Smt. Ch.Sunandamma

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Ch. Sunandamma,

II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrsate-

Cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 20 th day of June, 2023 C.C.No.253/2017 Between : The State represented by the Food Safety Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. …. Complainant

And

1. Kaki Nageswara Rao, 63 yrs., S/o.Ragavaiah, Trustee & responsible person M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust, D. No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Pasupuleti Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, Managing Trustee of M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust, D. No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust, D. No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …. Accused. * * * This case is coming on 11.05.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. R. Geetha, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. Mittapalli Siva Ram Babu learned Advocate for Accused and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Food Safety Officer, Krishna District,

Machilipatnam has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 3(1) (zz) (iii), 21, 26 (2) (I), 27 (1) of FSS Act 2006 and punishable Us.59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006.

2.The case of the prosecution in short is that:

On 13.06.2013 at about 11.30 AM A. Srinivas Rao, Food Safety Officer (PW.1) along with food Safety Designated officer, Krishna District, arrived to Vijayawada and inspected M/s. Brindavan Charitable Trust, D.No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem,

Vijayawada at that time Accused -1 Kaki Nageswara Rao, 63 yrs, S/o.Rajavaiah, Trustee

M/s. Brindavan Charitable Trust present and transacting the business PW.1 called

Tullamilli Srinivasa Rao (LW.2) to act as mediator. In the presence of LW.2 Food Safety

Officer inspected the food articles kept for sale for human consumption in the premises of

M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust when the PW.1 enquired about the stock of approximately Seventy Hundred (70) Babuls of Surya Tech Purified Drinking Water and 2 4000 liters present, the accused told that it is Surya Tech Purified Drinking Water kept for sale for human consumption at the cost of Rs.5/-, and labeled as Surya Tech purified

Drinking Water M/sBrindavan Charitable Trust, D.No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem,

Vijayawada. The Food Safety Officer suspected the process of the Drinking Water to be contaminated and adulterated. Then the Food Safety Officer asked the Food Business

Operator to fill the sterile Twelve one liter Bottles and FBO filled the 12 bottles and caped with locking caps. Food Safety Officer purchased and paid the cost of 12 liters of Surya

Tech Purified Drinking Water for Rs.3/- (Rupees Three only) and obtained cash receipt from the Accused towards the cost of Surya Tech Purified Drinking Water in the presence of witness notice in form V A was duly served on accused intimating him that the purchased sample will be be sent to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P.

Hyderabad for analysis and obtained acknowledgment in the presence of witness. The purchased 12 liters of Surya Tech Purified Drinking Water which was filed in sterile

Twelve one liter sealed Bottles was divided into four parts that each part contains four 1 liter sealed bottles was kept in thick cord board Boxes and sealed with sticking tap and

Label bearing C. No.006A-05028/2013 were pasted on each sample Box with gum and wrapped with thick brown paper, ends were neatly folded in and pasted with gum. The paper slips signed and issued by the Food Safety Designated Officer, Krishna District, bearing C.No.006A-05028/2013 were pasted with gum on each part completely running round from bottom to top with additional paper slips signed and issued by the Food

Safety Designated Officer. Signature of Accused was obtained in such a manner both paper slip wrapper paper carry the part of the signature and each part tied with twine separately. The knots and all the four sides of the sample Boxes were covered with seal one on top, one on bottom and two on either side of the sample bottle by means of specimen seal of the Food Safety Officer. The Food Safety Officer served notice to the accused under f2.4.1.(10(iii) of FSS Rules, 2011 to send the fourth part of sample to

Accredited Laboratory if it is so desired but not availed the opportunity. Panchanama was drafted by the Food Safety Officer in telugu and read over and the signatures of

Accused, LW.2 obtained on it.

On 14.06.2013 PW.1 sent one part of the sample along with Form VI 3 memorandum to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P., Hyderabad by

Registered Parcel with acknowledgment due under Postal Receipt No.C.RN 641476816 in under intimation to the Food Safety Designated Officer.

On 14.06.2023 PW.1 sent one copy of Form VI memorandum in separate cover by

Registered Post with acknowledgement due under Postal Receipt No.

C.R.N646410290IN. The remaining three parts along with form VI memorandum in triplicate with specimen impression of the Food Safety Officer, handed over to the Food

Safety Designated Officer, Krishna District obtained acknowledgement Dt.13.06.2013.

3. It is further submitted that the Food Analyst after causing analysis of the sample of Surya Tech Purified Drinking Water delivered Report No.422/2013 dt. 27.06.2013 along with covering letter No. 1199/SFL/2013 dt.28.06.2013 to the Food Safety

Designated Officer and opined that the sample does not conform to the standard of

Aerobic Microbial count, Coliform Count and PH Therefore it is Unsafe.

The Food Safety Officer gave intimation to the FSDO for issuing notice to FBO.

On 02.07.2013 The Food Safety Designated Officer send notice under Rule 2.4.6.(1) and section 46 (4) of FSS Act, 2006 along with Food Analyst Report to the accused by regd.post with acknowledgement due to send one part of sample to Referral Laboratory, and the FBO not availed the opportunity.

4.It is further submitted that on 13.08.2013 The Food Safety Designated

Officer send detailed report to the Food Safety Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad. On perusal of the records The Commissioner of Food Safety, A.P.,

Hyderabad has accorded written consent under Section 30 (2) (e) of FSS Act, 2006 read with G.O.Rt.No.101 HM & FW (L1) Dept., dated 16.01.2013 for launching prosecution against the accused person for having processed for sale of Unsafe Surya Tech Purified

Drinking Water U/s.3(1) (zz) (iii), 26 (I), 27(1) FSS Act, 2006 and punishable U/.s.59 (I) of

FSS Act, 2006 and directed the PW.1 vide Rc.No.1019/F2/2013 dt.19.04.2014.

As per the opinion of the Food Analyst, the documentary evidence collected to the case file and written consent accorded by the Food Safety Commissioner the PW.1 filed the complaint before the Honorable court. Hence the Complaint.

4

5.On perusal of charge sheet and other documents filed by the Food Safety Officer under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, this case is taken on file for the offence under sections 59(i) in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The copies of this case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code.

6.Accused examined under 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 59(i) in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the accusation is read over to them and explained in

Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial of this case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 who is

Food Inspector and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. respectively.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused examined under section 313

Cr.P.C., explaining them the entire incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the prosecution side evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for theoffence under sections 59(i) in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:The Food Inspector/PW1 deposed that Previously he worked as

Food Safety Officer, Krishna District from June, 2008 to June, 2015. He retired from service on 31.05.2021 as Asst. Food Controller, Kurnool District. he knew

LW.2/T.Srinivasa Rao. He is qualified Food Safety Officer and notified as Food Safety

Officer for the local area and entire state of Andhra Pradesh vide GOMS.No.243/Health and Medical Family Welfare (L1), dt.25.08.2011. On 13.06.2013 at about 11.30 AM he along with Food Safety Designated Officer, Krishna District arrived to Vijayawada and inspected M/s.Brindhavan Charitable Trust, D.No.40-50-5/12, Pakeerugudem,

Vijayawada. At the time of his visit A1 was present and transacting the business. he called LW.2/Tullamilli Srinivasa Rao to act as mediator, after his acceptance in the presence of A1 and LW.2/ Srinivasa Rao he inspected the premises of the M/s.

