Smt D Laxmi Kameswari

1 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. D.Lakshmi Kameswari, I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Thursday the 26th day of April, 2018.

N.D.P.S. S.C. No. 7 of 2016

CRIME NO. 671/2014-15.

Name of the complainant.The State of Telangana through, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector Inspector, Excise Station Andole.

Description of the accused. 1. S.Prabhakar Goud S/o.Bala Goud, 40 years, Depot Keeper, R/o. Jogipet.

2. Late S.Chenna Goud S/o. Yella Goud.

Charge/s.U/R. 27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy Conditions of Licence & Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985.S.20(a)

(i) of NDPS Act.

Plead of accused.A1 pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge.A1 found not guilty.

Sentence or order.A-1 is found not guilty for the offence U/R. 27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy Conditions of Licence & Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985.S.20(a)(i) of NDPS Act. and acquitted U/S. 235(1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySri Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri M.Goverdhan, Advocate for A-1.

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

Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M.Goverdhan,

Advocate for A-1, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.Sub-Inspector Prohibition and Excise Andole filed the charge sheet in C.O.R.No.671/2014-15 against A1 and A2 U/R. 27 of A.P.

2 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016

Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy Conditions of Licence &

Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985.

2.The charge sheet contents in brief are that the Enforcement

Team, Mahaboobnagar as a part of cross checking, the officers

Lws.3 and 4 along with staff by securing two panch witnesses/LWs.1 and 2 inspected the Toddy Depot of TCS Gr. Jogipet and on inspection they found A1 while conducting toddy sales and on enquiry he revealed his name as S.Prabhakar Goud S/o. Bala Goud

Depot Keeper and on demand he produced licence of toddy shop bearing No.2 dated: 19-2-2010 TCS Gr. Jogipet issued by

Prohibition & Excise Superintendent in the name of S.Chenna Goud

S/o. Yella Goud/A2. On verification of the Depot, the excise officials have found 400 liters of toddy in two wooden vats each containing 200 liters and 6,000 bottles of toddy and also 3,900 liters which are kept in plastic crates and on spot test, it was found that it is free from chloral hydrate and thereafter the enforcement officials have drawn three samples each 350 ml each. and sealed them according to procedure and handed over the case papers along with the samples to the SHO. Andole.

Basing on the panchanama, the SHO. Andole/LW4 registered a case vide Crime No.671/2014-15 U/R. 27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of

Licence to Sell Toddy Conditions of Licence & Tapping of

Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985 and sent one of the samples to the Government chemical analyst RPEL 3 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016

Nizazambad for analysis and on receipt of chemical analyst report that the sample analyzed is fermented toddy adulterated with

Alprazolam.

Even before filing charge sheet, the accused No.2 the licensee died and therefore the charge sheet has been against A1 alone i.e.

against Depot Keeper U/R. 27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell

Toddy Conditions of Licence & Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 &

U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused U/R.27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy

Conditions of Licence & Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c)

R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985 and on appearance of A1, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

and on hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel about the charges, the accused are charged U/R. 27 of A.P.

Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy Conditions of Licence &

Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985 which is readover and explained to A1 in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial Pws.1 to P4 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P7 and M.O.1 is marked.

5.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 is examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C. He stated that what the prosecution witnesses stated is falsehood.

4 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016

6.On hearing the arguments of the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the matter is posted for judgment

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused

for the offence U/R. 27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of Licence to

Sell Toddy Conditions of Licence & Tapping of

Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c) R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985

beyond all reasonable doubt?.

POINT:-

8.It is the case of the prosecution, the other accused before the court/A2 has been selling adulterated toddy in the TCS Toddy Depot belonged to A2. Evidently, even before filing charge sheet, the licenced holder died and there is no charge against him. The only person before the court is a Depot Keeper. The prosecution wants to prove the charge levelled against the accused/A1 through independent witnesses i.e. Pws.1 and 2, but unfortunately they both did not state anything about drawing of samples and conducting panchanama. They simply identified their signatures on Exs.P1 and

P2.

9.PW3 is the Enforcement Official who deposed that on the instructions of the Director of Enforcement, he along with his staff raided the TCS Toddy Depot located on Nanded road on 9-12-2014 at about 6-00 P.M. According the evidence of PW3 at the time of his visit along with staff, the accused No.2 alone was present and that on demand he has shown the licence belonged to A1. In order to show 5 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016 that the enforcement officials have raided TCS counter No.2, PW3 has not collected the xerox copy of the licence of A2 or the identity particulars of A1 who is before the court who satisfied the court that he was conducting sales on that particular day on behalf of A2.

