Sri Challa Pavan Kumar, Ll.b.,

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LL.B., II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali

Friday, this the 15th day of September, 2016

D.V.C.18 /2013

Between:

Nalluri Siva Parvathi W/o Venkata Gopi, 20 years, Hindu, House Wife, under parents protection, D/o Modukuru Sambasiva Rao, R/o Moparru Village, Amarthaluru Mandal.… Petitioner

and

1. Nalluru Venkata Gopi S/o Late Ramaiah, 23 years,

2. Adhanki Sambrajyam W/o Arunachalam, 43 years,

3. Adhanki Arunachalam S/o Koteswara Rao, 50 years, All are Hindu, R/o Sivalayam Street, Purushothampatnam, Chilakaluripet. … Respondents

This case is coming on 01-09-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Vijaykumar, Advocate for petitioner and Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for 1st respondent, respondents 2 and 3 were set exparte and upon hearing on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'P.W.D.V. Act') by the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 3 seeking protection orders U/Sec.18, residence orders U/Sec.19, monetary orders i.e. maintenance and return of amount towards damage of stridhan U/Sec.20 and for compensation U/Sec.22 of P.W.D.V. Act.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows: The 1st respondent is the husband of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are step parents of 1st respondent. The marriage of the petitioner was performed with the 1st respondent on 30-11-2011 at Purushothampatnam, Chilakaluripet as per Hindu Religious rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.3,00,000/- towards pasupu-kunkuma besides presenting gold chain and gold ring. The said amount was handed over to the respondents in the presence of Nalluri Srinivasa Rao, Yalavarthi Sambasiva Rao and others for augmentation. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent to lead marital life and at that time the parents of the petitioner gave house hold articles worth of Rs.40,000/-. That the petitioner and 1st respondent lived amicable only for two months. That the 1st respondent even prior to the marriage is addicted to vices like consuming alcohol, gambling and debauchery and concealing the same, the marriage was performed. The 1st respondent used to go home in drunken state late in the night and used to quarrel with the petitioner on petty issues and used 2 to beat her. The 2nd and 3rd respondents used to do back biting against the petitioner and instigate the 1st respondent to beat her. That the respondents have misappropriated the pasupu-kunkuma amount and gold ornaments given to the petitioner. That the 1st respondent harassed the petitioner physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from her parents house and he used to beat her and hurt her with burning cigarette in private parts and confined her in the house without providing proper food. That the respondents further made attempts to kill the petitioner. That on 22-10-2012 the respondents necked out the petitioner with a demand to bring cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. That the petitioner went to her parents house and informed the same to her parents and that on 24-10-2012 the petitioner along with her parents and elders went to the respondents house and requested them to take back the petitioner, but the respondents threatened them to give the demanded amount or to give divorce. That later, the petitioner gave report at Amarthaluru police station and case was registered by the police. Thus, prayed to grant the reliefs.

3.The case was taken on file and notices were issued to respondents 1 to 3. Upon receiving notice, 1st respondent was present and the notice of respondents 2 and 3 returned with endorsement that they are continuously absent at the house. Notice of respondents 2 and 3 held to be sufficient as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act. Consequently, respondents 2 and 3 are set exparte. The 1st respondent filed counter admitting the marital relationship with the petitioner, but denying the averments of the petition. It is further submitted that the mother of the petitioner is maternal aunt to the 1st respondent, as such, he has married the petitioner without taking dowry or other paraphernalia. It is further submitted that either the petitioner or her mother have no capacity to give cash of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further submitted that as on the date of marriage, the age of 1st respondent is only 18 years, as such, the marriage is void. It is further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 are distant relatives of the 1st respondent and there are disputes between them, as such, there are no talking terms between them. It is further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents never resided with the 1st respondent. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent and petitioner never resided in Chilakaluripet and that the petitioner filed false cases against the 1st respondent as well as him. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent is resident of Nagaralu of Guntur. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is ill literate, as such, the petitioner has no such interest to lead the marital life with the respondent and that the petitioner resided with the respondent only for one month. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW.1 and examined two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. On 3 behalf of respondents, the 1st respondent himself examined as RW.1 and examined two other witnesses as RWs.2 and 3. No documents are marked on either side.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and that of respondents.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is subjected to Domestic Violence by respondent, if so whether she is entitled for reliefs U/Sec.18, 19, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence Act?