5

Brindhavan Charitable Trust and enquired about the stock of approximately 70 babuls of 20 liters Surya Tech purified drinking water and 4000 liters of purified drinking water in the tank which was filling the babuls, then he suspected the process drinking water to be contaminated and adulterated. Then he purchase 12 lts of Surya Tech purified drinking water loose which is in the tank and paid its cost Rs.3/- and obtained cash receipt which was attested by the A1 and LW.2/ Srinivasa Rao. Then he purchased 12 litres of Surya

Tech purified drinking water was filled from the tap of the tank in 24 half litre clean empty sterile water bottles and caped with locking tap. he served a notice in Form VA on accused intimating him that the purchase of sample will be sent to the Food Analyst,

State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis and obtained acknowledgment in the presence of witness and signature of LW.2 on Form V A notice.

11. He further deposed that he purchased 12 liters of Surya Tech purified drinking water which was filled in 24 sterile half litre bottles was divided into four parts each part contains six half liter sealed bottles was kept in thick cardboard boxes and sealed with sticking tape and label bearing code No.006A-05028/2013 were pasted at each sample box with gum and wrapped with thick brown paper ends were neatly folded in and pasted with gum, then paper slips with signed and issued by Asst. Food

Controller, Food Safety Designated Officer, Krishna District bearing code No. 006A- 05028/2016 were pasted on each sample box with gum in such a manner that paper slips goes around the container from bottom to top and affixed with gum. Then he obtained the signatures of A1 on four sample containers in such a manner that paper slips and wrapper paper both carry the part of signature. Finally he secured each sample container by means of strong twin thread both above and across and sealed with sealed wax with four distinct places, one at top, one at the bottom and two on either side of sample containers using his specimen impressions seal. Knot of the thread was also covered with one of the above seals. Then he explained about the opportunity for sending of fourth part of sample to the accredited laboratory for analysis and served a notice under Rule 2.4.5 (1) of FSSA Rules, 2011 on A1 and obtained his acknowledgment on the copy of above notice in the presence of witness. Then he drafted mediator report as the LW.2/Srinivasa Rao was unable to scribe the mediator 6 report, he scribed the mediator report and read-over to the A1 and LW.2/Srinivasa Rao and obtained their signatures. On 14.06.2013 he sent one part of the sample along with

Form VI memorandum to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P., Hyderabad by registered parcel with acknowledgment due under postal receipt no.CRN641476816IN under intimation to the Food Safety Designated Officer. On the same day he sent another copy of Form VI memorandum in separate sealed cover by register post with acknowledgment due under postal receipt no.CRN646410290IN.

12.He further deposed that the remaining three parts of samples along with three copies of Form VI memorandum was handed-over to the Food Safety Designated

Officer, Krishna District and obtained his acknowledgment on 13.06.2013. The Food

Analyst after causing analysis of sample of Surya Tech Purified Drinking Water delivered his report No.422/2013, dt.27.06.2013 along with covering letter no.1199/SFL/2013, dt.28.06.2013 to the Food Safety Designated Officer and opined that the sample does not confirm to the standards of Aerobic Microbial Count, Coliform Count and PH.

Therefore it is unsafe.

13. He further deposed that he gave intimation to the Food Safety

Designated Officer for issuing notice to A1 and A2. On 02.07.2013 the Food Safety

Designated Officer sent notice under Rule 2.4.6(1) and Sec.46 (4) of FSS Act 2006 along with Food Analyst Report to the A1 and A2 by registered post with acknowledgment due to send one part of the sample to the Referral Laboratory and the accused persons not availed opportunity. On 13.08.2013 the Food Safety Designated

Officer, Krishna District send detailed report to the Food Safety Commissioner, Andhra

Pradesh Hyderabad. On perusal of the records the Commissioner Food Safety,

Hyderabad has accorded return consent under Sec.30(2)(e) of Food Safety and

Standards Act 2006 in GORT.No.101HM(L1), dt.16.01.2013 for launching prosecution against the accused persons for having processed for sale of unsafe Surya Tech

Purified Drinking Water under sec.3(1)(zz)(iii), 26 (2)(i), 27 (1) of Food Safety and

Standards Act 2006 and punishable under sec.59(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and directed me to launch prosecution against the accused persons vide

RC.No.1019/F2/2013, dt.19.04.2014.

7

14. He further deposed that he filed the complaint before the Court on 10.06.2014 along with documents. To prove the case he filed Ex.P1 to P17. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of Gazette Notification No.482 HM &FW (L1) dt.26.08.2011. Ex.P2 is the cash receipt dt.13.06.2013. Ex.P3 is the Form V A notice dt.13.06.2013. Ex.P4 is the label affixed on container dt.13.06.2013. Ex.P5 is the intimation under Rule 2.4.1 (10)(iii) of FSS Rules, 2011, dt.13.06.2013. Ex.P6 is the Panchanama dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P7 is the Form VI memorandum to the Food Analyst dt.13.06.2013. Ex.P8 is the postal receipt for one part of the sample along with Form VI memorandum sent to the

Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P., Hyderabad by Regd. Parcel with Ack Due

No. CRN641476816IN Dt.14.06.2013. Ex.P9 is the Postal receipt for sending copy of

Form VI memorandum sent to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P.,

Hyderabad by Regd. Post with ack due No.CRN646410290IN dt.14.06.2013.

Ex.P10 is the Acknowledgment for remaining three parts of the sample handed over to the Food Safety Officer, Krishna District, dt.13.06.2013. Ex.P11 is the covering letter No.1199/SFL/2013 dt.28.06.2013. Ex.P12 is the Food Analyst Report

No.422/2013, dt.27.06.2013. Ex.P13 is the intimation to FSDO for issuing Notice under

Rule 2.4.6(1) and Sec.46(4) of FSS Act. Ex.P14 is the notice under Rule 2.4.6(1) and

Sec.46(4) of FSS Act, dt.18.04.2013. Ex.P15 is the letter of accused No.1 and Trust

Deed of M/s.Brindavan Charitable Trust. Ex.P16 is the copy of detailed report submitted by FSDO dated.13.08.2013.Ex.P17is the written consent

Rc.No.1019/F2/2013, dt.19.04.2014.

15.On behalf of the prosecution the PW.1 alone was examined and no other witnessess were examined. The learned defence counsel has also contended that the mediator was not examined by the prosecution and there is no corroboration for the evidence of PW.1. In such circusmtances the evidence of PW.1 has to be scrutinized in careful circumspect in order to act upon his testimony connect the offence to the accused.

8

16.Before testing the varacity of evidence of PW.1 it is better to appreciate the cross-examination of PW.1. During cross-examination PW.1 categorically admitted that on 13.06.2013 he came from Machilipatnam along with Food Safety Designate Officer by name M.Srinivasa Rao and Anil Kumar/Office Subordinate. But the said M.Srinivasa

Rao and Anil Kumar not signed on Ex.P2 to Ex.P17. He did not obtain any firm documents at the time of seizer of sample. He further admitted that A1 is employee of

M/s.Brundavan Charitable Trust, he did not obtain any document to show that A1 is employee of M/s.Brundavan Charitable Trust. Apart from he added that since A1 informed that he is the employee in the said firm so he did not obtain any documents pertaining to M/s.Brundavan Charitable Trust. He further admitted that he did not obtain any document to show that A2 is the trustee of M/s.Brundavan Charitable Trust. Apart from he added that since A2 informed that he is the trustee in the said firm so he did not obtain any documents pertaining to M/s.Brundavan Charitable Trust.