During the course of cross-examination of PW3, he deposed that basing on the instructions of the Director of Enforcement only, the raid was conducted. But PW3 did not file any document to show the directions said to have been given by the Director of enforcement in favour of raiding team. The main defence of the learned defence counsel is that there is no raid conducted by the enforcement officials on that particular day and that it is created for the sake of statistic.

Except the solitary evidence of PW3, there is no other material to substantiate the search said to have been made on that particular day. According to the recitals of the charge sheet the licenced holder/A2 has passed away. But, there is no information whether the licenced holder died even before the date of the said raid or subsequent to it. If the licenced holder dies, the licence automatically lapsed if it is not transferred in the name of his family member. There is no information regarding the date of death of licened holder/A2.

There is no information before the court that the Toddy Depot belonged to A2 is continued to be run even after the death of licneced holder. When there is no such information, it is not possible to believe the alleged raid as stated by PW3 on that particular day. In view of the discussion above made, I hold that it is not safe to believe the solitary evidence of PW3 in finding the accused No.1 guilty for the 6 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016 charges levelled against him. Therefore, the accused No.1 could not be found guilty.

10.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence U/R. 27 of A.P. Excise(Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy

Conditions of Licence & Tapping of Trees( Rules, 2007 & U/S.8(c)

R/W 22 of NDPSD Act, 1985 and he is acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 deposited vide CRP. No.11/15/2016 shall be destroyed after appeal time. The A2 is died, the case against A2 is abated.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

I-Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 A.Shankar.Nil.

PW2 P.Narsimulu.

PW3 D.Ramakrishna. S.I. P & E.

PW4 V.Lakshminarayana, S.I. P & E.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Exs.P1 and P2 are signatures of Pws.1 and 2.Nil.

Ex.P3 Panchanama.

Ex.P4 Letter of advise.

Ex.P5 C.O.R.

Ex.P6 Chemical Analyst’s report.

Ex.P7 Letter addressed by PW4 to JFCM. Andole at Jogipet.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

M.O.1 Sample bottle.

I-Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

7 NDPS.S.C.7 OF 2016

1 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE MEDAK

AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. D.Lakshmi Kameswari, I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Wednesday the 22nd day of November, 2017

POCSO.S.C. No. 23 of 2015

Name of the complainant.The State of Telangana through, Inspector of police, Police Station Patancheru.

Description of the accused. Gollapally Srinu S/o.Musalaiah, 23 yrs, Occ: Masan R/o.Singampally(v), Ramgampet Mandal East Dodavari Dist. Presently residing at D.N. Colony, Muthangi(v) of Patancheru.

Charge/s.U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Plead of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty.

Sentence or order.Accused found not guilty for the offence U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Prosecution conducted bySri Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri P.Chendu Ramaiah, Advocate. Sri P.Sudershan, Advocate.

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

Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri P.Chendu Ramaiah,

Advocate and Sri P.Sudershan, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Inspector of police, police station Patancheru filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.519/2014 U/Ss. 366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

2.The charge sheet contents in brief are that the complainant Mr.

Nakkala Ganesh S/o.Chandraiah R/o. Parlakimil(v), Gajapathi District, a native of Orissa State residing at Isnapur lodged a complaint on 26-8- 2014 that his younger daughter who was studying IX standard in

Krishnaveni School has left the home on 25-8-2014 by telling that she was going to school, but she did not return in the evening as usual and on searching in the houses of the relatives, friends and in the neighboring vicinity the complainant suspects Mr. Srinivas who worked as a mason under him a native of Kakinada of A.P. was coming to his house as he was talking close with his daughter.

The above said complaint was registered as Crime No.519/2014 under Girl Missing by the Inspector of police and entrusted the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of police/LW10.

During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police/LW10 examined and recorded the statements of the parents of the missing girl(LWs.1 and 2) on 30-8-2014 at 11-00 hours and the missing girl was traced-out and was brought by the constable of Patancheru police station/LW4 along with the accused Gollapally Srinivas and the statement of the victim girl was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of police and basing on the statement of the victim girl, the Section of law was altered from Girl Missing to U/S.366-A IPC, Criminal Law Amendment

Act, 2013 and U/S.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the alteration memo was sent to the concerned officers. The Inspector of police/LW12 sent the victim girl for medical examination under the escort of woman constable 3 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

and on thorough examination of the victim girl, the Medical Officer/LW7 has collected the vaginal swabs and sent them to FSL. and the victim girl was produced before the court for handing over her to the lawful guardian. The accused was interrogated by the Inspector of police/LW12 and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence and on issuing arrest card to him he was subjected for judicial custody by following the procedure and before that the accused was sent for potency test, where the Doctor opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. The FSL. report shows that no evidence of recently intercourse. Later, the Sub-Inspector of police/LW11 visited the scene of offence at a shed situated on the bank of acqua tank at the outskirts of Duggulur(v), of Kakuloor Mandal East

Godavari District and in the presence of mediators Sri K.Raju and Jillela

Ranji(LWs.5 and 6) he conducted panchanama of scene of offence and drawn rough sketch.