POINT:-

7.The petitioner to become entitled for the reliefs under the PWDV Act has to prove that she was subjected to “Domestic violence” as defined under Sec.3 of the PWDV Act. To prove the same the petitioner has to establish that when she along with the respondents resided in the shared house hold she was subjected to harassment by the respondents in any of the ways covered under the definition of “Domestic Violence”.

8.As per the petitioner, the respondents harassed her to bring additional dowry amount from her parents house and with the said demand they have necked her out the house. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and one Yalavarthi Sambasiva Rao as PW.2 and Nalluri Srinivasa Rao as PW.3.

9.On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the petitioner voluntarily left him as she is not interested in leading the marital life with him and that the petitioner and the 1st respondent never resided in Chilakaluripet and that the petitioner has filed cases with false facts. The respondent to substantiate his case has examined himself as RW.1 and examined one Pusuluri Naga Raju as RW.2 and one Manipalli Venkateswarlu as RW.3.

10.PWs.1 to 3 filed their chief affidavits reiterating the material averments of the petition. On the other hand, RW.1 filed chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the counter and RWs.2 and 3 to prove that nothing was given at the time of the marriage and that the petitioner and 1st respondent never resided in Chilakaluripet and that the petitioner resided only with the 1st respondent. Further that the 1st respondent is not having any bad habits and that when they along with the elders made efforts to set right the marital life of the petitioner and 1st respondent, the petitioner and her mother have not accepted for the same. As per the petitioner she joined the 1st respondent to lead marital life at Chilakaluripet immediately after the marriage. Further, as per the petitioner she was necked out by the respondents on 24-10-2012. Thus, as per the petitioner, she resided along 4 with 1st respondent in Chilakaluripet for about 11 months. In the cross- examination of PW.1 she deposed that herself and 1st respondent resided in Chilakaluripet for two months. In the cross-examination of PW.2 he deposed that he do not know for how long the petitioner and respondent living together after marriage. PW.3 in his cross-examination deposed that he cannot say the period between which the petitioner and 1strespondent resided together in Chilakaluripet. He further deposed that for about four or five months petitioner and 1st respondent have lead marital life. Thus, from the above evidence of witnesses there is inconsistency and discrepancy with regard to period of stay of the petitioner with the 1st respondent. In the cross-examination of PW.1 she deposed that at the 1st instance when she gave report at Amarthaluru Police Station, the matter was settled at the Police Station and after compromise at the Police Station they lived for some days in Moparru and later she was taken to Guntur and that for one month they resided in Guntur. PW.3 in his cross- examination deposed that the 1st respondent resided in his in-laws house for some days after settlement by the police. Thus, for the first time in the cross- examination of PWs.1 and 3 they deposed that the 1st respondent stayed at the parents house of petitioner for some time. The said aspect neither find place in the petition nor in the chief affidavit of PWs.1 and 3. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached this court with complete facts.