17.He further admitted that on 20.09.2013 A2 submitted copies of the trust document under Ex.P15, on his letter the A2 submitted trust document under Ex.P15 on 20.09.2013. He further admitted that the loose water not come under package drinking water. he seized 16 lts of packaged drinking water. he lifted 12 lts out of 16 lts towards sample. he did not file any receipt to show that the bottles in which he seized sample water were the sterile bottles, he mentioned in charge sheet 1 liter bottles 12 but he gave evidence instead of 1 liter bottles he lifted the sample in 24 half liter sterile bottles. Apart from he added that by mistake in charge sheet the sample bottle were wrongly noted as 1 liter bottles instead of half liter bottles. He further admitted that he does not know whether the FSS Act, 2006 implemented in 2011 that G.O. was notified in

Gazette notification. It is not his duty to send the detailed report to the Commissioner. It is duty of the Designated Officer. he seized the sample on 13.06.2013, they send the detailed report on 13.08.2013 under Ex.P16, the detailed report was not sent within the prescribed time.

18.It is suggested to him that he did not seize the sample in accordance with rules under FSS Act and that filed false case against the trust and accused, for which he denied.

9

19.As regards to fractual aspects of the case that PW.1 is being Food Safety

Officer has draw the sample of Water from the tank situated in Water Unit of the accused. The claim of the Food Safety Officer is that the stock of 70 bubbles 20 liters

Surya Tech purified drinking water and 4000 liters of purified drinking water in the tank which was filling the bubbles then he suspected the pocess drinking water to be contaminated and adulterated the water stored in said water tanker is meant for selling to general public. Paradoxically, he stated during cross examination the loose water not come under package drinking water he seized 16 liters of packed drinking water he lifted 12 liters out of 16 liters towards sample.

The learned counsel contended that it is not the case of the complainant that the four parts purchased were not sealed packets. When they were not sealed packets the

PW.1 could have put the contents together, made it homogeneous and then divided into four parts and further contended that the food inspector purchased 16 bottles and among them 12 bottles were seized. As per the chief examination it is one liter bottle but in the cross examination he stated that the bottles are half liter bottle and number of the bottles are 24 which is contrary to his evidence. To prove the said fact the counsel

for accused elicited in the cross examination, wherein, PW.1 admitted that he seized 16

liters packaged drinking water he lifted 12 liters out of 16 liters towards sample he further admitted that he mentioned in the charge sheet one liter bottles 12 but he gave evidence instead of one liter bottles he lifted the samples in 24 half liter sterile bottles.

Apart from he added that by mistake in charge sheet the sample bottles were wrongly noted as 1 liter bottle in stead of half liter bottle. So as per the admission made by the

PW.1 he did not lift the sample properly. So the procedure adopted by the PW.1 contrary to Law. So, there is a force in the contention of the counsel for accused.

20.The learned counsel for accused further contended that it is the case of the complainant he purchased 12 one liter bottles and divided into four parts and strangely treating each part as one part which is contrary to law. He further contended that PW.1 was expected purchase a sample of item, making it homogeneous, divide it into four parts, each part being representative of the other, put those parts into suitable containers and follow the other procedure prescribed. As seen from the evidence of 10

PW.1 the water bottles in all the four packets were not put together mixed and made homogeneous then divided into four parts, the water bottles in each of the four board boxes, which are treated as four parts cannot be representative of water bottles in other boxes. The procedure under the P.F.A. Act, where samples of Food items are lifted, found to be adulterated after ANALYSIS and prosecutions launched before the Courts of

Law, it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to prove by adducing cogent evidence that an offence under this Act has been Committed by the person (the Vendor-retailer) from whom the sample is lifted.

21.In the cross examination PW.1 admitted that he seized 16 litres of packaged drinking water, he lifted 12 litres out of 16 litres towards sample the purchased 12 litres, which was filled in sterile 12 one time sealed bottles was divided into 4 parts each part contains 4 one time sealed bottles divided into 4 parts PW.1 admitted that he did not file any receipt to show that bottles in which he seized sample water were the sterile bottle.

So, the complainant failed to prove he lift the sample as per the proceedings by adducing cogent evidence from whom he seized the sample. Therefore, it would suggest that he did not seize the sample in accordance with Rules under FSS Act Thus, it can be conclude that the sample not seized in accordance with law.

21Apart from that the learned defence Counsel questioned the competency of PW.1 by contending that he does not have jurisdicition over the local area of Vijayawada. In that regard PW.1 may produce Ex.P.1 appointment order showing that he was appointed as Foor Safety Officer over the entire state of Andhra Pradesh.

Section 37 of Food Safety and Stadards Act 2006 deals with appointment of Food

Safety Officer where in states that - (1)The Commissioner of Food Safety shall by notification appoint such person as he things fit, having the qualification prescribed the Central Government, as Food Safety Officer for such local areas as he may assign to them for purpose of performing functions under this act and rules and regulations made there under; (2)The State Government may authorize any officer any State

Government having the qualification prescribed under sub section (1) to ferform the functions of Food Safety Officer within a specified jurisdiction.

11

22.The above provisions empowers the Commissioner of Food Safety to appoint

Food Safety Officer in consultation of State Government, by notification, for such local areas as it may assign to them for the purpose of performing its functions under this act.

23.In the light of the above provision of Law the GOMs.No.243, dated 25.08.2011 under which PW.1 was appointed as Food Safety Officer over the state of entire Andhra

Pradesh will not sufficient. In addition to that there is separate appointment order for the local areas. Mere producing G.O., Ex.P.1 is of no consequences.

24.So, the prosecution could not justify with regard to the competency of PW.1 discharging as Food Safety Officer in the local area of Kakinada.

25.Above all, PW.1 has not properly lift the sample of water and sent to Food Analyst and there are so many legal infirmities found in the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

26.In view of the above observations, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under section 59(i) of Food Safety and Standards

Act 2006 in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006 beyond reasonable doubt.

27.In the result the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 59(1) of

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled after six months from this date in view of the section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed my dictation on Laptop by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of June, 2016.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Defence:

PW.1: A. Srinivasa Rao NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1 is the attested copy of Gazette Notification No.482 HM &FW (L1) dt.26.08.2011.

Ex.P2 is the cash receipt dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P3 is the Form V A notice dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P4 is the label affixed on container dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P5 is the intimation under Rule 2.4.1 (10)(iii) of FSS Rules, 2011, dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P6 is the Panchanama dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P7 is the Form VI memorandum to the Food Analyst dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P8 is the postal receipt for one part of the sample along with Form VI memorandum sent to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P., Hyderabad by Regd.

Parcel with Ack Due No. CRN641476816IN Dt.14.06.2013.

Ex.P9 is the Postal receipt for sending copy of Form VI memorandum sent to the

Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, A.P., Hyderabad by Regd. Post with ack due No.CRN646410290IN dt.14.06.2013.

Ex.P10 is the Acknowledgment for remaining three parts of the sample handed over to the Food Safety Officer, Krishna District, dt.13.06.2013.

Ex.P11 is the covering letter No.1199/SFL/2013 dt.28.06.2013.

Ex.P12 is the Food Analyst Report No.422/2013, dt.27.06.2013.

Ex.P13 is the intimation to FSDO for issuing Notice under Rule 2.4.6(1) and

Sec.46(4) of FSS Act.

