the accused. No public came to the Police Station and lodged the complaint that the A.1 to A.5 creating nuisance on the road, since property tax is improved. In such a situation it cannot be said that the accused liable for the offence under Section 341, 283, 186 & 188 IPC.

16.To prove Ex.P.5 the prosecution sought to rely upon the oral testimony •7 of Pw.5 who is working as Head Constable. It is no doubt true, that the Lw.7 promulgated Ex.P.5 orders. While it is true he did not come to the court to prove the contents mentioned therein. Mere marking of Ex.P.5 through PW.5 does not 妬 pso factoto prove the contents, therefore no preponderant reliance can be placed on Ex.P.4.

17.The case of the prosecution revolves round the Ex.P.4 order of the

L.W.7 under Section 30 of Police Act. To prove Ex.P.4, the prosecution did not file any scrap of paper nor adduce any evidence that the competent authority promulgated Ex.P.4 order. The person who issued the proceedings not come to the court and deposed facts on oath to prove that contents mentioned therein.

Therefore, Ex.P.4 losses its significant.

18.No material placed by the prosecution that A.1 to A.5 demanded Chief

Minister to reduce the property tax no iota of evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove essential ingredient under Section 341, 283, 186 & 188 IPC.

19.The evidence of Pws.1 to 5 most interested. No independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to strengthen the story proponded by the

Pw.3. Under these contextual circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserable failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

20.In the result, A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

•8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

P.W.1/L.W.1D.Sanjeeva Rao P.W.2/L.W.9Irapakurti Satish Kumar P.W.3/L.W.10P.V.Krishna Varma, Inspector of Police, III Town P.S. P.W.4/L.W.3A.Bhadra Rao P.W.5/L.W.7B.Venkata Ramana

For Accused: None

?EXHIBITS MARKED ? For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1/08-11-2016Occurrence report

Ex.P.2/10-03-2017161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2

Ex.P.3/17-03-2017First Information Report

Ex.P.4/17-03-2017Rough sketch

Ex.P.5/17-03-2017Order of Lw.7

For Accused: - NIL

No. of Material Objects marked

−NIL -

IV A.C.M.M/VSP •9

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 306/2011

Date of offence:17-11-2010

Date of release on bail:Released on station bail

Date of filing:26-05-2011

Date of Apprehension:29-02-2015

Date of commencement of trial:08-11-2016

Date of closing of trial:21-04-2017

Date of sentence:28-04-2017

Explanation for the delay, if any :There is no delay in disposing of the case.

The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City The name of the accused:

1Botta Eswaramma, W/o.Narasinga Rao, Age 35 years, Yadav by caste, R/o.Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2 3Vayuboina Narendra Kumar, S/o.Trinadha Rao, Age 33 years, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. 4 5Mukka Subha Rao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Age 43 years, R/o.28-6-8, Jagadamba, Visakhapatnam. 6 7Kayath Narasinga Rao, S/o.Pothi Raju, Age 50 years, Yadava by caste, Jagadamba junction, Visakhapatnam. 8 9Doddi Appala Raju, S/oYerakayya, Age 42 years, R/o.F/10, Vambey Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. 10 Offence:Punishable under Sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 of IPC

Finding :Accused found not guilty.

•10

Sentence:In the result, A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 283, 186 & 188 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

•1

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri. Ch. Rajagopala Rao, B.A., LL.M., IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 28 th day of April, 2017

CALENDAR CASE NO.707/2014

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.707/2014 b.The date of Offence:23-02-2010 c.The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town PoliceStation(MVPZone), Visakhapatnam City d.The name of the accused:Chelluri Jaya Rao, S/o.Kondayya, Age 46 years, PC.981 formerly of III Town Police Station, Now working as HC.981 in Arilova P.S., Visakhapatnam city. Native of Pedda Vuppala village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 1 e.The offence complied of :Punishable under Section 420 IPC f.The plea of the accused & his examination if any:Accused pleaded not guilty

This case was come on 24-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri M.Chinnayya, Advocate for the

Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station (MVP Zone), Visakhapatnam has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.111/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC of III Town Police Station (MVP Zone), Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is as follows:

In the month of December, 2009 Sri Chinta Rama Chandra Reddy (LW-7) who is residing at Chennai asked Kuthuri Srinivas (PW-2) to secure a land about 100 acres in and around Nakkapalli at reasonable price as he wanted to resale the land at a higher price with •2 a condition to give 2% commission and travel expenses. The accused Chelluri Jaya Rao who got acquaintance with Kuthuri Srinivas also joined with him to secure the land. LW-7 gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to PW-2 towards expenses in securing land by appointing local boys and also for travel expenses. On 23-02-2010 the accused and PW-2 secured the land of one Dandu Bala Ramaraju through Shaik Ali (LW-6) which is an extent of Ac. 13.44 cents. The rate was fixed as Rs.4,30,000/- per acre. The same was informed to LW-7 for which he sent DDs. For Rs.2 lakhs each to LW-2 and accused on 10-02-2010 with instructions to pay ad- vance. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to Dandu Bala Ramaraju as advance through the accused. Thereby the seller Dandu Bala Ramaraju asked Rs.3,00,000/- for agreement. In this regard LW-7 informed PW-2, he will transfer the said amount to the account of Dandu Bala Ramaraju and asked him to adjust some amount, for which PW-2 gave Rs.1,50,000/- to Ramaraju and got an agreement. On 14-3-2010, PW-1 transferred Rs.3 lakhs to the account of Bala Ramaraju. On the enquiry of LW-5 Basava Ravi Sankar with Sub-Registrar, Revenue Department, it is came to know that there was some assigned land in the land of Dandu Bala Ramaraju for which PW-1 canceled the agreement and asked the accused to return the money. But the accused did not return the amount and cheated. The accused also made another agreement with LW-3 Pulakandam Satyanarayana to give his land which is situated in Sy.No.108/13 which is an extent of Sc.1.50 cents at Ra- javaram Village of Payakaraopeta from where the same is accumulating. In this regard the accused executed a sale deed for Rs.5 lakhs with an agreement to sale the old sand from that land and gave a cheque of Axis Bank for Rs.1 lakh and agreed to give Rs.1 lakh after getting permit and laying of road to the land, remaining Rs. 3 lakhs after selling the sand. Later the accuse did not respond to LW-3 by doing sand business with another two partners by cheating him. The accused also came an understanding with PW-1 Kuthuri Aswadha by exe- cuting a deed of Memorandum of Understanding on 7-7-2012, as that he is patta holder of lands in Sy.Nos. 106/2. 3 & 4 and 115/3 & 6 of Rajavaram, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam in an extent of Ac.4.27 cents wherein the sand has been accumulated by obtaining sand temporary permits from the Department of Mines & Geology. The accused agreed to hand over sand operations to PW-1 by taking an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the presence of LW-4 Gudela Eswar Chandra Vidya Raj Kumar, by promising him to hand over the land after get- ting permits from the Mining Department and laying road. But he failed to do so and not re- sponding to the phones of the PW.1. The accused also facing cheque bounce cases at various courts at Tuni, Yela- manchili and Bheemili vide Ccs.No.189/2-011 (JFCM, Tuni) 37/2013 (JFCM, Tuni), 38/13 (JFCM, Yelamanchili) and 111/2011 (JFCM, Bheemili). Basing on the report of PW-1, LW-8 registered FIR in Cr.No.111/2014 U/s. 420 IPC on 12-2-2014 at 20.00 hrs and investigated into. He examined and recorded the state- ments of LW-1 to LW-7 and seized some documents produced by PW-1. Hon'ble High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, there by he was released on bail. The accused by •3 knowing the fact i.e., the land is not zeroyithi and it is assigned land and Dandu Balaram- raju is not interested to sell the said land, the accused enriched himself by inducing the third parties i.e., PW-1 & Pw.2, LW-3 and LW-7 who intended to purchase land for your personal gain and collected huge amounts from them by offering to sell the assigned land in which sand is accumulating, which is punishable U/s. 420 IPC. Therefore the accused is liable to be punished under the above section of law. Hence the charge.

3.The above case was taken into cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents has been furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.,. When accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Charges under section 420 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him.

3

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW-1 & Pw.2 and marked Ex.P.1.

5.On completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the incriminating material appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

6.Heard both sides and perused relevant record.

7.Now the point for determination is

“whether the prosecution proved its case against the

accused for the offence alleged beyond reasonable

doubts?”

8. The essential ingredients of the offence of the cheating are as follows:

IDeception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; IIFraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or mot to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not deceived; and III •4

IVSuch act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person,or to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part of valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).