11.On the other hand, RWs.1 to 3 categorically deposed that the petitioner and 1st respondent never resided in Chilakaluripet and they have lead marital life only in Guntur and that too for a period of one month only. The petitioner is studied up to intermediate and the 1st respondent is ill literate. Therefore, the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner is not interested in leading marital life with the 1st respondent as he is ill literate cannot be ignored. PW.2 in his cross- examination deposed that he used to stay at Hyderabad while he worked in Hyderabad from 2003 to 2012. He further deposed that the father of petitioner used to have land which was sold for the purpose of marriage and that he do not know the particulars and extent of land sold for the purpose of marriage. It is for the first time in the cross-examination of PW.2 it was put forth that the amount given at the time of marriage was served by selling the land of the father of the petitioner. The said aspect does not find place in the petition or in the chief affidavits of PWs.1 to 3. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 cannot be of much help to the petitioner with regard to the harassment meted out by the respondent against the petitioner. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are neighbours of the marital home of the petitioner and 1st respondent is well in support of the case of the 1st respondent and nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3 in support of the petitioner's case. The petitioner has failed to show the existence of domestic relationship between the 5 petitioner and 2nd and 3rd respondents and further the petitioner has failed to put forth convincing evidence to show that the 1st respondent has subjected her to domestic violence as defined under Sec.3 of PWDV Act. In view of the discussion in the fore going paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed by her under PWDV Act. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioner :For respondents :

P.W.1 : Nalluri Siva Parvathi R.W.1 : Nalluri Venkata Gopi P.W.2 : Yalavarthi Sambasiva RaoR.W.2 : Pusuluri Naga Raju P.W.3 : Nalluri Srinivasa RaoR.W.3 : Manipalli Venkateswarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

// True copy //

Sd/-Ch.Pavan Kumar

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

Present : Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LL.B., II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali

Friday, this the 15th day of September, 2016

D.V.C.18 /2013

Between:

Nalluri Siva Parvathi W/o Venkata Gopi, 20 years, Hindu, House Wife, under parents protection, D/o Modukuru Sambasiva Rao, R/o Moparru Village, Amarthaluru Mandal.… Petitioner

and

1. Nalluru Venkata Gopi S/o Late Ramaiah, 23 years,

2. Adhanki Sambrajyam W/o Arunachalam, 43 years,

3. Adhanki Arunachalam S/o Koteswara Rao, 50 years, All are Hindu, R/o Sivalayam Street, Purushothampatnam, Chilakaluripet. … Respondents

This case is coming on 01-09-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Vijaykumar, Advocate for petitioner and Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for 1st respondent, respondents 2 and 3 were set exparte and upon hearing on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'P.W.D.V. Act') by the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 3 seeking protection orders U/Sec.18, residence orders U/Sec.19, monetary orders i.e. maintenance and return of amount towards damage of stridhan U/Sec.20 and for compensation U/Sec.22 of P.W.D.V. Act.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows: The 1st respondent is the husband of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are step parents of 1st respondent. The marriage of the petitioner was performed with the 1st respondent on 30-11-2011 at Purushothampatnam, Chilakaluripet as per Hindu Religious rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.3,00,000/- towards pasupu-kunkuma besides presenting gold chain and gold ring. The said amount was handed over to the respondents in the presence of Nalluri Srinivasa Rao, Yalavarthi Sambasiva Rao and others for augmentation. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent to lead marital life and at that time the parents of the petitioner gave house hold articles worth of Rs.40,000/-. That the petitioner and 1st respondent lived amicable only for two months. That the 1st respondent even prior to the marriage is addicted to vices like consuming alcohol, gambling and debauchery and concealing the same, the marriage was performed. The 1st respondent used to go home in drunken state late in the night and used to quarrel with the petitioner on petty issues and used 2 to beat her. The 2nd and 3rd respondents used to do back biting against the petitioner and instigate the 1st respondent to beat her. That the respondents have misappropriated the pasupu-kunkuma amount and gold ornaments given to the petitioner. That the 1st respondent harassed the petitioner physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from her parents house and he used to beat her and hurt her with burning cigarette in private parts and confined her in the house without providing proper food. That the respondents further made attempts to kill the petitioner. That on 22-10-2012 the respondents necked out the petitioner with a demand to bring cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. That the petitioner went to her parents house and informed the same to her parents and that on 24-10-2012 the petitioner along with her parents and elders went to the respondents house and requested them to take back the petitioner, but the respondents threatened them to give the demanded amount or to give divorce. That later, the petitioner gave report at Amarthaluru police station and case was registered by the police. Thus, prayed to grant the reliefs.

3.The case was taken on file and notices were issued to respondents 1 to 3. Upon receiving notice, 1st respondent was present and the notice of respondents 2 and 3 returned with endorsement that they are continuously absent at the house. Notice of respondents 2 and 3 held to be sufficient as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act. Consequently, respondents 2 and 3 are set exparte. The 1st respondent filed counter admitting the marital relationship with the petitioner, but denying the averments of the petition. It is further submitted that the mother of the petitioner is maternal aunt to the 1st respondent, as such, he has married the petitioner without taking dowry or other paraphernalia. It is further submitted that either the petitioner or her mother have no capacity to give cash of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further submitted that as on the date of marriage, the age of 1st respondent is only 18 years, as such, the marriage is void. It is further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 are distant relatives of the 1st respondent and there are disputes between them, as such, there are no talking terms between them. It is further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents never resided with the 1st respondent. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent and petitioner never resided in Chilakaluripet and that the petitioner filed false cases against the 1st respondent as well as him. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent is resident of Nagaralu of Guntur. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is ill literate, as such, the petitioner has no such interest to lead the marital life with the respondent and that the petitioner resided with the respondent only for one month. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.In the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW.1 and examined two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. On 3 behalf of respondents, the 1st respondent himself examined as RW.1 and examined two other witnesses as RWs.2 and 3. No documents are marked on either side.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and that of respondents.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is subjected to Domestic Violence by respondent, if so whether she is entitled for reliefs U/Sec.18, 19, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence Act?

POINT:-

7.The petitioner to become entitled for the reliefs under the PWDV Act has to prove that she was subjected to “Domestic violence” as defined under Sec.3 of the PWDV Act. To prove the same the petitioner has to establish that when she along with the respondents resided in the shared house hold she was subjected to harassment by the respondents in any of the ways covered under the definition of “Domestic Violence”.

8.As per the petitioner, the respondents harassed her to bring additional dowry amount from her parents house and with the said demand they have necked her out the house. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and one Yalavarthi Sambasiva Rao as PW.2 and Nalluri Srinivasa Rao as PW.3.

9.On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the petitioner voluntarily left him as she is not interested in leading the marital life with him and that the petitioner and the 1st respondent never resided in Chilakaluripet and that the petitioner has filed cases with false facts. The respondent to substantiate his case has examined himself as RW.1 and examined one Pusuluri Naga Raju as RW.2 and one Manipalli Venkateswarlu as RW.3.

10.PWs.1 to 3 filed their chief affidavits reiterating the material averments of the petition. On the other hand, RW.1 filed chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the counter and RWs.2 and 3 to prove that nothing was given at the time of the marriage and that the petitioner and 1st respondent never resided in Chilakaluripet and that the petitioner resided only with the 1st respondent. Further that the 1st respondent is not having any bad habits and that when they along with the elders made efforts to set right the marital life of the petitioner and 1st respondent, the petitioner and her mother have not accepted for the same. As per the petitioner she joined the 1st respondent to lead marital life at Chilakaluripet immediately after the marriage. Further, as per the petitioner she was necked out by the respondents on 24-10-2012. Thus, as per the petitioner, she resided along 4 with 1st respondent in Chilakaluripet for about 11 months. In the cross- examination of PW.1 she deposed that herself and 1st respondent resided in Chilakaluripet for two months. In the cross-examination of PW.2 he deposed that he do not know for how long the petitioner and respondent living together after marriage. PW.3 in his cross-examination deposed that he cannot say the period between which the petitioner and 1strespondent resided together in Chilakaluripet. He further deposed that for about four or five months petitioner and 1st respondent have lead marital life. Thus, from the above evidence of witnesses there is inconsistency and discrepancy with regard to period of stay of the petitioner with the 1st respondent. In the cross-examination of PW.1 she deposed that at the 1st instance when she gave report at Amarthaluru Police Station, the matter was settled at the Police Station and after compromise at the Police Station they lived for some days in Moparru and later she was taken to Guntur and that for one month they resided in Guntur. PW.3 in his cross- examination deposed that the 1st respondent resided in his in-laws house for some days after settlement by the police. Thus, for the first time in the cross- examination of PWs.1 and 3 they deposed that the 1st respondent stayed at the parents house of petitioner for some time. The said aspect neither find place in the petition nor in the chief affidavit of PWs.1 and 3. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached this court with complete facts.

11.On the other hand, RWs.1 to 3 categorically deposed that the petitioner and 1st respondent never resided in Chilakaluripet and they have lead marital life only in Guntur and that too for a period of one month only. The petitioner is studied up to intermediate and the 1st respondent is ill literate. Therefore, the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner is not interested in leading marital life with the 1st respondent as he is ill literate cannot be ignored. PW.2 in his cross- examination deposed that he used to stay at Hyderabad while he worked in Hyderabad from 2003 to 2012. He further deposed that the father of petitioner used to have land which was sold for the purpose of marriage and that he do not know the particulars and extent of land sold for the purpose of marriage. It is for the first time in the cross-examination of PW.2 it was put forth that the amount given at the time of marriage was served by selling the land of the father of the petitioner. The said aspect does not find place in the petition or in the chief affidavits of PWs.1 to 3. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 cannot be of much help to the petitioner with regard to the harassment meted out by the respondent against the petitioner. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are neighbours of the marital home of the petitioner and 1st respondent is well in support of the case of the 1st respondent and nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3 in support of the petitioner's case. The petitioner has failed to show the existence of domestic relationship between the 5 petitioner and 2nd and 3rd respondents and further the petitioner has failed to put forth convincing evidence to show that the 1st respondent has subjected her to domestic violence as defined under Sec.3 of PWDV Act. In view of the discussion in the fore going paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed by her under PWDV Act. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioner :For respondents :

P.W.1 : Nalluri Siva Parvathi R.W.1 : Nalluri Venkata Gopi P.W.2 : Yalavarthi Sambasiva RaoR.W.2 : Pusuluri Naga Raju P.W.3 : Nalluri Srinivasa RaoR.W.3 : Manipalli Venkateswarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

// True copy //

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

1

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali

Judgment in Calendar Case No.245/2016

Nature of Offence: Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act PR.No.256/2015-16 of P & E Station, Tenali

Date of Judgment 14-09-2016

Offence Report ofApprehensionDate ofReleaseCommenceClosure ofSentence or complainant of accused remandon bail -ment oftrial order trial 09-2-1609-2-1619-07-16 10-02-1612-02-1607-09-1609-09-1614-09-16

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non-production of witnesses.

Complainant: The Inspector, P & E Station, Tenali.

Accused : Tsunduru Vandanam, S/o Chandraiah, 55 years, C/Madiga, R/o Vetapalem, Tsunduru Mandal.

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence : In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in C.P.R.40/2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Station, Tenali. // True copy //

Sd/-Ch.Pavan Kumar

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

PRESENT: Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LL.B., II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Wednesday, this the 14th day of September, 2016

CALENDAR CASE No.245/2016

Between:

State: The Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Tenali. … Complainant

and

Tsunduru Vandanam, S/o Chandraiah, 55 years, C/Madiga, R/o Vetapalem, Tsunduru Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 12.09.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri D.Mohan Reddy, counsel for the accused and on hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tenali Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in PR.No.256/2015-16 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 09-02-2016 on receipt of complaint during 3rd phase Maavuru Janmabhoomi programme and, as per the orders of LW.6/K.Prabhakara Rao, P & E Inspector, Tenali, the excise staff i.e. LW.3/M.Govardhana Rao, P & E Constable, Tenali (herein after referred to as PW.2), LW.4/Sk.Subhani, P & E Head Constable, Tenali and LW.5/N.Srinivasa Rao, P & E Sub Inspector, Tenali (herein after referred to as PW.4) went on patrolling duty and at about 4-30 p.m when they reached ½ furlong away to the bus stop in Vetapalem Village, they have noticed gathering a mob and on seeing the excise officials, the persons who gathered there fled away and they found the accused standing there by holding a liquor bottle in his right hand and one hand bag in his left hand. On noticing the excise officials, who were in uniform, the accused perturbed and tried to skulk away. On that PW.4 Excise Sub Inspector got detained him with the help of his staff. On enquiry, accused disclosed his identity particulars and admitted that he possess liquor bottles in the said bag. PW.4 sent PW.2 to secure mediators. After some time PW.2 secured LW.1/M.Mahesh (herein after referred to as PW.1) and LW.2/Y.Lakshminarayana (herein after referred to as PW.3) who are the villagers as VRO and VAO were not available in the village. In the presence of mediators, they found that bag in the possession of accused contain 6 bottles of Old Tavern Whisky of 180 m.l. each and one Old Tavern Whisky of 180 m.l bottle in his hand in total 7 liquor bottles with company seals and labels with inscription “B.No.165, 3 dt.25-01-2016/10, MRP Rs.80/- and their Excise Adhesive Labels were found torn. On further enquiry, accused confessed that he is selling the liquor bottles at higher price for eking out his livelihood and that he does not possess any receipt or bill pertaining to the said liquor bottles. Then in the presence of mediators, PW.4 seized the same and took one bottle as sample for analysis, tied the same, sealed and affixed the identity slip. He kept the remaining bottles in the same bag, tied the bag, sealed it and affixed identity slips. P.W.4 arrested the accused after explaining him the reasons for the arrest and also seized the liquor bottles. Mediators report was prepared to that effect. PWs.1 to 4 and LW.4/Sk.Subhani attested the mediators report and a copy of the same was served to the accused, under his acknowledgement. Proceedings commenced at 5-00 p.m. and concluded at 6-00 p.m. Basing on the mediators report, P.W.4 registered a case in PR.No.256/2015-16, U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and sent the accused to the Court seeking judicial remand. The samples were sent to analyst. Later, PW.4 received Analysis report where under it is opined that the sample drawn in this case is Indian liquor. Proposals were sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur for the destruction of remaining property. LW.6/K.Prabhakara Rao, P & E Inspector, Tenali who assumed charge, verified the investigation done by PW.4 and laid charge sheet.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with all the copies of charge sheet and all annexures, in strict compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On 19-07-2016, accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Heard, a charge U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act is framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The accused is defended by his Counsel.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of LW.4/Sk.Subhani and LW.5/K.Prabhakara Rao is given up by learned APP.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. During which, the accused denied the incriminating evidence found against him and on enquiry he reported no defence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

4

P O I N T:

10.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09-02-2016 PWs.2, 4, and LW.4/Sk.Subhani in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 arrested the accused at half furlong away to the bus stop in Vetapalem Village, while he was in possession of liquor bottles without valid bill or permit and seized 7 Old Tavern Whisky bottles of 180 m.l. each under cover of mediators report pursuant to the confession made by the accused. Thereby, the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Hence, the charge.

11.The prosecution to substantiate its case has examined LW.1/M.Mahesh, LW.2/Y.Lakshminarayana, LW.3/M.Govardhana Rao, LW.5/N.Srinivasa Rao as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1.

12.The learned APP contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 4 amply establishes the raid in which accused is found in possession of 7 liquor bottles. It is further contended that the confession made by accused makes it clear that the accused is in conscious possession of liquor bottles. It is further contended that the analysis report establishes that the sample bottles which are part of the seized property contains Indian liquor, as such, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Thus, canvased for conviction of accused.

13.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that this is a false case foisted against the accused. It is further contended that the investigation officer has not secured the presence of local inhabitants as mediators. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence charged against him and thus, prayed for his acquittal.

14.The prosecution in order to establish the arrest of accused and seizure of liquor bottles from his possession has examined PWs.1 to 4. PW.2 who is member of raid party, PW.4 who conducted raid registered and investigated the case and filed charge sheet deposed their evidence in consonance with the prosecution case. Now it is to be seen whether the said evidence of PWs.2 and 4 stood consistent to the test of cross-examination and whether their evidence is sufficient to establish the raid.

15.During the cross-examination of PW.2 deposed that he do not know whether the copy of complainant received in Mavuru Janmabhoomi programme was filed before this court. He further deposed that the Excise Adhesive Labels on the liquor bottles are torn, as such, the source of liquor bottles could not be identified. PW.4 during his cross-examination deposed that the complaint received in Jamahoomi Programme was not filed before this court. He further deposed that he has not issued any notices to the mediators asking them to act 5 as mediators. PW.4 further deposed that as Excise Adhesive Labels on the liquor bottles are removed, he could not ascertain the source shop of the liquor bottles.

16.On careful perusal of the record, it is evident that P.W.4 is the complainant and investigating officer in this case. It is settled principle of law that when complainant and investigating officer in a case are the same person, the evidence of prosecution witnesses need to be scrutinized cautiously. Record discloses that apart from P.Ws.2 and 4 who are excise officials, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 3, who are mediators, but P.Ws.1 and 3 have not supported the prosecution case. The learned APP treated P.Ws.1 and 3 as hostile witnesses and cross-examined them, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 that the accused confessed that he does not have permit or bill cannot be made as the sole basis for conviction of the accused as the confession made by the accused before the excise officials is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though PWs.2 and 4 deposed evidence supporting the prosecution case, the contentions raised by the counsel for accused that investigation officer failed to secure mediators of the locality where the accused is arrested, non filing of complaint received in Janmabhoomi programme no investigation with regard to ascertaining the source shops of liquor bottles and that the mediators secured are stock mediators to police cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, in the absence of support from independent witnesses, the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 who are excise personnel is not safe to rely upon with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizure of liquor bottles, much less the alleged confession made by the accused. Thus, for all the reasons discussed above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, benefit of doubt must be given to the Accused.

17.In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in C.P.R.40/2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1 : M.Mahesh -None- P.W.2 : M.Govardhana Rao, P & E Constable, Tenali 6

P.W.3 : Y.Lakshmi Narayana, P.W.4 : N.Srinivasa Rao, P & E Sub Inspector, Tenali

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on mediators report -Nil- Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW.2 on mediators report Ex.P.3 : Mediators report Ex.P.4 : FIR Ex.P.5 : Analysis Report

MOs. Marked MO.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

// True copy //

Sd/-Ch.Pavan Kumar

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenal

1

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur

Calendar of cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.156/2015 (Cr.No.17/2015 of Kollipara Police Station) Nature of Offence: Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957

Date of Judgment 15-09-2016

Offence Report ofApprehen-Date ofReleaseCommence-Closure ofSentence or complainasion ofremandon bail ment of trial trial order nt accused 19-02-1519-02-1517-04-1519-02-1519-02-1515-09-1615-09-1615-09-16

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non-production of witnesses.

Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollipara Police Station.

Accused : Pilli Rosaiah S/o Bhikshalu, aged about 40 years, C/Mala, R/o Pathabommuvanipalem Village, Kollipara Mandal.

Finding: Guilty

Sentence : In the result, I find the accused guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.241 Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- to each of the offences U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Total fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default on payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for each offence. Unmarked property i.e. bullock cart, which is already given interim custody shall be retained by the owner. N.B: Accused paid total fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to: Superintendent of Police, Guntur. // true copy //

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: TENALI

PRESENT: Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LL.B., II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Thursday, this the 15th day of September, 2016

CALENDAR CASE No.156/2015

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Kollipara Police Station.… Complainant

and

Pilli Rosaiah S/o Bhikshalu, aged about 40 years, C/Mala, R/o Pathabommuvanipalem Village, Kollipara Mandal.… Accused

This case is coming on this day before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri V.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for accused and upon hearing arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollipara Police Station has laid charge sheet against the accused alleging him of the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.22 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Cr.No.17/2015 of Kollipara Police Station.

2. The brief case of prosecution is as follows:

On 19-02-2015 on credible information LW.6/M.Ram Babu, SI of Police, Kollipara Police Station along with his staff i.e. LW.1/M.Ram Babu, Head Constable, LW.2/K.Chandra Mouli, Constable (herein after referred to as PW.1), LW.3/B.Gafoor Naik, Home Guard and by securing mediators i.e. LW.4/Neruga Kiran Kumar and LW.5/Akurathi Krishna Siva Kishore reached to the bank of Krishna River at Pathabommuvanipalem Village in the police van bearing No.AP7X7200 and found the accused coming from bank of Krishna river at Pathabommuvanipalem Village on bullock cart. On that SI of Police stopped the bullock cart and on verification, they found sand in it. On enquiry accused confessed about committing theft of sand for selling the same in the surrounding villages. That the police party returned to the Police Station along with accused and sand loaded bullock cart. Then the SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.17/2015, U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.22 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and investigated into the case. The SI of Police examined and recorded the statements of staff, who accompanied him at the time of raid and again visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. The SI of Police handover the bullock cart to the relatives of accused and forwarded the accused to the Hon'ble Court for remand. After completion of investigation, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case is taken on file for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.22 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him in due compliance of the provisions U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3

4.On 21-03-2015, accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 is framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 was examined.

6.Since the accused did not chose to cross examine PW.1, accused is examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., for which he admitted his guilt in the offence. Since accused admitted his guilt in the offence further proceedings are stopped. The admission of accused seems to be voluntarily.

7.When questioned about the quantum of sentence accused stated that he has learnt from his mistake and that he would lead a peaceful life herein after. Considering the mercy plea of the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused if punished with the fine would meet the ends of justice.

8. In the result, I find the accused guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.241 Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- to each of the offences U/Sec.379 of IPC and Sec.21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Total fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default on payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for each offence. Unmarked property i.e. bullock cart, which is already given interim custody shall be retained by the owner.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of September, 2016.

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W1: K.Chandra Mouli, Constable, Kollipara Police Station. -None-

Exhibits marked -Nil-

MOs. Marked -Nil-

Sd/- Ch.Pavan Kumar,

II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tenali. // true copy //

Sd/-Ch.Pavan Kumar

II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.

APGU240001032011

IN THE COURT OF

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT TENALI ,GUNTUR

(Presided Over by TVSS Prakash)

CC/447/2011

(PROSECUTION):

SUB INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, TENALI RURAL PS

Through Police Station Officer TENALI TALUK PS 153, SHO, TENALI RURAL PS, TENALI

TENALI GUNTUR

VERSUS MANDALAPU PENCHALA NARENDRA NAIDU @ PENCHELA NAREN Age: 31, D.NO 36, MOOKAMBIKA STREET, NAIDUPET, NELLORU DT 2:MANDALAPU KOUSALYAMMA, Age: 59 D.NO 36, MOOKAMBIKA STREET, NAIDUPET, NELLORU D ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for P DANIEL appearing for MANDALAPU PENCHALA NARENDRA NAIDU @ PENCHELA NAREN Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 498-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE,3AND4 of

DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 15-09-2016)

Suo moto advanced to this day. Transmit the entire record to the Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Ongole as per the orders of Honourable High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Tr.Crl.P.No.171 of 2012, dt.22-07-2016 duly indexed.

(Sd/- TVSS prakash)

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIJUDGE

TENALI GUNTUR