Ex.P14 is the notice under Rule 2.4.6(1) and Sec.46(4) of FSS Act, dt.18.04.2013.

Ex.P15 is the letter of accused No.1 and Trust Deed of M/s.Brindavan

Charitable Trust.

Ex.P16 is the copy of detailed report submitted by FSDO dated.13.08.2013.

Ex.P17 is the written consent Rc.No.1019/F2/2013, dt.19.04.2014.

For Accused:

NIL

Material Objects:

NIL

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

13

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.253/2017

01. Date of Offence : 13.06.2013

02. Date of complaint or report : 14.06.2013

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 06.06.2014 04.Date of apprehension of Accused : --

05. Date of release on bail : --

06. Date of commencement of trial : 02.02.2023

07. Date of close of trial : 02.02.2023

08. Date of sentence or Order : 20.06.2023 9.Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Food Safety Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

10. Name of the Accused :

1. Kaki Nageswara Rao, 63 yrs., S/o.Ragavaiah, Trustee & responsible person M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust, D. No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Pasupuleti Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, Managing Trustee of M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust, D. No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. M/s Brindavan Charitable Trust, D. No.40-5-5/12, Pakeergudem, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

11. OFFENCE:under sections 3(1) (zz) (iii), 21, 26 (2) (I), 27 (1) of FSS Act 2006 and punishable Us.59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006.

12. FINDING: accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

13. RESULT:In the result the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(xi), 21, 26(2)(i)(ii) and 27(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled after six months from this date in view of the section 437-A Cr.P.C.

14. Explanation for delay:This case was taken on file under sections 3(1) (zz) (iii), 21, 26 (2) (I), 27 (1) of FSS Act 2006 and punishable Us.59 (I) of FSS Act, 2006.On 29.06.2016. On 11.12.2017 copies of documents were furnished to the accused. Accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., on 10.01.2023. Pw.1 was examined on 02.02.2023 and Ex.P.1 to P17 marked. On 02.05.2023 accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2023 heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused and Judgment

pronounced on 20.06.2023. Hence, the delay.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

14

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Ch. Sunandamma,

II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrsate-

Cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 20 th day of June, 2023 C.C.No.865/2017 Between : Bhupathi Ramanamma, W/o.late Ramana Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o.D.No.8-8-27, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada. …. Complainant

And

1. Bhupathi Tirumala Rao, S/o.Simhachalam @ Byragi, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

2. Bhupathi Srivalli, W/o.Tirumala Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

3. Bhupati Giri @ Venkata Giri, S/o.Simhachalam @ Byragi, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No. 8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

4. Bhupathi Vijaya,W/o. Bhupathi Giri @ Venkata Giri, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada. Died (abated)

5. Vaddadi Bhuvana, S/o.Naga Raju, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o.5-6-30/13, VMC Colony, Near Cholera Hospital, Chittinagar, Vijayawada-9.

6. Bhupathi Abhilash, S/o.Tirumala rao, Hindu, aged about 24 years, resident of D.No.8- 29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

7. Bhupathi Chaitanya, S/o.Tirumala Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, resident of D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

8. Bhupathi Ajay, S/o.Tirumala Rao, Hindu, aged about 22 years, resident of D.No.8- 29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

9. Bhupathi Akhil, S/o.Giri @ Venkata Giri, Hindu, aged about 20 years, resident of D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

10. Bhupathi Uday, S/o.Giri @ Venkata Giri, Hindu, aged about 19 years, resident of D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

…. Accused.

* * * This case is coming on 14.06.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of B.H. Siva Sankar learned advocate for the complainant and Sri J.N.V. Tirumala Rao, T. Govardhana Rao learned Advocates for the Accused and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Defacto-Complainant has filed the private complaint U/Sec.190 and 200 of Cr.P.C requesting to. refer the complaint to SHO II Town Police Station for investigation and registered the FIR against the accused. The court after hearing the counsel for complainant and took the cognizance against accused on 09.11.2017 and issued notice to the accused, after receipt of notice, the accused appeared and engaged the counsel and contest the matter but the counsel for complainant not objected at the time of taking cognizance. Later the Court proceeded to further.

2.The averments of the complaint is that:

The in-laws of the complainant having 5 sons and 2 daughters. The elder son is

Tatamu. 2nd son is the husband of the complainant Ramana Rao. The elder son Tatamu was given a site in the hill area of Wynchipet by his parents. The in laws of the complainant given a site of 120 Sq.Yards to the remaining sons i.e., 2nd son Ramana

Rao, 4th son and 5th son each 40 Sq.yards equally divided. The in-laws of the complainant constructed houses each to Tirumala Rao and Giri i.e.,Accused No.1 and 3 herein in their respective sites. But to the complainant not constructed house to her family because she is employee and asked her to construct house herself. Whereas to the 3rd son Srinu of the in-laws of the complainant was given the job of the complainant’s mother-in-law to him for his livelihood. This is the settled by the in-laws of the complainant.

It is further submitted that, when the complainant intends to construct a house in her site i.e., an extent of 40 Sq.yards., her the brothers-in law i.e., Bhupathi Tirumala Rao and Giri have not interested and they picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused her in foul and filthy language and threatened her if she intends to construct a house in her site, they will kill her. On that, the complainant kept the matter before her caste elders and pacified and asked the accused No.1 and 3 not to obstruct her to construct a house in her site. The accused No.1 and 3 agreed for the same and assured. Further,

Bhupathi Giri i.e., accused No.3 herein and his family members borrowed a sum of

Rs.3.00,000/- from the complainant for the medical expenses of the wife Giri when the complainant asked them, they failed to discharge and postponing the same.

While so, on 05.05.2017, morning at 11.30 when the complainant and her younger son by name Bhupathi Naresh went to their site along with Tapi worker to take measurements to construct a house therein, but the accused No.1 Tirumala Rao, 3rd accused/Giri and their wives and their children abused the complainant and her son in filthy language and the accused No.1 and 3 and their sons and one Vaddadi Bhuvana i.e., accused No.5 all of sudden attached the complainant and hold her hair and bet on her face and dragged her saree and tore it and behaved indecently abused her and put their hands on the private parts of the complainant and outraged her modesty and dignity forcibly by proclaiming, “NUVVU INKO MOGUDINI CHESUKUNTE NEEKU STALAM

ISTARU” by saying and fell down the 2nd son of the complainant by name Naresh on the floor and beat him with their legs and threatened the complainant and her sons that the site belongs to them, if the complainant and her sons come to the site, hey will kill them and when the complainant asked the debt amount of Rs.3,00,000/- then the accused

No.3 and his family members threatened the complainant and her sons if they asked the money, they will kill them and necked out the complainant and her sons illegally and high handedly. The neighbours gathered here for the shouting of the complainant, when the neighbnours gathered, then the accused left the place and went away to their house.

The complainant along with elders questioned the accused about their illegal acts and the elders asked the accused to allow the complainant and her sons to their site.

But, the accused grew wild and have not listened the elders words and threatened the complainant and her sons with dire consequences. The complainant apprehending danger, she approached the II town police station on the same day i.e., 05.05.2017 and given a complaint against the accused No.1 to 10. But the police did not register as they were influenced by the accused and did not take any action against the accused. So, the complainant came to court for action against the accused for punishment for the offences committed by them Under Secs.323, 354, 506 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Basing on the complaint of PW.1, this court took the cognizance for the offences 323, 354, 506 r/w 34 against A1, A3, A6 to A10 and for the offence U/s.323, 506 r/w 34 against A2 and A5 and issued notices to the accused persons. During the enquiry the A4 died so the case against A4 is abated.

4.On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of all documents have been furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the allegation against them. The charges 323, 354, 506 r/w 34 against A1, A3, A6 to A10 and for the offence U/s.323, 506 r/w 34 against A2 and A5 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the complainant examined herself ad PW1 and got marked

ExP1. After giving ample opportunity the complainant failed to produce LW.2/Bhupathi

Naresh. So this court after giving ample opportunity to the complainant the evidence of

LW.2/Bhupathi Naresh is closed.

7.After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating material appearing against him from the testimony of the complainant, they denied the same reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence closed.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved guilty of Accused 323, 354, 506 r/w 34 against A1, A3, A6 to A10 and for the offence U/s.323, 506 r/w 34 against A2 and A5 b eyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

During enquiry the complainant examined herself as PW.1 and marked

Ex.P1. The PW.1 is the defacto complainant deposed that Her in-laws blessed with 5 sons and 2 daughters. During the life time of her mother- in-law one of her son Bhupati Srinu got her job in Municipality. During the life time of her father-in-law one house was allotted to one son Bhupathi

Thatham. Her mother-in-law gifted 40 sq. yards to her as she had the job in

Municipality and constructed houses in 40 sq. yards each to the A1 and A3 (sons). On 05.05.2017 at about 11.00 AM she went to her site to construct the house in 40 sq. yards at that time A1 and 10 members obstructed her to construct the house in 40 sq. yards stating that she has no right to construct the house as her husband died. When she placed the matter before the elders, the elders advised the above said persons to give the said extent to her but the A1 did not allow her to construct the house and threatended her with dire consequences stating that they will stab her if she constructs the house in the said site. Then she went to the police station and gave report, at that time, police called the accused to the police station but the accused agreed advice of police, since the accused agreed, the police did not register the case, thereafter they did not permit her to construct the house in her site.

Even after repeated requests made by her the accused not permitted her to construct the house in her site. Then she approached the advocate and filed complaint before the court as in Ex.P1.

11.On perusal of entire evidence and material available on record, except the evidence of P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant seems to be interested witness. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 shall be scrutinized in careful circumspect in order to find whether her evidence is sufficient, cogent and conveniencing to implicate the accused in this offence.

12.The allegations against accused are that they outraged the modesty of P.W.1 as accused misbehaved with her and abused her and her son in filthy language, the A1 and A3 and their wives and sons and one

Bhuvana/A5 all of a sudden attacked her hold her hair beat on her face and dragged her saree and tore it and behaved indecently and abused her and put their hands on the private parts of the complainant and outraged her modesty and dignity forcibly by proclaiming Nuvvu Inko Mogudini Chesukunta

Neeku Stalam Istaaru by saying and fell down the 2nd son of the complainant by name Naresh on the floor and beat him with their legs and threatended her and her sons that the site belongs to them and also saying that if the complainant and her sons come to the site they will kill them and when the complainant asked the debt amount 3,lakhs then the A3 and his family members threatended her and her sons and necked out them illegally and high handedly.

13.The origin for dispute is that the in-laws of the complainant having 5 sons and two daughters. The elder son is Tatamu. Second son is the husband of the complainant by name Ramana Rao, the elderson Tatamu was given a site in the hill area of Wynchipet by his parents. The in-laws of the complainant given a site of 120 Sq.Yards to the remaining sons i.e., 2nd son

Ramanarao, 4th son and 5th son each 40 Sq. yards equally divided by the in- laws of the complainant, and constructed houses each to Tirumalarao and

Giri i.e., A1 and A3 in their respective sites but to the complainant not constructed house to her family because she is employee and asked her to construct house herself. Whereas to the 3rd son Srinu of the inlaws of the complainant was given the job of the complainants mother in law to him for his lively hood this is settled by the inlaws of the complainant. On 05.05.2017 at 11.00 AM when the complainant her younger son by name

Bhupati Naresh went to their site along with their mason to take measurements to construct a house therein but the A1 and A3 and their wives and children abused them as mentioned above.

14.In order to connect the offence U/Sec.354 of IPC, there must be a intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of women or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. In this case, there is no intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of

P.W.1. Even, if it is otherwise considered if any incident have taken place, in the said scuffle A1 & A3 might have pushed P.W.1, but it does not construe that A1 & A3 got such intention at the time of incident.

In view of the circumstances of the case, it does not ruled out that P.W.1 filed this case only in order to force the accused so as to get the 40

Sq.Yards of site from them. However, the defacto complainant did not file any evidence/or document with regard to her mother-in-law gave 40 Sq.yards site to her and got constructed the houses A1 and A3, though the P.W.1 stated that there was some evidence i.e., the document was in her name, after giving ample opportunity PW.1 not filed the said document before this court. Moreover the evidence of PW.1 is silent that the accused misbehaved with her by outraged her modesty, abused and beat her.

In these circumstances, unless supported the evidence of P.Ws.1 by independent witnesses, the evidence of P.Ws.1 is alone not sufficient and cogent to implicate the accused in this offence. But the complainant did not choose to examine other witnesses. i.e., her younger son by name Bhupati

Naresh and Mason. Though the court closed the evidence of those witnesses, if their evidence is really assumes important, there is no legal impedement

for the complainant to seek recall of the evidence of those witnesses

U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C., but the complainant did not choose to do so. However, the complainant filed the petition U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C. only on the date of judgment and the same was returned by this court. Therefore, her evidence does not give much impact on this case. The PW1 failed to prove the allegations made against accused.

15.One of the contention of the counsel for accused is that the complainant is not the wife of brother of A1 to harass the accused, the complainant falsely implicated them and they are no way concerned in this case and never committed any offence as stated by the complainant. To prove the said fact the learned counsel for accused elicited in the cross examination, where, PW1 admitted that she is having two children by name

Naresh and Madhulatha, she cannot say the date and year of birth of her children, prior to her marriage with Ramanarao she already married with one jammi Venkateswararao @ Bujji residing at Siripur at Khagaznagar, Telangan

State, the jammi Venkateswararao @ Bujji is Railway employee she did not obtain any divorce from jammi Venkateswararao @ Bujji. Apart from she added that her marriage with jammi Venkateswararao @ Bujji, she come down to her parents house within six months. She further admitted that there are documents to show that her marriage with Ramana Rao. She further admitted that she did not file any document to show that her marriage with Ramanarao she further admitted that she is having document to show that her mother in law gifted 40 Sq.Yards to her she can file the documents which was gifted by her mother in law before the court. Except this case she did not file any civil case with regard to 40 Sq.Yards. So, as seen from the above admission made by PW.1 there is no document to prove she is the wife of Ramanarao and her mother in law gifted 40 Sq.Yards to her. If the PW1 is having any documents as deposed by her with regard to her marriage and the property she can approach the proper forum. And get the relief. In this case except her evidence the PW1 failed to examine even her younger son. Since there is animosity between the parties, the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to come to conclusion the accused committed the offence as deposed by her. So there is force in the contention of the counsel

for accused.

16. The counsel for accused further contended that the PW1 never placed the matter before the elders, the elders never advised the accused to give the said extent to her the accused never threatended the PW.1 she falsely implicated all the accused in this case.

To prove the said contention, the PW.1 admitted that there is no document reduced into writing in the presence of elders when she placed the matter before the elders. She further admitted that she filed the case against the accused since they tried to interfere in an extent of 40 Sq.yards of site. She further admitted that Bhupati Ramanarao underwent sentence from 1983 to 2002. As seen from the above evidence there is no document to show that the complainant is having 40 Sq.Yards of site. When the accused tried to interfere the defacto complainant filed the complaint. So if the PW.1 is having right over 40 Sq.Yards she is at liberty to approach the Civil Court but not to approach the Criminal Court. The learned counsel gave a suggestion to her if she files civil case the truth will come out so she did not file civil case and filed the criminal case to harass the accused. So there is a force in the contention of the counsel for complainant.

17. One of the allegation of the complainant is that the A3 indebted 3,00,000/- for his wives medical expenses when she asked the amount the accused beat her. The evidence of PW1 is silent in this aspect so the allegation made by defacto complainant not proved

18.In the light of above observations, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19.In the result, the accused A1, A3, A6 to A10 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section323, 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC and A2 and A5 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.323, 506 r/w 34 and they are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of June, 2023.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

PW1:14.03.2023 Bhupati Ramanamma -- NIL--

Documents marked

For Complainant : For Defence :

Ex.P1: Complaint . -- NIL--

Material Objects

--Nil--

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.865/2020

01. Date of Offence : 05.05.2017

02. Date of complaint or report : 05.05.2017

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 06.06.2017 04.Date of apprehension of Accused : --

05. Date of release on bail : --

06. Date of commencement of trial : 14.03.2023

07. Date of close of trial : 14.03.2023

08. Date of sentence or Order : 20.06.2023 09.Name of the Complainant: Bhupathi Ramanamma, W/o.late Ramana Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o. D.No.8-8-27, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

10. Name of the Accused :

1. Bhupathi Tirumala Rao, S/o.Simhachalam @ Byragi, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

2. Bhupathi Srivalli, W/o.Tirumala Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

3. Bhupati Giri @ Venkata Giri, S/o.Simhachalam @ Byragi, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No. 8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.

4. Bhupathi Vijaya,W/o. Bhupathi Giri @ Venkata Giri, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada. Died (abated)

5. Vaddadi Bhuvana, S/o.Naga Raju, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o.5-6-30/13, VMC Colony, Near Cholera Hospital, Chittinagar, Vijayawada-9.

6. Bhupathi Abhilash, S/o.Tirumala rao, Hindu, aged about 24 years, resident of D.No.8- 29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

7. Bhupathi Chaitanya, S/o.Tirumala Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, resident of D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

8. Bhupathi Ajay, S/o.Tirumala Rao, Hindu, aged about 22 years, resident of D.No.8- 29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

9. Bhupathi Akhil, S/o.Giri @ Venkata Giri, Hindu, aged about 20 years, resident of D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

10. Bhupathi Uday, S/o.Giri @ Venkata Giri, Hindu, aged about 19 years, resident of D.No.8-29/2, Ramalayam Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.1.

11. OFFENCE:under sections 341, 323, 506, 509 IPC

12. FINDING: the accused A1, A3, A6 to A10 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section323, 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC and A2 and A5 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.323, 506 r/w 34.

13. RESULT:In the result, the accused A1, A3, A6 to A10 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section323, 354, 506 r/w 34 IPC and A2 and A5 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.323, 506 r/w 34 and they are acquitted for the said offence U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

14. Explanation for delay:This case was taken on file under sections 341, 323, 506, 509 IPC on 09.11.2017. Accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., on 15.12.2022. Pw.1 was examined on 14.03.2023 and Ex.P.1 marked. . On 07.06.2023 accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 14.06.2023 heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused and Judgment pronounced on 20.06.2023. Hence, the delay.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Ch. Sunandamma,

II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrsate-

Cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 19 th day of June, 2023 C.C.No.42/2019

Between :

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant

And

1. Patnala Chakradhar, S/o.JaggaRao, 38 yrs., Vysya, 41-16-27, Katuri vari Street, Nalla gate down, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

2. Patnala Venkata Satyavathi, W/o. Chakradhar, 35 yrs., Vysya, D. No.41-16-27, Katuri vari Street, Nalla gate down, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

3.Patnala Murali Krishna, S/o.Jagga Rao, 48 yrs., Vysya, Venkaiah house, Opp. Krishna Chaitanya school, Gunturi vari Street, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. …. Accused * * * This case is coming on 19.06.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. R. Geetha, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri.M. Koti Nagaiah, learned Advocate for Accused and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, KrishnalankaPolice Station, Vijayawada city has filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.816/2018 for the offences punishable under sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in short is that:

The Sub inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada City, The

PW.1 is eking her livelihood by running SDV cable works, at beside Sankara Matham,

Krishnalanka, Previously in veiw of disputed raised in between both Chakradhar (A1)

Easwar, then the PW.1. At the time of adjusting of the office of the PW.1, for which the said letter was missed. In this connection the said Chakravarthi i.e., A.1 in this case came to the office of the PW.1, two or three times, when asked about the said letter, then also the PW.1, searched about the said letter before him, also then informed that the said letter was missed. Even after the said Chakravarthi disputed with the PW.1.

On 11.12.2018 at 20.30 hrs time, while the PW.1 is available at her Cable office, then the accused A.1 to A.3 criminally trespassed into her office, then mis-behaved towards her, also abused her in filthy language about the letter that was prepared at the time of compromise in view of previous disputes. In this connection, the PW.1 again and again verified her office, also search about the compromise letter. Even eventhough the PW.1, tried to explain about the situation about non tracing out of the said compromise letter, but the accused A.1 to A3, were not heard her words, for which the

PW.1, after handover of her office to the office staff i.e., LW.2/V. Durgasri, then left her office. While the PW.1 is proceeding to outside on her Activa vehicle, at that time the said accused A.1 to A.3, then wrongfully restrained the PW.1, also questioned about the said compromise letter, then also abused her in filthy language. When the PW.1 informed to the accused, that she will phoned to the Police for which the said accused made good of escape. There is no other go to the PW.1 came to Krishnalanka P.S. and given a report etc.

On receipt of the report from the PW.1, the LW.6/V. Janaki Ramayya, Sub

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.816/2018 U/s.448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC at

Krishnalanka P.S. on 11.12.2018 at 20.30 hrs and the case has been investigated into.

During the course of investigation LW.6/V. Janaki Ramayya, Sub Inspector of

Police, who registered the case visited the scene of offence observed the same examined as many as 5 witnesses in all and recorded their detailed statements in part-II of the case diary.

During the course of further investigation the LW.6/ V. Janaki Ramayya, Sub

Inspector of Police served Police Notice u/s 41(A)(ii) Cr.P.C. on the accused A1 to A3 under acknowledgment and also filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offenceunder sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34

IPC against the Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of all documents have been furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the allegation against them. The charges under sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC against

Accused were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined PW1/Nimmala Jyothi got marked

ExP1 and ExP2. The learned APP has given up LW2/V. Durgasri, LW3/B.Anjani Ravi

Kumar, LW4/M. Venkateswara Rao, LW.5/A. Srinivas, LW.6/V. Janaki Ramayya Sub-

Inspector of police, as PW1 turned hostile and compromised out of court.

7.As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination Under Section 313 (b) Cr.P.C. dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved guilty of Accused under sections

448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC b eyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and marked ExP1 and P2 respectively.

11. Prosecution firstly examined PW1/N. Jyothi deposed that at about five years back, some altercations took place between her and the some unknown offenders, then she went to the police station, the police obtained her signature on blank papers. Witness identified her signature on the report dt.12.12.2018. Police never examined her.

12. APP declared PW1 as hostile witness in the cross-examination, the learned APP could not elicit any incriminating material except marking statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. as in ExP2 respectively.

13.The material witness, i.e., victim PW1 had not spoken about the accused A1 to A3 criminally trespass into her office and misbehaved towards her and also abused her in filthy language about the letter that was prepared at the time of compromise in view of previous disputes. The prosecution has given up the evidence of

LW2/V. Durgasri, LW3/B.Anjani Ravi Kumar, LW4/M. Venkateswara Rao, LW.5/A.

Srinivas, LW.6/V. Janaki Ramayya Sub-Inspector of police, as PW1 turned hostile and compromised out of court.

14.So except the evidence of PW1 there is no other material available on record to prove its case against Accusedand the evidence of PW1 does not disclose any allegations against Accusedto attract the offence under sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC Therefore, I hold that Accused entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

15. IN THE RESULT, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P. The bail bonds of Accused as well as their sureties shall be in- force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of June, 2023.

Sd/- Ch.Sunandamma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

PW1: N. Jyothi, NIL

Documents marked

For Complainant : For Defence :

ExP1: Signature of PW1 on report dt.12.12.2018 NIL ExP2: 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW1.

Material Objects

Nil

Sd/- Ch.Sunandamma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

// True Copy //

II ACMM, VJA

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

– CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.42/2019

01. Date of Offence : 12.12.2018

02. Date of complaint or report : 12.12.2018

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 03.01.2019 04.Date of apprehension of Accused : 19.12.2018

05. Date of release on bail: 19.12.2018

06. Date of commencement of trial : 31.05.2023

07. Date of close of trial: 31.05.2023

08. Date of sentence or Order : 19.06.2023

9. Name of the Complainant:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada City.

10. Name of the Accused :

1. Patnala Chakradhar, S/o.JaggaRao, 38 yrs., Vysya, 41-16-27, Katuri vari Street, Nalla gate down, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

2. Patnala Venkata Satyavathi, W/o. Chakradhar, 35 yrs., Vysya, D. No.41-16-27, Katuri vari Street, Nalla gate down, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

3.Patnala Murali Krishna, S/o.Jagga Rao, 48 yrs., Vysya, Venkaiah house, Opp. Krishna Chaitanya school, Gunturi vari Street, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

11. OFFENCE: under sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC

12. FINDING: Accused found not guilty.

13. RESULT: IN THE RESULT, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448, 341, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P. The bail bonds of Accused as well as their sureties shall be in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

14. Explanation for delay: Cognizance was taken on file on 05.01.2019. On 30.09.2019 case copies furnished to accused and accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2021. PW.1 was examined on 31.05.2023 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked on 19.06.2023 prosecution evidence closed. Since no incriminating circumstances appearing against accused, U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination of accused dispensed with. Arguments heard on 19.06.2023. Judgment pronounced on 19.06.2023. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Ch.Sunandamma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

II ACMM, VJA

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Ch. Sunandamma,

II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrsate-

Cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 19 th day of June, 2023 C.C.No. 1024 /2018

Between :

The State represented by the Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant

And

1. Mandela Suresh, S/o.Narassaiah, Age 39 yrs., C/Madiga, Old Harijanawada, Water Tank, Atkuru village, Unguturu Mandal.

2. Mandela Narassaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, Age 62 yrs., C/Madiga, Old Harijanawada, Water Tank, Atkuru village, Unguturu Mandal. …. Accused * * *

This case is coming on 15.06.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. R. Geetha, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. Ch. Raj Kumar, learned Advocate for Accused and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station, Vijayawada city has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.80/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 326 r/w 109 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in short is that:

The Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station, Vijayawada City filed charge sheet that LW.1/Mandela Mercy is the injured complainant and she is residing at Atkuru near Petrol Bunk and working as nurse in Doctor Ramesh Hospital Vijayawda. Her husband A1 is working as lorry driver. A1 Suresh married her about 16 years back. They were blessed with one son and daughter. Since the time of marriage her husband A1 used to harass her both physically and mentally. On that, for some days she went to her mother’s house at Vijayawada. It was kept before elders and they used to chastise her husband A1 In the month of February 2017 her husband A1 beat her and sent her to her parents house at Poornanandampet Vijayawada. She gave report in SN Puram PS elders gave counseling and sent her along with her husband to Atkuru her husband A1 used to harass her at the instigation of her father in law A2. Last month i.e., in the month of May her husband came to her mother house, gave assurance that he would look after her well and brought her to Atkuru. Her father in law A2 used to say that as to why she was again brought to the house. On 26.05.2017 at 2 PM in the house of accused at

Atkuru with the abetment of her father in law A2 her husband A1 abused her and caught hold of her tuft of hair and brought her to outside and beat her with stick on left hand since she gave Police report. She sustained fracture to left hand. Lws 4 and 5/P.Joji, S.

Pedda Subbarao witnessed the same and rescued her. She went to Government hospital Gannavaram and for better treatment she went to city orthopedic centre,

Vijayawada on 03.06.2017 at 07.30 PM.

On receipt of information LW.9/J.B.V. Rao HC 1142 visited city Orthopaedic hospital Vijayawada on 03.06.2017 and recorded her statement and sent the same to

Unguturu P.S., on point of jurisdiction LW.10/Sk. Karimulla ASI 251 registered the statement of LW.1/M. Mercy as FIR in Cr. No.80/2017 U/s.498 (A), 326 and 109 IPC. On 06.06.2017 at 20.00 hrs. He submitted original FIR to the court and copies to all concerned including to the complainant. LW.10/Sk. Karimulla ASI 251 secured the presence of Lws 1 to 5M. Mercy, Chilk Vijaykumari, Chilaka Anand Kumar, P. Joji, S.

Pedda Subbarao examined them and recorded their statements in detail in part II of the

CD he observed the scene before the mediators under cover of mediators report and no incriminating material (crime weapon) was found at the scene of offence. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

On 16.06.2017 at 12.00 hrs on information LW.10/Sk. Karimulla ASI 251 reached

Atkuru village and found the accused (A1 & A2) present. He arrested the accused and produced before the Hon’ble court for remand and completion of the investigation she filed charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offenceunder sections 498-A, 326 r/w 109

IPC against the Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of all documents have been furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the allegation against them. The charges under sections 498-A, 326 r/w 109 IPC against accused was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution failed to produce witnesses after repeated adjournments it shows the prosecution has no interest to proceed further hence the evidence of prosecution witnesses LWs 1 to 4/Mandela Mercy, Chilk Vijaykumari,

Chilaka Anand Kumar, P. Joji, LW.5 to 11/ S. Pedda Subbarao, D. Sridhar, C. China,

Dr.Rajendra Pidikiti, J.B.V. Rao HC 1142 SK. Karimulla ASI 251, Subrahmanyam, Sub

Inspector of Police.

7. Since there is no evidence from the prosecution witnesses the examination Under Section 313 (b) Cr.P.C not arise.

8. Heard.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of Accused under sections 498-A , 326 r/w 109 IPC b eyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. To prove its case, the prosecution failed to examine any of the witnesses as cited in the charge sheet. Hence the evidence of prosecution witnesses closed.

So, no allegations against accused provedto attract the offence under sections 498-A 326 r/w 109 IPC.Therefore, I hold that accused entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11. IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A , 326 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused as well as his sureties shall be in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of June, 2023.

Sd/- Ch.Sunandamma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant :For Defence :

--NIL-- --NIL--

Documents marked

For Complainant : For Defence :

--Nil-- --NIL--

Material Objects

Nil

Sd/- Ch.Sunandamma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE– CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

// True Copy //

II ACMM, VJA

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.1024/2018

01. Date of Offence : 06.06.2017

02. Date of complaint or report : 06.06.2017

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 02.08.2017 04.Date of apprehension of Accused : 16.06.2017

05. Date of release on bail : 16.06.2017

06. Date of commencement of trial : --

07. Date of close of trial : --

08. Date of sentence or Order : 19.06.2023 9.Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station, Vijayawada City.

10. Name of the Accused :

1. Mandela Suresh, S/o.Narassaiah, Age 39 yrs., C/Madiga, Old Harijanawada, Water Tank, Atkuru village, Unguturu Mandal.

2. Mandela Narassaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, Age 62 yrs., C/Madiga, Old Harijanawada, Water Tank, Atkuru village, Unguturu Mandal.

11. OFFENCE: under sections 498-A 326 r/w 109 IPC.

12. FINDING: Accused found not guilty.

13. RESULT: IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A 326 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused as well as his sureties shall be in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

14. Explanation for delay:This case was taken on file on 21.02.2018. On 02.08.2018 copies of documents were furnished to the accused. Accused were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., on 20.07.2022. On 15.06.2023 heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused and Judgment pronounced on 19.06.2023. Hence, the delay.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Ch. Sunandamma,

II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrsate-

Cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 20 th day of June, 2023 C.C.No.485/2015 Between : The State Sub Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant

And

Bugata Sankararao, S/o.Durgarao, 30 years, Caste by Nagavamseekulu, Kondavalasa village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandalam, Srikakulam District. …. Accused * * * This case is coming on 20.06.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. R. Geetha, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. SK. Rahiman learned Advocate for Accused and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada city has filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 119/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in short is that:

The Sub inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City filed charge sheet stating that P.W.1/Bugata Alivelu Manga is residing opposite to Ricemill street, Buddavaram road, D. No.3-130/1, Gannavaram village Mandalam at her parents house. Accused is her husband and their marriage was occurred on 18.05.2016 and at time of marriage, PW.1’s parents given an amount of Rs.3 lakhs towards dowry together with 3 tulas gold ornaments and sent to her in laws to run the marital life. For some days she was looked by the in-law very well and when she became pregnant she was harassing by the accused both mentally and physically and demanded her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh and also suspecting her fidelity. When he matter was put

before the elders but in vain. As she other go on 15.03.2014 at 09.00 hours the

complainant came to Gannavaram P.S., presented report regarding the harassment of husband and in-laws and in this connection, LW.7/K. Rama Swamy, HC 88 registered it as Fir in Cr.No.119/2014 u/s 498(A) IPC and took up investigation in this case as the in charge of the P.S.

During the course of investigation, on 15.03.2014, LW.7/ K. Rama Swamy, HC 88 secured the presence of witnesses 1 to 4 and recorded their statements.

During the course of further investigation, 06.05.2014 at 11.30 hours at RTC bus stand, Gannavaram the accused was arrested by LW.8/M. Shariff, Sub Inspector of

Police in this case and he was sent for judicial custody.

On 20.09.2014 LW.9/P. Satya Srinivas, Sub Inspector of Police secured the presence of LW.5 and 6R. Latchimi Naidu, B. Ramarao and recorded their statements separately.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offenceunder sections 498-A of IPC against the Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of all documents have been furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C explaining the allegation against him. The charges under sections 498-A of IPC against Accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he was pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 got marked ExP1 and ExP2.

The learned APP has given up LW2/V. Polinaidu, LW3/S. Ratna Kumari, LW4/K. Moses,

LW.5/R. Latchimi Naidu, L.W6/B. Rama Rao, L.W.7/K. Ramaswamy, LW.8/M. Shariff

LW.9/P. Satya Srinivas, Sub Inspector of Police as PW1 turned hostile and compromised out of court and living together.

7.As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination Under Section 313 (b) Cr.P.C. dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point of determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved guilty of Accused under section 498-

A of IPC b eyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and marked ExP1 and P2.

11. Prosecution firstly examined PW1/B. Alivelu Mangamma, who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage was performed with accused on 18.05.2006 at Rajam Konda Valasa village, Srikakulam District. Due to petty disputes between her and accused she went to Police station where police obtained her signature on some blank papers witness identified her signature on the report dt.15.03.2014 as in Ex.P1 police never examined her.

12. APP declared PW1 as hostile witness in the cross- examination, the learned APP could not elicit any incriminating material except marking statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. as in ExP1 and P2.

13.The material witness, i.e., victim PW1 had not spoken about any harassment, in connection with dowry or additional dowry made by Accused. She has not spoken about any harassment, which attracts the definition of cruelty as mentioned under sections498-A of IPC. The prosecution has given up the evidence of by LW2/V.

Polinaidu, LW3/S. Ratna Kumari, LW4/K. Moses, LW.5/R. Latchimi Naidu, L.W6/B.

Rama Rao, L.W.7/K. Ramaswamy, LW.8/M. Shariff LW.9/P. Satya Srinivas, Sub

Inspector of Police as PW1 turned hostile and compromised out of court and living together.

14.So except the evidence of PW1 there is no other material available on record to prove its case against Accusedand the evidence of PW1 does not disclose any allegations against Accusedto attract the offence under sections 498-A of IPC.

Therefore, I hold that Accused entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

15. IN THE RESULT, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of IPC. and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused as well as his sureties shall be in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C and the accused shall set at liberty.

The Superintendent of Sub-Jail is hereby directed to release him forth-with if he is required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of June, 2023.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

PW1:B. Alivelu Mangamma, NIL

Documents marked

For Complainant : For Defence :

ExP1: Signature of PW1 on report dt.15.03.2014 NIL ExP2:161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW1.

Material Objects

Nil

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE–

CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

– CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.485/2015

01. Date of Offence : 15.03.2014

02. Date of complaint or report : 15.03.2014

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 16.03.2018

04. Date of apprehension of Accused : 15.03.2014

05. Date of release on bail: 15.05.2015

06. Date of commencement of trial : 20.06.2023

07. Date of close of trial: 20.06.2023

08. Date of sentence or Order : 20.06.2023

09. Name of the Complainant:

The State Sub Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City.

10. Name of the Accused :

Bugata Sankararao, S/o.Durgarao, 30 years, Caste by Nagavamseekulu, Kondavalasa village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

11. OFFENCE: Under section 498-A of IPC

12. FINDING: Accused found not guilty

13. RESULT: IN THE RESULT, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of IPC. and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused as well as his sureties shall be in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C and the accused shall set at liberty.

14. Explanation for delay: Cognizance was taken on file on 13.08.2015. On 04.09.2017 case copies furnished to accused. On 05.06.2023 accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. On 20.06.2023 PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. Arguments heard on 20.06.2023. Judgment

pronounced on 020.06.2023. Hence the delay.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.