9.The factual score of the case in hand frescoes as scenario:

Pw.1-Kuthuri Aswadha deposed, that he is resident of HB colony,

Visakhaptnam and he is retired from service as DSP. He know the accused. Pw.2 is his son. He is doing real estate business. In business transaction he will discussed with him. His son entered into an agreement with accused for purchase of land one Chinta Rama Chandra Reddy. He gave Rs.1,50,000/- to Pw.2 towards expenses in securing land by appointing local boys and travel expenses. On 23- 03-2010 the accused and Pw.2 secured the land of one D.Balaramaraju through

Lw.6 and extent of Ac.13.44 cents the rate fixed per acre is Rs.4,30,000/- and the same fact informed to the said Rama Chandra Reddy in which he sent DD R.2 lakhs each to Pw.2 and accused. The accused cheated and did not registered the land on behalf of son then he gave report to police. Subsequently, the accused and Pw.2 and himself compromised the issue in question out of the court.

Therefore, he gave no objections to pass any orders against the accused. Ex.P.1 report lodged by him.

10.Pw.2-Kuthuri Srinivas deposed, that he is resident of HB colony,

Visakhaptnam. He is doing business. He know the accused. Pw.1 is his father. In business transaction he will discussed with Pw.1. He entered into an agreement with accused for purchase of land one Chinta Rama Chandra Reddy. PW.1 gave

Rs.1,50,000/- to him towards expenses in securing land by appointing local boys •5 and travel expenses. On 23-03-2010 the accused and myself secured the land of one D.Balaramaraju through Lw.6 and extent of Ac.13.44 cents the rate fixed per acre is Rs.4,30,000/- and the same fact informed to the said Rama Chandra

Reddy in which myself sent DD R.2 lakhs each to myself and accused. The accused cheated and did not registered the land on behalf of myself then Pw.1 gave report to police. Subsequently, the accused and Pw.1 and himself compromised the issue in question out of the court. Therefore, he gave no objections to pass any orders against the accused.

11.A colossus of facts gleaned from the record it is clear, that the Pw.2 and accused entered into an agreement to purchase land an extent of Acre 13.44 cents, the rate was fixed for Rs.4,30,000/- per acre. Subsequently, differences arose and the matter reached to the station, accordingly Ex.P.1 was lodged before

Lw.8 who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.111/2014 and issued FIR. He examined Pws.1 & 2 and recorded their statements. He also examined Lws.2 to 7 and recorded their statements. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

12.The prosecution sought to rely upon the oral testimony of Pws.1 & 2 and documentary testimony of Ex.P.1.

13.It has been consistently stated by the Pws.1 & 2 that the accused cheated them in real estate business and subsequently compromised and their evidence is corroborated by the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. During the course of cross-examination Pws.1 & 2 stated that they compromised out of court before the elders to end the nitty gritty issue. They compromised by taking

Rs.16,00,000/- from the accused towards final settlement. Since the accused compromised with the Lws.1 & 2 and the same fact emanating from the cross- examination of Pw.1 it is not desirable to pass any order against the accused •6 under Section 420 IPC.

14.Admittedly, no scrap of paper filed by the prosecution to connect the accused and alleged agreement not placed before the court. No independent witnesses examined to prove the story propounded by the Pw.1, except the evidence of Pws.1 & 2. There has been no other evidence adduced in proof positive, since the parties compromise, the accused is entitle for acquittal, since the prosecution miserable failed to prove the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

xx Sd/- Ch. Raja Gopala Rao

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : P.W.1/L.W.1Kuthuri Aswadha P.W.2/L.W.2Kuthuri Srinivas

For Accused: None

?EXHIBITS MARKED For Prosecution : Ex.P.1/24-04-2017Report of PW.1

For Accused: - NIL

No. of Material Objects marked

- NIL - xx Sd/- Ch. Raja Gopala Rao IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. // True Copy //

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam •7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 707/2014

Date of offence:23-02-2010

Date of release on bail:12-08-2014

Date of filing:01-10-2014

Date of Apprehension:20-04-2015

Date of commencement of trial:24-04-2017

Date of closing of trial:24-04-2017

Date of sentence:28-04-2017

Explanation for the delay, if any :There is no delay in disposing of the case.

The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station (MVP Zone), Visakhapatnam City.

The name of the accused:Chelluri Jaya Rao, S/o.Kondayya, Age 46 years, PC.981 formerly of III Town Police Station, Now working as HC.981 in Arilova P.S., Visakhapatnam city. Native of Pedda Vuppala village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Offence:Punishable under Section 420 IPC

Finding :Accused found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

xx Sd/- Ch. Raja Gopala Rao IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. // True Copy //

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam •8

•1

DRAFT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri. Ch. Rajagopala Rao, B.A., LL.M., IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Monday, the 1st day of May, 2017

CALENDAR CASE NO.243/2016

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.243/2016 b.The date of Offence:01-01-2016 c.The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City d.The name of the accused:Lalata Biswal, S/o.Mahendra Biswal, Age 38 years, Khandayat by caste, R/o.Harsha Pada, Kanda Hata Post, Jaipur, Puri District, Odisha State. (Dirver of tanker lorry bearing registration NO.OR05-U-2171).

e.The offence complied of :Punishable under Section 338 IPC f.The plea of the accused & his examination if any:Accused pleaded not guilty

This case was come on 28-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri P.Krishna, Advocate for the

Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.01-2016 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC of III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is as follows:

Pw.1 is the resident of D.No.7-93, R.H.Colony, PM Palem,

Visakhaptnam city. On 01-01-2016 in the early hours, Pw.1, Lw.2 & Pw.2 started from PM Palem by scooty bearing registeration No.AP31 CS 3081 while Lw.2 was •2 riding it and Pw.1 & PW.2 occupied pillion seats and went to RTC Complex, had tiffin there and they trio started proceeding by the same bike towards Sampath

Vinayaka Temple and when they reached Asilmetta junction at about 5.30 hours, the driver of lorory bearing registrtion No.OR05-U-2171 who drove the lorry from

Ramatalkies towards Gollapalem in a rash and negligent manner dashed the two wheeler ridden by LW.2 and caused severe head injuries to PW.1, Lw.2 & Pw.2, soon Pw.1 & Pw.2 were shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam for medical treatment

On receipt of MLC intimation from KGH, Visakhapatnam LW.8 visisted the hospital, recorded the statement of Pw.1 and registered a case in

Cr.No.01/2016 under Section 338, 337 IPC on 01-01-2016 at 10.30 hours, inspected the crime scene and prepared rough sketch and examined five witnesses including both the injured and recorded their statements.

As there are reasonable gounds to question the accused to ascertain the facts and circumstances from him, Lw.8 served notice under Section 41(A)

Cr.P.C., to the accused noted above on 04-01-2016 at 8.00 hours and when the accused admitted his guilt and satisfied with the reasons to arrest him, LW.8 arrested the accused on 4-01-2016 at 8.30 hours and produced before the

HOn'ble court along with concerned records. LW.8 got inspected the crime vehicel

by Lw.6 on its condition.

LW.6 the Asst. Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report opining that the accident occured not due to any mechnical defects of the vehicle.

Lw.7 the CMO, KGh, Visakhapatnam who treated injuries PW.1 and

Pw.2 issued wound certicate and opined tht the injuries are grievous in nature.

After completion of investigation LW.8 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.The above case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable

Under section 338 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents has been furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

When examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW-1 & PW-2 and marked Ex.P.1 & P.2.

5.On completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined •3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the incriminating material appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

6.Heard both sides and perused relevant record.

7.Now the point for determination is

“whether the prosecution proved its case against the

accused for the offence alleged beyond reasonable

doubts?”

8. To bring home the charge U/s.338 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that:

causing grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others.” To bring home the charge under section 338 of IPC, the prosecution has not only prove that the accused was driving vehicle at high speed but also prove that such driving was so rash or negligent or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. A criminal negligence or criminal rashness is an important element. Mere fact that the accused was driving vehicle at high speed may not attract the provision of this section and prosecution has to prove something more

9.Applying the above parameters to the facts of the present case, I shall analyze and evaluate, the evidence of the prosecution is how far and what extent the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts with reference to the probabilities and surrounding circumstances.

10. The factual score of the case in hand frescoes as scenario:

PW-1-Ch.Venkatesh deposed, that he know LW.2 and Pw.2. He, LW.2 and Pw.2 proceeded from PM Palem to RTC complex on a scooty bearing registration NO.AP 31 3081 Lw.2 was riding the vehicle he and Pw.2 occupied pillion seats we reached Asilmetta junction. Meanwhile, one lorry bearing registration No.ORO 5 U 217 he driven by the accused and dashed him. As a result, thereof he and Lw.2 and Pw.2 fell down and he sustained grievous in nature whereas Pw.2 sustained grievous injuries. They admitted in hospital on knowing the same Lw.8 came to the hospital and recorded statement. Ex.P.1 is •4 the statement.

11.Pw.2-P.Raghuram deposed, that he know LW.2 and Pw.1. He, LW.2 and Pw.1 proceeded from PM Palem to RTC complex on a scooty bearing registration NO.AP 31 3081 Lw.2 was riding the vehicle he and Pw.1 occupied pillion seats we reached Asilmetta junction. Meanwhile, one lorry bearing registration No.ORO 5 U 217 he driven by the accused and dashed him. As a result, thereof he and Lw.2 and Pw.1 fell down and he sustained grievous in nature whereas Pw.1 sustained grievous injuries. They admitted in hospital on knowing the same Lw.8 came to the hospital and recorded statement.

12.A galaxy of facts gleaned from the record it is clear, that on 01-01-2016 at early hours PW.1-C.Venkatesh, Lw.2-G.Pavan Kumar & Pw.2-

P.Raghuram started from PM Palem by scooty bearing registration No.AP31 CS 3081 while LW.2 was riding and Pws.1 & 2 occupied pillion seats and went to RTC Complex and when reached Asilmetta junction at about 5.30 hours, the driver of lorry bearing

No.ORO U U 217, drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed their two wheeler, resulting which PW-1 and PW-2 caused severe head injureis and they were shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam and on MLC intimation Lw.8 visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 registered the same as case in Cr.No.01-2016 U/s. 338 IPC and issued FIR. On receipt of wound certificate and

MV report, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

13.To prove the essential ingredients under section 338 of IPC the prosecution sought to rely upon the oral testimony of PW-1 & Pw.2 and documentary testimony of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.

14. PW-1 and PW-2 stated in one voice, that they met with an accident on 01-01-2016 at early hours while they were proceeding on a scooty, one lorry came with high speed from Ramatalkies proceeding towards Gollapalem and dashed them.

•5

As a result thereof, they fell down on the road and Pw.1 sustained grievous injuries and Pw.1 sustained simply injuries. PW-1 gave Ex.P.1 report to police.

1415.Even though it is true, that the PW-1 and PW-2 admitted during the course of cross-examination that they compromised with the accused out of the court before the elders in order to promote peace and harmony in the locality. As per the advice given by the elders and to burry the hat chit they compromised the nitty gritty issue. Therefore, they have no interest to proceed further against the accused.

Hence, he request the court to record their compromise and to pass suitable orders.

15 1616.To put it mildly, that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 does not ring of reliability, since the admissions wrenched out from their lips during the course of cross examination certainly dent the primafacie case of the complainant. Therefore, the inexorable conclusion I can reach is that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case all beyond reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused.

17 1817.Under these contextual circumstances suffice however to indicate, that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused all beyond reasonable doubts.

2.18. In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 338 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six months appeal time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1 st day of May, 2017.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

•6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

P.W.1/L.W.1C.Venkatesh @ Venky P.W.2/L.W.5P.Raghuram

For Accused: None

?EXHIBITS MARKED For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1/28-03-2017Report of PW.1

Ex.P.2/28-03-2017First Information Report

For Accused: - NIL

No. of Material Objects marked

- NIL - IV A.C.M.M/VSP •7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 243/2016

Date of offence:01-01-2016

Date of release on bail:04-01-2016

Date of filing:11-07-2016

Date of Apprehension:28-11-2016

Date of commencement of trial:28-03-2017

Date of closing of trial:28-04-2017

Date of sentence:01-05-2017

Explanation for the delay, if any :There is no delay in disposing of the case.

The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

The name of the accused:Lalata Biswal, S/o.Mahendra Biswal, Age 38 years, Khandayat by caste, R/o.Harsha Pada, Kanda Hata Post, Jaipur, Puri District, Odisha State. (Dirver of tanker lorry bearing registration NO.OR05-U-2171).

Offence:Punishable under section 338 of IPC

Finding :Accused found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six months appeal time.

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri CH. Raja Gopala Rao, B.A., LL.M.,

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Monday, the 1st day of May, 2017

Domestic Violence Case 12/2016

Between:

1. Kasarapu Radha, W/o.Gangadhar, d/o.M.Lakshmi, Hindu, Aged 31 years, House wife now at D.No.53-25-9/1, chaitanya Nagar, Visakhapatnam-13.

2. Kasarapu Gargy Devi.

(2nd petitioner being minor represented by 1st petitioner natural guardian mother).

.…..... Petitioner

And:

Kasarapu Gangadhar Rao, S/o.Pydiyya, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/o.E-8, B.R.Munireddy Apartments, Vitlasandra Road, Bengalore-560 068. Working in Syniverse Technologies Services India Pvt. Limited, 3rd & 4th floors, Block-B, Delta Embassy Tech Square, Marathalli, Sarjarpur outer ring road, Near Adarsh Plamretreat, Varthur Hobli, Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengalore, Karnataka-560 103.

Kasarapu Satyanarayana, S/o.Pydiyya, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Resident of D.No.53-24-5, Near Gayathiri School, Chaintanya Nagar, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Kasarapu Dhana Lakshmi, W/o.Kasarapu Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Resident of D.No.53-24-5, Near Gayathiri School, Chaintanya Nagar, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondent

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.V.V.V.S.S.M.Raja Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 are called absent and set exparte and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under sec.12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act

2.Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner as unfolded is that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. Their marriage having been performed on 10-05-2015 at Sri Veer Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy

Temple as per Hindu caste rights and customs and the marriage was 2 consummated. At the time of marriage the mother of the petitioner gave

Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1st respondent towards dowry and presented gold chain for one tula and one gold ring of ½ tula to the 1st respondent and presented sari samans worth of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner further submits that from the beginning of the marital life the respondents used to harass her to get more dowry. The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent is having illegal intimacy with the wife of his elder brother by name Dhanalaxmi.

3.The petitioner further submit, that the 1st respondent is working as

Software engineer at Bengalore, he took the petitioner to Bengalore on 23-05- 2015. On 26-09-2015 again the 1st respondent made big galata and bet the petitioner once again as she failed to bring more dowry amount as demanded by the 1st respondent and he said that he can't keep the petitioner with him, unless she fulfills all of his demands, on that the 1st respondent brutally necked out the petitioner from the house in such a city like Bengalore. As there was no other go she reached her mother house at Visakhapatnam till such time she has been staying with her mother carrying pregnancy. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 08-10-2015, demanding the 1st respondent to pay maintenance to her and baby in her womb for medical expenses etc. The petitioner further submits that she gave a birth to 2nd petitioner on 09-02-2016 and the same is informed to the 1st respondent but he did not come forwards to see the baby.

4.The petitioner further submits that her father is no more and her mother also not doing any work and she is also not in a position to see the welfare of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner and their daughter taking into consideration of the present day to day cost of living, as such the 1st petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month to her daughter.

5.Chief affidavit of PW-1 filed on 26-04-2017 and no exhibits were marked. The testimony of the petitioner became unchallenged as 1st respondent called absent and set ex-parte on 04-01-2017. Therefore the facts mentioned in the petition stands thus proved. Since the testimony of PW-1 is neither impeached 3 nor impaired, there is no hindrance to accept the sole testimony of PW-1 without there being any corroboration.

6.Admittedly, no evidence has been adduced by the respondent to dent the strudy case of the petitioner. Indeed the respondent did not move his little finger to file any scrap of paper denying the allegations set out for the petition nor file any application under DVC Act. The respondent totally remained silent to disprove the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 can safely be accepted. Hence, the petitioner is entitled the following relief here under.

7.In the result petition is allowed in part:

The 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to 1st petitioner per month from the date of filing of the petition u/s.12 of Domestic Violence Act. The monetary award is no way excessive or un-reasonable u/s.20 of the Act.

The respondent is hereby prohibited from restraining any sort of domestic violence against the petitioners.

The office is directed to serve free copy of order to the petitioner.

Each party shall bear their own costs.

The rest of the prayer claimed by the 1st petitioner is hereby dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 1st day of May, 2017.

xx Sd/- Ch.Raja Gopala Rao

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner :For Respondents:

PW-1/04-01-2017 : Kasarapu RadhaNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

No Exhibits were Marked on either side xx

IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM/

Copy to: 1.The Petitioner(PW-1)

1

FORM NO.39 (Section 257, Criminal Procedure Code)

Form of Order on withdrawal by complainant.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri Ch. Rajagopala Rao, IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Monday, the 1st day of May, 2017

In Calendar Case No.503/2016

Offence: Under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Between:

V.Bhanoji Rao, S/o.Lakshimi Narayana Rao, Hindu, Aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.104, Rajeswari Residency, Lawson's Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam. …Complainant

And

G.Ramakrishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 52years, R/o.Flat No.302, Creative villa, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam. …Accused.

O R D E R

Both present. Complainant filed petition U/sec. 257 Cr.P.C withdrawn case against the accused. Hence complaint is dismissed, accused acquitted

U/sec. 257 cr.P.C as withdrawn

1. Date of offence24-03-2016

2. Date of complaint17-06-2016

3. Date of hearing01-05-2017

IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.