As the investigation revealed that the accused who was residing in a rented house in front of the house of the victim girl and a mason by profession worked under the complainant/LW1 and in such a course he developed friendship with the victim girl under the guise of love and when she refused to his love proposal, the accused has forcibly taken her to

Isnapur from there to Sangareddy, from there to Patancheru, from there to Hyderabad, from there to Rajamundry and from there to Duggutur(v), where the accused kept her in the house of his friend Srinivas with a false promise to marry her and indulged in sexual activities with her and thereafter she was taken to Singampally to his native place. Meanwhile 4 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

both were apprehended by the police force of Patancheru police station, chage sheet has been filed against him U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused and on the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C. and on hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel about the charges, the accused is charged U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal

Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 which are readover and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial Pws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to 5 are marked.

5..As none of the material prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, their examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given-up Lws.4 to 12 as no purpose will be served in view of the hostile testimony of the witnesses including the victim girl.

6.Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the matter has been posted for judgment.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of accused for the

offences U/Ss. 366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law

Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

beyond all reasonable doubt?.

5 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

POINT:-

8.PW3 is the victim girl and Pws.1 and 2 are her parents. PW1, who is the father of the victim girl is the complainant. But, he did not adhere to its contents, therefore his signature could only be marked as Ex.P1.

During the course of his evidence, he deposed that the accused

G.Srinivas worked under him as a mason and when a dispute arose to him with the accused, he went to the police station where the police have obtained his signatures and he further deposed that his daughter was never missing and he has no grievance against anybody muchless against the accused.

9.PW3 the victim girl also deposed in the similar lines as that of

Pws.1 and 2.

10.All the witnesses in voice deposed that PW1 had dispute with the accused in connection with money and in that connection PW1 has gone to the police station and the police have obtained his signature. As all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has examined them in the form of cross- examination and in such a course, they denied to have stated as in

Exs.P2 to P5. In view of the hostile testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution could not prove the charges levelled against the accused and therefore, the accused could not be found guilty.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Ss.

366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and 6 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and he is acquitted U/S.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

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

me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2017.

I-Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 Nakkala Ganesh.Nil.

PW2 Nakkala Jayamma.

PW3 Kum.Nakkala Rajeshwari.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 on the complaint.Nil.

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Exs.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Exs.P4 and P5 are 161 Cr.PC. statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

I-Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

7 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

1 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE MEDAK

AT SANGAREDDY.

Present: Smt. D.Lakshmi Kameswari, I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Wednesday the 22nd day of November, 2017

POCSO.S.C. No. 23 of 2015

Name of the complainant.The State of Telangana through, Inspector of police, Police Station Patancheru.

Description of the accused. Gollapally Srinu S/o.Musalaiah, 23 yrs, Occ: Masan R/o.Singampally(v), Ramgampet Mandal East Dodavari Dist. Presently residing at D.N. Colony, Muthangi(v) of Patancheru.

Charge/s.U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Plead of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty.

Sentence or order.Accused found not guilty for the offence U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Prosecution conducted bySri Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri P.Chendu Ramaiah, Advocate. Sri P.Sudershan, Advocate.

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

Srinivas Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri P.Chendu Ramaiah,

Advocate and Sri P.Sudershan, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Inspector of police, police station Patancheru filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.519/2014 U/Ss. 366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

2.The charge sheet contents in brief are that the complainant Mr.

Nakkala Ganesh S/o.Chandraiah R/o. Parlakimil(v), Gajapathi District, a native of Orissa State residing at Isnapur lodged a complaint on 26-8- 2014 that his younger daughter who was studying IX standard in

Krishnaveni School has left the home on 25-8-2014 by telling that she was going to school, but she did not return in the evening as usual and on searching in the houses of the relatives, friends and in the neighboring vicinity the complainant suspects Mr. Srinivas who worked as a mason under him a native of Kakinada of A.P. was coming to his house as he was talking close with his daughter.

The above said complaint was registered as Crime No.519/2014 under Girl Missing by the Inspector of police and entrusted the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of police/LW10.

During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police/LW10 examined and recorded the statements of the parents of the missing girl(LWs.1 and 2) on 30-8-2014 at 11-00 hours and the missing girl was traced-out and was brought by the constable of Patancheru police station/LW4 along with the accused Gollapally Srinivas and the statement of the victim girl was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of police and basing on the statement of the victim girl, the Section of law was altered from Girl Missing to U/S.366-A IPC, Criminal Law Amendment

Act, 2013 and U/S.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the alteration memo was sent to the concerned officers. The Inspector of police/LW12 sent the victim girl for medical examination under the escort of woman constable 3 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

and on thorough examination of the victim girl, the Medical Officer/LW7 has collected the vaginal swabs and sent them to FSL. and the victim girl was produced before the court for handing over her to the lawful guardian. The accused was interrogated by the Inspector of police/LW12 and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence and on issuing arrest card to him he was subjected for judicial custody by following the procedure and before that the accused was sent for potency test, where the Doctor opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. The FSL. report shows that no evidence of recently intercourse. Later, the Sub-Inspector of police/LW11 visited the scene of offence at a shed situated on the bank of acqua tank at the outskirts of Duggulur(v), of Kakuloor Mandal East

Godavari District and in the presence of mediators Sri K.Raju and Jillela

Ranji(LWs.5 and 6) he conducted panchanama of scene of offence and drawn rough sketch.

As the investigation revealed that the accused who was residing in a rented house in front of the house of the victim girl and a mason by profession worked under the complainant/LW1 and in such a course he developed friendship with the victim girl under the guise of love and when she refused to his love proposal, the accused has forcibly taken her to

Isnapur from there to Sangareddy, from there to Patancheru, from there to Hyderabad, from there to Rajamundry and from there to Duggutur(v), where the accused kept her in the house of his friend Srinivas with a false promise to marry her and indulged in sexual activities with her and thereafter she was taken to Singampally to his native place. Meanwhile 4 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

both were apprehended by the police force of Patancheru police station, chage sheet has been filed against him U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused and on the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C. and on hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel about the charges, the accused is charged U/Ss.366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal

Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 which are readover and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial Pws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to 5 are marked.

5..As none of the material prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, their examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given-up Lws.4 to 12 as no purpose will be served in view of the hostile testimony of the witnesses including the victim girl.

6.Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the matter has been posted for judgment.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of accused for the

offences U/Ss. 366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law

Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

beyond all reasonable doubt?.

5 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

POINT:-

8.PW3 is the victim girl and Pws.1 and 2 are her parents. PW1, who is the father of the victim girl is the complainant. But, he did not adhere to its contents, therefore his signature could only be marked as Ex.P1.

During the course of his evidence, he deposed that the accused

G.Srinivas worked under him as a mason and when a dispute arose to him with the accused, he went to the police station where the police have obtained his signatures and he further deposed that his daughter was never missing and he has no grievance against anybody muchless against the accused.

9.PW3 the victim girl also deposed in the similar lines as that of

Pws.1 and 2.

10.All the witnesses in voice deposed that PW1 had dispute with the accused in connection with money and in that connection PW1 has gone to the police station and the police have obtained his signature. As all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has examined them in the form of cross- examination and in such a course, they denied to have stated as in

Exs.P2 to P5. In view of the hostile testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution could not prove the charges levelled against the accused and therefore, the accused could not be found guilty.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Ss.

366-A and 376(2) of IPC. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and 6 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and he is acquitted U/S.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

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

me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2017.

I-Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 Nakkala Ganesh.Nil.

PW2 Nakkala Jayamma.

PW3 Kum.Nakkala Rajeshwari.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 on the complaint.Nil.

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Exs.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Exs.P4 and P5 are 161 Cr.PC. statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

I-Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

7 POCSO.S.C.23 OF 2015.

TSME000012802014

Presented on : 30-01-2016 Registered on : 30-01-2016 Decided on : 30-11-2017 Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

AT ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by SMT. K. JAYANTHI,)

SC.NDPS/5/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): PS.Jinnaram Through Police Station Officer , PS.Jinnaram MEDAK

PS.Jinnaram VERSUS : Bandari Pocha goud Age: 60 Occupation : Nallavelly Jinnarasm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Bandari Pocha goud Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 34(A) of ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE

ACT, 1968,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 30-11-2017)

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec.34 of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968, Section 8(c) R/W 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 and they are acquitted U/sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property vide CPR.No.9-15-2016 shall be destroyed forthwith.

Sd/-

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

TSME000002732014

Presented on : 15-04-2014 Registered on : 09-06-2014 Decided on : 30-04-2018 Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

CC.APT/200011/2014

Police Hadnoor Through Police Station Officer Hadnoor PS 122, Hadnoor V Nyalkal M Medak Dist.

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

VERSUS A-1. Turpati Shanker Age.30 years Caste. Budige jangam Occ.coolie RO Nyalkal V and M Medak Dist.

JUDGMENT

case disposed on 09-09-2017 in lok adalat

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy