Smt. D. Madhavi Krishna

1 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

PRESENT: Smt. D.Madhavi Krishna

I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Tuesday this the 18th day of April 2023

A.S.No. 5 of 2016

Between:-

1.Gandla Gangaram @ Gandla Nadipi Gangaram @ Nadipi Gangaram, S/o. Narsimulu, Aged: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-86, Pochera (v), Mandal Boath, Dist.Adilabad (Died ) Per LRs

2. Kadukuntla Bhojanna, S/o. Late Gandla Gangaram, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Village Pochera, Mandal Boath, Dist.Adilabad.

3.Kadukuntla Narayana,S/o. Late Gandla Gangaram, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Village Pochera, Mandal Boath, Dist.Adilabad.

4.Kurra Vijaya, D/o. Gandla Gangram, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Pochera (v), Mandal Boath, Dist. Adilabad.

5.Kokkula Bhoodevi, D/o.Gandla Gangaram, aged 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Pochera (v), Mandal Boath, Dist.Adilabad.

(Appellant No.1 died, hence appellant No. 2 to 5 are brought on record as legal heirs of appellant No.1 vide order in IA No.481/2018.

....Appellants/Defendants.

//And// 2 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

1.Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu, S/o. Jagganna, Age 70 years, Occ:Agriculture formerly R/o. Pochera village, Mandal Boath, Dist. Adilabad. Presently residing at Tarnam K village, Mandal Neradigonda Dist.Adilabad (Died per Lrs).

2.Sunkam Kousalya,W/o. Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu, Age 61 years Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No. 1-42, Tarnam (K) Mandal Neradigonda, Dist.Adilabad.

3.Kondaji Sujatha @ Sunkam Kousalya, D/o. Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu,W/o. Kondaji Ramaiah, Age 43 years Occ:Housewife, R/o. H.No. 6-3-100, Chintakuntawada, Nirmal Post & District Nirmal (T.S.).

4.Sriramoji Swapna @ Sunkam Swapna, D/o. Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu, W/o. Sriramoji Sudershan, Age 48 years, Occ: Hosuewife, R/o.H.No. 1-114/3/1, Kothapalli, Nizamabad, Pin-503218.

5.Sunkam Soujanya D/o. Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu, Age 24 years Occ: Agril., Coolie, R/o.H.NO. 1-42, Tarnam (K) Mandal Neradigonda, Dist.Adilabad (R2 to R5 impleaded as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court vide CRP.No. 1930/2022, dt: 14.10.2022)

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

( On Appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dated:18/01/2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad in O.S.No.94 of 2013)

Between: Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu, S/o. Jagganna, Age 70 years, Occ:Agriculture formerly R/o. Pochera village, Mandal Boath, Dist. Adilabad. Presently residing at Tarnam K village, Mandal Neradigonda Dist.Adilabad.

..Plaintiff

//And// 3 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

Gandla Gangaram @ Gandla Nadipi Gangaram @ Nadipi Gangaram, S/o. Narsimulu, Aged: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-86, Pochera (v), Mandal Boath, Dist.Adilabad. … Defendant

APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 and 2 and

Sec. 96 OF C.P.C -1908

This Appeal has come before me on 04.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.Nagesh, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri. A.Amarender Reddy and Sri.B.Santosh Kumar, Advocates for Respondents/Plaintiffs, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Appellants/defendants preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by learned Senior

Civil Judge, Adilabad in O.S.NO. 94/2013, dated 18.01.2016

and the factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal is as follows:-

2.The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 94 of 2013 as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that: the plaintiff is the absolute owner and pattedar of agriculture lands bearing Sy.No. 55/ ఆ/ 56/ ఆ and 58/ఈ , admeasuring Ac.

1-16 guntas, Ac.1-21 guntas and Ac.2-36 guntas respectively, 4 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 situated at Pochera village of Mandal Boath. The defendant was his adjacent cultivator. In the year 2004-2005 before onset of monsoon season, taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, the defendant forcibly trespassed into suit properties and encroached the same with an ulterior motive.

2(a). The defendant got managed the Revenue authorities and incorporated his name in Revenue Records. Since then the name of the defendant is appearing in pahanies some times as cultivator and sometimes as Karidi. The name of the plaintiff has been recorded as pattedar and cultivator from the years 1994-1995 to 2004-2005.

2(b). There was excavation of canal in the year 2007, for which land to an extent of Ac.0-11 guntas was acquired by government. The dispute, with regard to the receipt of compensation was referred to this court and after full fledged enquiry, the claim of the defendant was negatived and the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to receive compensation 5 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 as per judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 in OP.No.

13/2009.

2(c). The defendant is an influential person and occupied that suit properties. The Plaintiff requested to deliver the suit properties, as the defendant was in unauthorized possession, but the defendant failed to deliver the same and as such he has no option left except to seek relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession and prayed to decree the suit.

3. The defendant has filed Written Statement by stating that, the claim of the plaintiff that he was owner and possessor of the suit lands is false one and he never cultivated the lands and he is the owner and possessor of the suit properties. He purchased the suit properties under agreement of sale from the plaintiff in the presence of villager elders on 5.4.2001 for consideration of Rs.51,000/- and paid an amount of Rs. 28,000/- and obtained possession. He agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 23,000/- in the year 2002. The said amount was also paid. Thereafter the plaintiff 6 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 failed to execute Registered Sale Deed. He came to know that the plaintiff intended to sell the properties. Plaintiff sold the properties on 7.5.2012 for consideration and executed

Registered Sale Deed bearing document No. 692/2012 in favour of his son-in-law and daughter. The claim of the plaintiff that the defendant is in unauthorized possession, is false one and prayed for dismissal of the suit, with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by Trial Court for Trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of vacant

possession of scheduled properties as prayed for?

3. Whether the claim of the defendant that he purchased the

suit schedule properties from the plaintiff is true and

correct?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?

5. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial before Trial Court, the deceased 1st plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got marked ExsA1 to A33 documents and also got examined 7 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

Pw2/S.Venkataramana. But on the other hand the deceased 1st defendant did not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. But during cross examination of Pw1,

ExB1 is marked.

6.The Trial Court, on conclusion of trial and on bearing both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, produced before it, decreed the suit with costs by declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of suit schedule properties and further entitled for recovery of possession.

7.Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the present appeal. After filing appeal sole defendant/Appellant dead and his Legal representatives were brought on record as Appellants/R2 to R5. They contending inter alia that the impugned judgment under appeal is bad in law and perverse to the facts and circumstances of the case and not appreciating the evidence of appellants available on record and came to erroneous 8 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 conclusion, hence the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.

8. It is further contended that the Trial court ought to have dismissed the suit and the suit is barred by limitation. The

Hon’ble court completely prejudiced while passing the

judgment and failed to see actual facts and discussed the facts which were not relevant to the issues framed. It is further contended that the trial court did not give any opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidence and closed his evidence. Hence the judgment passed by the trial court is against Law, biased and illegal. Hence this appeal.

9.Heard both sides. In view of the submissions made by both parties and in view of the case facts the following points would arise for consideration in this appeal:

1. Whether the plaintiff has established his case that she is

absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of

possession of schedule properties as prayed for?

9 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

3. Whether the judgment and decree of Trial court in OS

94/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Adilabad,

dt.18.1.2016 is sustainable under law?

4. To what relief?

Points 1 and 2:

10. For the convenience sake the parties in this appeal are referred as they are arrayed in original suit. No additional evidence is adduced by either party in appeal proceedings.

11.After filling appeal both appellant/defendant and respondent/ plaintiff dead and their legal representatives were brought on record.

12.Originally the Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mesne profits. To prove his case the original plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got marked 33 documents. The plaintiff claimed to be absolute owner and pattadar of agricultural lands bg.Sy.No.

55/ ఆ/ 56/ ఆ and 58/ఈ ad-measuring Ac.1-16 gts., 1-21 gts, and 2-36 gts., respectively situated at Pochara village of 10 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

Boath Mandal. The defendant was his adjacent cultivator.

During 2004-2005 taking advantage of absence of plaintiff the defendant trespassed and occupied suit properties and managed Revenue authorities and got entered his name as possessor in Revenue records. The name of plaintiff has been recorded as pattadar and possessor from the years 1994- 1995 upto 2004-2005.

13.To prove these contentions ExA1 to A19/pahanies filed.

These pahanies established that the name of original plaintiff recorded as pattadar in respect of suit schedule properties.

However, in some of pahanies the name of defendant also shown as possessor.

14. It is further case of the plaintiff that during the year 2007 Ac.0-11 guntas in Sy.No.55 of his land was acquired by the Government for excavation of canal and the dispute u/sec. 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act -1984 regarding compensation was referred to the Trial court vide OP No.

13/2009 and it was disposed on 30.04.2010 after enquiry 11 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 declaring the plaintiff herein entitled to receive compensation. To prove this aspect, plaintiff got marked

ExA20 to 24 documents. Thus the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff is established by documentary evidence. ExA25 and 26 are original pattadar pass book and title deed of deceased/plaintiff clearly established that the plaintiff was the owner of suit schedule properties.

15.Before filing the suit the plaintiff also got issued

ExA27/legal notice calling the defendant to deliver vacant possession of schedule lands to him. As per ExA30, the notice sent by the plaintiff was delivered on the defendant.

Therefore, these documents clearly established the title of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.

16.Pw2 who is independent witness also corroborated the evidence of plaintiff in all aspects. Though the defendant did not adduced any evidence, his Advocate cross examined

Pw1 and 2 .

12 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

17.Though it is admitted by Pw1 that he executed registered sale deed vide ExA32 in favour of his daughter and son-in-law in-respect of suit schedule properties on 7.5.2012. The same document also marked as ExB1 during cross examination of Pw1. Subsequently said Registered Sale

Deed was canceled through ExA33 on 10.10.2013.

Thereafter, on 29.11.2013 O.S.No. 94/2013 was filed. So, as on date of filing O.S.NIO.94/2013 plaintiff was owner of schedule properties.

18. It is the contention of defendant that the original plaintiff sold away suit schedule properties to him (1st appellant) for consideration of Rs. 51,000/- and at that time the possession of lands also delivered to him. But to prove his contention the defendants did not filed any single scrap of paper before the court. Even during appeal proceedings also the defendants did not choose to file any documents as evidence. Pw2 also denied the suggestion that original plaintiff sold the schedule property to the defendant 15 years back for valid sale consideration.

13 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

19.To substantiate this contentions the defendant did not choose to enter into witness box to speak his case on oath.

Thus the contentions which were taken in the written statement held not proved.

20.He also did not choose to file agreement of sale dated 5.4.2001 allegedly executed by original plaintiff in his favour.

He also failed to establish that the possession of schedule properties delivered to him on 5.4.2001 by virtue of agreement of sale. If really original plaintiff executed agreement of sale on 5.4.2001 the deceased/defendant ought to have taken steps for execution of registered sale deed in his favour. But he did not take any such steps, even till today. No Notice has been issued to the plaintiff demanding to execute Registered Sale Deed. No suit for specific performance also filed, so far. On one hand the defendant admitting the title of plaintiff in respect of suit properties. But the defendant failed to establish that he purchased suit properties from the plaintiff. Consequently the possession of defendant over suit properties held illegal. Though the 14 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 plaintiff sold away suit properties under ExA32/ExB1 in favour of his daughter and son-in-law said document was canceled vide ExA33. It is not an unilateral transaction. Therefore, the possession of properties goes back to the plaintiff, even

before filing the suit. Even till the date of execution of

ExA32, plaintiff has got absolute title and possession over schedule properties and he parted with possession for few years and again get back possession. Thus the evidence adduced by plaintiff categorically established his case. As the defendant also claiming title from the plaintiff itself, it can be held that defendant also admitted the title of plaintiff, and the admitted fact need not be proved. Hence it can be concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession thereof. Thus, I did not find any illegality in the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

21.At this juncture it is pertinent to mention few aspects regarding filing appeal suit. After filing this Appeal Suit, appellant /defendant died on 2.7.2016. This fact was brought 15 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 to the notice of the court by respondent counsel by filing a memo in the Court on 23.01.2017. But the counsel for appellant did not choose to take steps to bring Legal heirs of deceased/appellant in time. The matter was posted from 22.2.2017 to 10.3.2017 for steps and finally appeal suit was abated on 24.3.2017. Thenpetition vide I.A.No. 1362/2018 for condoning delay of 555 days was allowed by imposing costs

Rs. 1000/- allowed. Later I.A No. 359/2019 was filed to set aside abatement order and it was allowed, then appeal suit was restored and petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record, as per orders in I.A.No. 481/2018.

22.The respondent/plaintiff also died on 3.10.2019, and on 28.11.2019 a memo filed in the court to that effect, but the appellant counsel did not show interest to bring LRs on record immediately and there was 982 days delay and I.A.No.

80/2022 which was filed u/sec. 148 CPC and sec. 5 of

Limitation Act was dismissed by this court on 3.8.2022, consequently, suit was dismissed as abated. Then the matter 16 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 was carried before Hon’ble High court by filing

CRP.NO.1930/2022 and the Hon’ble High Court allowed the

petition permitting R2 to 5 to come on record. It shows how far appellants evince interest in the proceedings.

23.On perusal of the original suit record proceedings, the suit was filed in the year 2013, issues framed on 10.6.2014, plaintiff chief affidavit filed and got marked documents on 4.9.2014, Pw1 was cross examined on 17.9.2014 and 9.10.2014. Again Pw1 was recalled on 28.7.2015 for marking

ExA32 and 33. Again Pw1 was cross examined on 25.8.2015.

Pw2 was examined on 1.9.2015. Then plaintiff side evidence reported closed. Since 9.9.2015, 25.9.2015, 8.10.2015, 30.10.2015 and 5.11.2015 the defendant failed to adduce his evidence. Hence defendant side evidence was closed on 12.11.2015, on that day there was no representation. On 25.11.2015 plaintiff side arguments being heard. For defendant arguments posted to 27.11.2015, 3.12.2015, 8.12.2015, 11.12.2015, 17.12.2015. Defendant arguments 17 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 heard on 22.12.2015 and the judgment was pronounced on 18.1.2016.

24.But the defendant did not take any steps to re-open the case for adducing his evidence before pronouncing judgment.

He did not file any single document either before trial court or

before this court. In this regard the learned appellants

counsel referred the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad held betweenRouthu

Venkataratnam Vs. Miryala Venkatarao and another

[2005(1) ALT 208] and contended that the Court has to decide the matter on the evidence adduced and the Court cannot exhort the parties to come forward with further evidence.

25.He further referred the judgment of Hon’ble High court of judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad held between Mullapudi

Veera Venkata Balayogi Satyanarayana and ors. Vs.

Mullapudi Indravathi [2006(5) ALD 547].

18 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

26.As per observation in above decisions where the parties in a suit understand the scope of the controversy between them and lead evidence, mere absence of an issue, is not fatal to the judgment rendered in it. The purpose of framing of issues is to enable the court as well as the parties, to know the area of controversy and to permit the parties to lead evidence in relation to the issues so framed.

Once the parties understand the scope of controversy, it is for them to lead evidence. It is no part of the duty of a Court to see whether the parties have adduced adequate evidence.

The function of the Court is to decide the matter, on the basis of the evidence, i.e adduced by the parties. If one of the parties or both of them have chosen not to adduce evidence to prove their contention, the Court cannot exhort them to come forward with further evidence. If matters are to be remanded only on these grounds, it would enable the parties to fill the lacunae.

19 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

27.The appellant /defendant have not availed opportunity of adducing any evidence before trial Court. There is no justification on their part in not availing opportunity of adducing evidence, inspite of giving several adjournments.

Without filing any documents to substantiate their contentions the counsel for appellant requesting the court to remand the matter to trial court, which is beyond purview of Rule 23 of Order XLI of C.P.C. If the appellant come forward by filing any documentary evidence it would be otherwise. Further without filing any documentary evidence

before the trial court, in the grounds of appeal, it was

mentioned that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record and pronounced judgment against record, in biased manner and against principles of nature justice and came to erroneous conclusion as plaintiff is owner of suit property. This contention absolutely not tenable.

28.Instead of explaining circumstances under which the defendant failed to adduce evidence before trial court he has contended that the trial court did not give any opportunity to 20 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016 him to produce evidence. No reasons explained to the satisfaction of this Court in not adducing evidence by the appellant. It is not his case that inspite of exercising due diligence, he could not adduce oral or documentary evidence

before the Trial Court. Having failed to avail opportunity

before trial court, now the defendant is not entitled for

availing further opportunity of contesting the suit as they have not availed the ample opportunity available to them for contesting the suit.

29.The grounds of appeal are totally false, baseless and taken for the sake of consequence and they have no merits and not acceptable. This court did not find any single condition as given under Order XLI Rule 23 of C.P.C to remand back the suit.

30. Thus considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, it is held that plaintiff has established his case and entitled for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession. Accordingly these points are answered.

21 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

Point No.3:

31.In view of above discussion in points 1 and 2, I am of considered opinion that the trial court rightly observed that the plaintiff established his case and rightly decreed the suit.

I did not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the Trial Court, which is as per Law. Thus I did not find any merits in grounds of appeal. likewise I did not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment of learned Trial Court.

Thus there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4

32. In view of above discussion, it is held that the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

33. In the result: Appeal suit is dismissed, with costs, by confirming the Judgment and Decree of learned Senior Civil

Judge Adilabad in OS.No.94/2013, dated 18.1.2016.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of 18th day of April, 2023.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSION JUDGE,

ADILABAD

22 of 22 A.S.NO.5 of 2016

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined --None –

Exhibits Marked ---Nil--

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSION JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Page 1 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

PRESENT: SMT.D.MADHAVI KRISHNA,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

Tuesday this the 11th day of April, 2023

N.D.S.C.No. 15 of 2021

Name of the complainant::The Inspector of Police, Adilabad-II town Description of the accusedA1: Shaik Kaleemuddin @ Kallu, S/o. Mujeebuddin, Age 39 years, occ: Business, R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad

A2: Ankade Tukaram @ Bandu @ Bandya,S/o. Bheemrao, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. Junni (v) of Echoda (M) A3: Shaik Akbar,S/o.Shaik Ismail, Age 40 years, Occ:Tailor, R/o.Gudihathnur (v)

A4: Syed Sattar, S/o. Syed Hussain, Age 40 years, Occ; Coolie, R/o. Kranthinagar, Adilabad

A5: Shaik Saleem, S/o.Samad, Age 39 years, Occ; Auto Driver, R/o. Kranthinagar, Adilabad

Charge::Under Section 20 (b)(i) of NDPS Act- 1985. Plea of the accused::Not guilty. Finding of the Court::Found guilty Sentence or orderIN THE RESULT, the accused 1 to 5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct,1985and accordingly, they are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

Page 2 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 The accused are sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS each and further to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for THREE MONTHS each for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S Act.

The remand period undergone by the accused shall be given set- off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The MO1/Splendor Plus motorcycle and MO2 cash of Rs. 2100/- shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time.

Accused are informed their right to appeal. Accused further informed that, if they want any legal aid to file appeal, the Court can provide legal aid on their application.

Office is directed to furnish copy of judgment to all the accused at free of cost as per section 363(1) Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount is Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) Prosecution conducted by:Sri M.Madhukar, Addl. Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by::Sri K.Srikanth for A1 Sri.T.Devender Singh for A2 to A5

This case has come before me on28.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Madhukar,Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/ State and of Sri K.Srikanth, Advocate for accused No.1 and Sri.T.Devender Singh,Advocate for A2 to A5, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

Page 3 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, Adilabad-II town has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 35/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (for short N.D.P.S. Act).

2.The prosecution case in brief as per the charge sheet is as follows:- On 02.02.2020 at 5.00 p.m, on receipt of the reliable information about the illegal possession of contraband noxious substance i.e Ganja at Tatiguda, Adilabad, Pw4 along with Pw1 and Lw2/Kareem who are Police Constables rushed to H.No. 3-5- 53 of A1/Shaik Kaleemuddin at Taiguda and found five persons coming out from the house of A1 with hand bag and plastic cover.

Then he apprehended them at 5.20 p.m.,, checked the bags and found dried Ganja. On interrogation the accused persons revealed their names. Then he issued Notice to accused under NDPS Act.

Pw4 sent a requisition to Pw5/Tahsildar. Accordingly Pw5 came there, he conducted confession and seizure panchanama and also drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of

Pw2 and Lw5/Goka Gangaraj. Later Pw5 visited scene of offence at 5.50 p.,m where he secured the presence of Pw2 and Lw5 and recorded the confessional statement of accused No.1.

Page 4 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 2(a). On 02.02.2020 the accused persons A2 to A5 came to the house of A1 to purchase Ganja and A1 sold the 3 Kgs of Ganja to

A2 and A3 for Rs.2000 per KG and 500 grams each to A4 and

A5, when A2 to A5 going to sell Ganja packets in Adilabad, police apprehended them. A2 to A5 also confessed the same then Pw5 recorded the confessional statements of accused, seized the

Ganja 250 grams (38) pouches and net cash of Rs. 2100/- from

A1; 3 Kgs Ganja, one motorcycle bg.No. AP-01-H-8451 from A2 and A3; 500 grams Ganja from A4; and 500 grams ganja from A5 under cover of seizure panchanama. Then Pw4 weighing the seized Ganja with the help of Pw3 and preserved (3) packets each 50 grams from seized Ganja for chemical analysis, then he handed over seized Ganja and accused persons A1 to A5 to Pw4.

Pw4 brought the accused persons along with case property to PS

Adilabad-II town and registered a case in Cr.No. 35/2020, u/sec.

20(b)(i) of NDPS Act and issued FIR.

2(b). During the course of investigation Pw4 examined and recorded the statements of Pw1, Lw2/M.A.Kareem and Pw3, effected the arrest of accused. Subsequently Pw6 took-up further investigation, verified the investigation done by Pw4 and remanded accused persons to judicial custody and later he

Page 5 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 collected FSL report in which it is opined that the items 1,2 and 3 are analyzed and they are found to be “Ganja a narcotic drug”

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec. 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act.

2(c). The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

2(d). On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 20(b)

(i) of N.D.P.S Act is framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In order to substantiate its case, against the accused, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P.1 to

P.11 and MO.1 and 2 are marked.

4.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. confronting the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them, for which the accused denied and

Page 6 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 reported no evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence has been closed.

5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecu- tion and the learned counsel for the accused.

6. The point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.20(b)(i)

of NDPS Act-1985, beyond any reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7. To prove above said charge against accused, the prosecution examined altogether 6 witnesses. Pw1 is Head Constable; Pw2 is panch witness for Crime Detail Form and also for panchanama.

Pw3 is witness who weighed the Ganja; Pw4 is investigation officer who arrested the accused persons; Pw5 is Tahasildar,

Adilabad and Pw6 is 2nd investigation officer who filed charge sheet.

8.The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that A1 possessed Ganja and selling by way of small packets and A2 to

A5 came to the house of A1 to buy the packets. On 2.2.2020 Pw4 received information about illegal possession of ganja by A1, then at 5.00 pm, he along with his staff Pw1 and Lw2 PC NO. 1868 proceed to the house of A1 bg.No.3-5-53 at Tatiguda found 5

Page 7 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 persons at his house with a hand bag and plastic cover.

Immediately Pw4 apprehended those persons and issued

ExP4/Search memo to A1 and checked the bag and found dry

Ganja. On interrogation the accused persons revealed their names who are A1 to A5. Then Pw4 issued ExP3 /Sec. 50 NDPS Act

Notice to A1 and send requisition to Thasildar/Pw5. Then Pw5 came to spot at 17.50 hours and secured presence of panch witnesses who are Pw2 and Lw5/Gangaraj and in-their presence accused confessed the commission of offence. Tahsildar also issued ExP2/sec. 50 NDPS Act notice to A1 regarding objections to be searched before Thasildar. For that A1 reported no objection for search. A1 confessed that he purchased ganja from unknown persons and on the said date A2 to A5 came to his house to buy ganja in small quantity. He sold 3 KG ganja to A2 and A3 at Rs. 2,000/- per KG, A1 sold 500 grams Ganja each to A4 and

A5. Then the raiding team including Tahasildar conducted

ExP1/panchanama and seized Ganja in above mentioned quantity including MO1/motorcycle from A2 and cash Rs.2100/- ( MO2) from A1 under the cover of ExP1/panchanama. Later accused along with seized property were brought to police station and basing on panchanama and ExP6 report submitted by Pw4

Cr.No.35/2020 was registered u/sec. 20(B)(1) of NDPS Act vide

Page 8 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 ExP5 FIR. Later Pw4 examined the witnesses and Pw4 also visited the scene of offence prepared ExP7 Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch at the house of A1. Later Pw6 took-up further investigation, effected arrest of accused persons, send information to DSP, Adilabad vide ExP8 regarding registering the case and arrest of accused persons, forwarded the samples to

FSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis and obtained

ExP10/Inventory certificate from learned JFCM, Adilabad.

Thereafter Pw6 collected ExP9/FSL report and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. ExP11/2 photographs of motorcycle. MO1/ motorcycle bg.No.AP-01-H-8451.

9.Pw1 deposed evidence as per record without any deviations as to assisting Pw4 in conducting panchanama. His statement also was recorded by SI of police. He also identified all the accused persons before the court. During cross examination only suggestions put-forth to Pw1 denying entire his evidence in chief and for all that suggestions Pw1 denied. According to him,

Tahsildar drafted ExP1/panchanama and according to Pw1 it took 1 to 1 ½ hour time for conducting and drafting panchanama. Pw1 denied the suggestions that this case was registered for statistical purpose.

Page 9 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

10.Pw2 then VRA, in-charge VRO, Tahsildar Office, Adilabad categorically deposed that on the date of incident Thasildar called him and another witness to Tatiguda to the house of A1 and they arrived there around 6.00 p.m, found 5 persons, 3 KG ganja was seized and weighed by somebody and on enquiry by Thasildar and police A1 confessed the offence and A2 to A5 came to buy ganja, they found 38 small packets and 2 other packets each packet weighing 500 grams were seized. He identified his signature on the panchanama and also identified accused. Pw2 identifying accused persons will arise during the course of evidence and it would not be mentioned in ExP1. Pw2 stated that earlier he deposed evidence in other police cases. But on that ground his evidence need not be thrown away. It does not mean that he is stock witness to police and deposing false evidence. He also denied the suggestions that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nothing was seized from A1 to A5.

11.The evidence of Pw3 shows that he was running a Kirana shop at Gunj Road, Adilabad and on 2.2.2020 police came to his shop and asked him to weigh Ganja, hence he took weighing machine to the house of A1 at Tatiguda and weighed 38 small packets which comes to 250 grams and huge ganja in a cloth

Page 10 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 which comes to 3 KG and some other ganja packets comes at 1

KG total 4.250 grams. He also found 5 accused and identified the same accused before the court. In his cross examination it was elicited that now he is not running Kirana shop and he sold away the same 8 yeas back and at that time he also sold away weighing machine. Pw3 explained that he sold away his shop 8 months back only. He denied other suggestions.

12.Pw4 also deposed evidence supporting ExP1/panchanama.

Pw5 Thasildar corroborated the contents of ExP1 panchanama and the evidence of Pw1,2 and 4. Pw6 also deposed evidence regarding remand of accused , and filing charge sheet.

13.Pw4 and 6 stated that they have not collected any documents regarding house of A1. It is suggested to Pw4 that

H.No.3-3-53 does not belongs to A1. But as per record search memo was given on H.No. 3-5-53. The record also shows that prosecution collected Aadhar card of A1 as per it accused is resident of H.No.3-5.53. Therefore, the above suggestion does not hold good.

Page 11 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

14.It was further admitted that there was no endorsement made on panchanama that it was written as per narration of

Thasildar. Pw4 explained that the writer PC.NO. 2079 wrote panchanama. The same scribe also written statements of witnesses and there is no illegality. Pw5 also deposed that as per his narration panchanama was scribed and he also identified all the accused before the court. However, when the panchanama was conducted on 2.2.2020, Pw5 gave evidence before the court on 28.11.2022, therefore due to the delay he unable to identify each accused by their names. Thus all the witnesses categorically deposed the case of prosecution as per record without any contradictions or deviations.

15. The learned counsel for accused NO.1 has argued that A1 has no house at Tatiguda, but this contention is absolutely wrong.

He further contended that there is variation in the quantity of seized ganja as spoken by witnesses. But in my considered view it is of no consequence. Pw6 also send information to DSP,

Adilabad vide ExP8 which is compliance of sec. 42 of NDPS Act.

Page 12 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

16. The other contentions of learned counsel for accused that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution is not acceptable. The evidence of prosecution witnesses has duly proved that the house of accused No.1 being searched after following prescribed procedure and in the presence of panch witnesses and found that the accused No.1 having illegal possession of contraband and A2 to A5 came there to buy Ganja.

The samples which were taken were sent to Laboratory and as per ExP9/FSL report at the time of examination they were intact.

Nothing was suggested that during intervening period samples were tampered with, in any manner. ExP9/FSL report disclosed that ‘items 1 to 3 are analyzed and they are found to be

Ganja, a Narcotic Drug’. Thus there are no merits in other contentions of the learned defence counsels.

17. In the present case, I did not find any such serious infirmities which point to non-compliance of necessary provisions of Law.

The evidence of Pw1,4 and 6 who are officials is corroborated by individual panch witness and Tahasildar. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded and also cannot be branded as highly interested. I did not find any cogent and valid reasons to suspect the testimony of prosecution witnesses who had no prior

Page 13 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 acquaintance with the accused and did not nurture any grievance against them to implicate falsely.

18. There are sufficient compliance of provisions of NDPS Act in the present case. The testimony of witnesses could not be shattered by learned counsel for accused in cross-examination. No material discrepancies could be extracted and material facts remain unchallenged. In this case, the accused have no familiarity with any of member of police team who conduct search and seizure. No ulterior motive was suggested to prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused in this case for any malafide reason. The plea of false implication of accused is not supported by any evidence and accused also failed to lead any defence evidence.

19.Hence, in consideration of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved that all the accused together were in possession of 4.250

Kg contraband and F.S.L report (Ex.P.9) confirms that recovery substance was found to be ‘ganja’, thereby they are held liable for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Accordingly, point is answered.

Page 14 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 to 5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 11 th day of April, 2023.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

21.When the accused No.1 is questioned regarding sentence to be imposed, he stated that, it is a false case and his wife, 3 daughters, and old aged mother depend on him and prays to take lenient view.

22.When the accused No.2 is questioned regarding sentence to be imposed, he stated that, it is a false case and his wife, 2 children depend on him and prays to take lenient view.

23.When the accused No.3 is questioned regarding sentence to be imposed, he stated that, it is a false case and his wife, 5 children, old aged mother depend on him and prays to take lenient view.

Page 15 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

24.When the accused No.4 is questioned regarding sentence to be imposed, he stated that, it is a false case and his wife, 4 children and old aged mother depend on him and prays to take lenient view.

25.When the accused No.5 is questioned regarding sentence to be imposed, he stated that, it is a false case and his wife, 6 children depend on him and prays to take lenient view.

26. The learned Public Prosecutor has represented that the offence committed is against society, therefore, accused shall be given higher sentence. The accused are having possession and selling ganja for illegal profits. Thereby no lenient view can be taken as it affects the society at large.

27.Considering the circumstances of the case, plea of the accused, age, nature of offence committed by them and further quantity of contraband seized, to meet ends of Justice, the accused is sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR

THREE YEARS each and further to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for THREE MONTHS each for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act. (total fine amount is Rs.25,000/-)

Page 16 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021

28. The remand period undergone by the accused 1 to 5 shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

29. The MO1/Splendor Plus motorcycle bg.No.AP-01-H-8451 and MO2 cash of Rs. 2100/- shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time.

30. Accused are informed their right to appeal. Accused further informed that, if they want any legal aid to file appeal, the Court can provide legal aid on their application.

31. Office is directed to furnish copy of judgment to all the accused at free of cost as per section 363(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 11 th day of April,2023.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Pw-1: Md.Tajuddin. Head Constable. – None -- Pw-2: Indur Ganganna/panch witness Pw-3: Puppala Janardhan/weighed the Ganja Pw-4: S.A.Mubeen/1st Investigation Officer Pw-5: M.Bhojanna/ Tahasildar Pw6: P.Srinivas/Investigation Officer

Page 17 of 17 NDSC.No. 15 of 2021 EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1:Panchanama, dt:02.02.2020 Ex.P.2:Notice u/sec. 50 of NDPS Act served Ex.P.3:Notice u/sec. 50 of NDPS Act served Ex.P.4:Search memo Ex.P.5:First Information Report Ex.P.6:Report submitted by Pw4 to JFCM,Adilabad Ex.P.7:Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch Ex.P.8: Information to SDPO, Adilabad Ex.P.9:FSL report Ex.P.10:Inventory Certificate Ex.P.11:(2) photographs of motorcycle

FOR DEFENCE:

--Nil-- MATERIAL OBJECTS: M.O.1:Spender Plus Motorcycle bg.No.AP-01-H-8451

M.O.2:Cash of Rs. 2,100/-

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Page 1 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC:SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, ADILABAD.

Present : D.Madhavi Krishna I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad. FAC:Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Adilabad

Monday this the 17th day of April,2023

S.C.(POCSO) No. 11 of 2020

Name of the Complainant:State of Telangana through Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Utnoor. Name of the AccusedA1: Shaik Hussain, S/o. Yaseen, Age 25 years, Occ; Private Driver R/o. H.No. 1- 70 Gundla village of Ichoda Mandal. A2: Shaik Shabbeer, S/o.Shaik Wakhil, Age 28 years Occ: Agril, R/o. H.No. 1- 121/4/A,R/o. Gundala village of Ichoda Mandal. A3: Shaik Apsar @ Afsar, S/o. Shaik Akhil Ali, Age 28 years Occ; Lorry driver, R/o.H.No. H.No. 2-13, Yellammaguda, H/o. Gundala village of Ichoda Mandal. A4: Shaik Taher,S/o.Hameed, Age 21 years Occ: Private Driver, R/o.H.No. 4-8-244 KRK colony, Adilabad. Offence under section:Secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 sec.s 363 r/w 109 IPC and sec. 6 r/w 17 of POCSO Act-2012 against A2 to A4 Plea of the accused:Not Guilty Finding:Found not Guilty

Page 2 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec.6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accused No.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 363 r/w 109 IPC and sec,. 6 r/w 17 of POCSO Act-2012, accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property i.e.Passion Pro bg.No. TS-01-EF-5673 alreadyreturnedtoaccused No.2/Shaik Shabber as per Crl.M.P. No. 617/2019, dt: 5.07.2019 made absolute after appeal time.

The unmarked case property Indigo Car AP-15-N-5792 shall be returned to is owner, after appeal time.

The unmarked case property (clothes) as per CP No.5/2020 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Name of the counsel for:M.Ramana Reddy, prosecutionSpecial Public Prosecutor Name of the counsel for:Sri.C.Indal Singh Defence

This case has come before me on 10.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Ramana Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.C.Indal Singh,Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

Page 3 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Utnoor has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 and u/sec.

363 r/w 109 IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A2 to A4 in

Cr.No.17/2019 of P.S.Ichoda.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: victim is resident of Mankapur and belongs to Vanjari -BC Community and A1 to A4 belongs to Multani Community. A1 is resident of Gundala village of Ichoda Mandal and A2 to A4 are his friends.

2(a). A1 developed friend ship with victim girl for the last one year (prior to complaint), used deceitful words on the pretext of marriage. On 26.01.2019 the victim and her friend left from the village to go to school to attend Republic day flag hoisting, in the meantime A1 took the victim girl in Maxx vehicle to Gandhinagar of

Adilabad, where he hugged and kissed the victim girl and returned to Ichoda.

Page 4 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020 2(b). The parents of victim knowing about the absence of victim on 26.01.2019 at school, they stopped her from going to school for a week. But the victim and A1 were continued their chatting frequently on their mobile phones.

2(c). As per the plan of A1, on the night of 02.02.2019 at about 01.00 hours A1 along with A2 took the victim to the bye pass road Ichoda on the bike passion Pro.B.No.TS-01-EF-5673 belongs to A2, after dropping A1 and victim at bye pass road, where A3 and A4 took the

A1 and Victim in Car and went to Nagpur of Maharashtra State, where one Saleem(Lw7) who is friend of A3 provided a rented room, then A3 and A4 left from there. A1 knowingly that the victim is minor girl induced her and he has committed rape on her several times by saying deceitful words.

2(d). Thus the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable

U/secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and A2 to

A4 have committed an offence punishable u/sec.363 r/w 109 IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Page 5 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020 2(e). Basing on the report of father of victim police registered a case and investigated into the matter and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.

3. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad has taken the case on file for the offence punishable under Sections U/secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 and u/secs. 363 r/w 109 IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A2 to A4. On their appearance, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, accused are examined U/sec.228 Cr.P.C for which they denied hence charge

U/secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 and 363 r/w 109 IPC and sec. 6 r/w 17 of POCSO Act-2012 against A2 to A4 framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 6 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

5.During the course of trial, to prove its case, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, as the victim and her parents turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

6. Since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused, examination of accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of both the sides.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC

and sec. 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against A1 and u/sec.

363 r/w 109 IPC and sec. 6 r/w 17 of POCSO Act-2012

against A2 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9. In this case the prosecution examined only three witnesses i.e.

Pw1 and 2 are parents of victim and Pw3 is victim herself.

10. According to Pw1 he is lorry driver and used to visit all states in

India and visit his house once at a month. He also stated that he has three daughters and two sons and his children and wife stayed at

Page 7 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020 home at Mankapur village, victim is his third daughter. He further deposed that at about four years back victim studying 9th class at

Government High School, Echoda and aged about 17 years by that time and she used to attend school by bus daily. On one day his wife informed him that victim was not found in the house in the morning who slept previous night in the house, then he came and searched for her and they traced her. Meanwhile they lodged police report, he put his signature on it, but he do not know its contents, but he identified his signature (ExP1) on complaint , dt: 05.02.2019. As such, he was declared as hostile and during the cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor Pw1 denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P2 and 3 (Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements).

11.Pw2 who is mother of victim deposed that she do not know anything about this case and police never examined her and never recorded her statement. She was declared as hostile. During the cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor Pw2 denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P4 and 5 (Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements).

Page 8 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

12.Pw3 is the victim and her evidence is significant. But she deposed that, she do not know anything about this case, police never examined and recorded her statement, police never send her to the hosptial and she never give any statement before learned Magistrate,

Utnoor. But she identified her signature on sec. 164 Cr.P.C statement.

During her cross examinationby the learned Special Public Prosecutor she denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P6 (Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement).

13. Pws.1 to 3 who are the material witnesses in this case, but they were declared as hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. Pws1 to 3 did not depose anything against accused. Though the evidence of Pw1 shows that the victim found missing from the house, later she was traced. But Pw1 and 2 did not state that A1 with the help of other accused kidnapped the victim girl. Further they denied that A1 kidnapped victim girl and committed sexual assault on her.

Further nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PWs. 1 to 3.

As such the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses, to save time of the Court. Thus there is no evidence available on record to connect the accused with this crime. ExP2 to 6 are sec.161 Cr.P.C statements which are useful for marking contradictions only. Even Pw3 denied having giving

Page 9 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020 statement before learned Magistrate, Utnoor. Even PW3 denied her signature on Sec. 164 Cr.P.C statement. It seems that in view of seriouness of offence the parties might have entered into compromise out of Court and since offence is not compoundable in nature, Pws 1 to 3 deposed evidence in such manner so as to facilitate the Court to acquit the accused. Admitedly, now victim is married; and to avoid complications in her marital life, she is deposing false evidence, when

C.D played in the court, victim stated that by influence of police she gave that statement i.e ExP6. But this Court is concerned with evidence placed before it only. Certainly the evidence available

before this court is not at all established the involvement of the

accused in alleged offence.

14. In view of the above discussion and as Pws.1 to 3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

Page 10 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

15.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and sec.6 of

POCSO Act-2012 and accused NO.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 363 r/w 109 IPC and sec,. 6 r/w 17 of

POCSO Act-2012, accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property i.e.Passion Pro bg.No. TS-01-EF-5673 is returned to accused No.2/Shaik Shabber as per Crl.M.P. No.

617/2019, dt: 5.07.2019 made absolute after appeal time.

The unmarked case property Indigo Car AP-15-N-5792 shall be returned to its owner, after appeal time.

The unmarked case property (clothes) as per CP No.5/2020 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 17 th day of April,2023.

IADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC: SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER POCSO ACT, ADILABAD

Page 11 of 11 SC(P).No. 11 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1K.Chandrakanth -- None -- PW2K.Meerabai PW3Victim ( name concealed)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Signature of Pw1 on complaint, dt: 5.2.2019 Ex.P2 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 Ex.P3 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 Ex.P4Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P5Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P6Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3

For Defence:

-- Nil -- M.Os MARKED - NIL -

I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC: SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER POCSO ACT, ADILABAD

Page 1 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UN-

DER N.D.P.S. ACT -cum-I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: ADILABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.D.MADHAVI KRISHNA,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

Thursday this the 20th day of April,2023

N.D.S.C.No. 10 of 2021

Name of the complainant::The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ichoda Circle Description of the accusedA1: Sandunke Ambadas, S/o. Amruth, Age: 41 years, Occ: Mason work, R/o.H.No. 1-154, Kupti-K Village of Neradigonda Mandal, Adilabad District. A2: Baman Gopal, S/o. Dhandhu, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Gokonda of Bazarhathnoor Mandal.

Charge::Secs.20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act - 1985 against A1 sec.20(a)(i) 20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act-1985 against A2 Plea of the accused::Not guilty. Finding of the Court::Found not guilty Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable Secs.20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act -1985 and A2 found not guilty u/sec.20(a)(i), 20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act-1985 andaccord- ingly they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain inforce for six months, as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The MO3/ Bajaj Discovery motorcycle and MO4/white color LAVA company cell phone shall be returned to A1, after appeal time.

Page 2 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

MO1/bag containing Ganja, MO2/three samples shall be destroyed after appeal time. Prosecution conducted by:Sri M.Madhukar, Addl. Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by::Sri T.Devender Singh

This case has come before me on13.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/ State and of Sri T.Devender Singh, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Ichoda Circle has filed charge sheet against in Cr.No.18/2019 of Gudihathnoor P.S. for the offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 r/w 34 IPC (for short N.D.P.S.

Act) against A1 and A2.

2.The prosecution case in brief as per the charge sheet is as follows:- The accused No.1 hails from Kupti village of Neradigonda

Mandal and he is a habitual offender. A2 is doing ganja business.

On 13.02.2019 A1 went to Gokunda village of Bazarthathnoor

Mandal, then A2 has sold about 1 ½ kg Ganja for an amount of

Rs.2000/- per Kg to A1 for total an amount of Rs.3000/-. Then he returning back to Adilabad on his Discovery bike from Gokunda village and while he was proceeding towards Nagpur for selling the same on higher rate, in the meanwhile he was caught hold by

Page 3 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021 the police red handedly, then police seized 1 ½ KG ganja,

Discovery bike without number plate, one white colored Lava mobile under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators.

2(a). During the course of further investigation it is found that the accused No.1 is involved in Cr.No. 10/2014 u/sec. 457, 380, 435 IPC of PS Neradigonda. A1 arrested on 12.12.2014, case charged on 13.12.2014, and it is PT vide CC NO. 198/2015 (20 tulas silver chain , net cash Rs. 10,000/- , 2 hand watches worth of Rs. 5000/- and burnt the discovery bike and NBW pending against him since 27.12.2018.

2(b). A1 had committed an offence liable for punishment u/sec.

20(b) (ii) NDPS Act 1985 r/w 34 IPC and sec. 75 IPC and A2 had committed an offence liable for punishment u/sec. 20(a) (I) and 20(ii)(B) NDPS Act 1985 r/w 34 IPC 2(c). The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section 20(b)(ii) R/w. 20(B) of NDPS Act against A1 and sec. 20(a)

(i), 20 (b)(ii) R/W 20(B) of NDPS Act against A2. On appearance of

Page 4 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021 the accused, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

2(d). On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 20 (b)

(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against A1 and u/sec. 20(a)(i), 20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act against A2 are framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In order to substantiate its case, against the accused, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P.1 to

P.7 and MOs.1 to 4 are marked.

4.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. confronting the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them, for which the accused denied and reported no evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence has been closed.

5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

Page 5 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

6. The point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 20(b)

(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act -1985 against A1 and Sec.

20(a)(i) 20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act-1985 against A2,

beyond any reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7. To prove above said charges against accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution examined all together 6 witnesses and got marked 7 documents and MOs 1 to 4.

8. Pw1 is police constable who assisted Pw6 in apprehending A1 and seizure of case property. Pw2 is Kirana shop owner who weighed ganja with the help of balance. Pw3 is one of panch wit- ness for conducting CD form and for confession of A1 and seizure of MOs 1,3 and 4 and drawing MO2/samples. Pw4 is MRO,

Gudihathnur Mandal who acted as Gazetted officer. Pw5 and 6 are investigation officers.

9. Pw1 deposed about apprehending A1 when he was tried to escape on seeing police party and carrying a bag, conducting panchanama by Pw4 drawing samples etc. facts.

Page 6 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

10. Pw2 deposed about weighing ganja at request of SI of police

Gudihathnur police and which comes to 1.5 Kg.

11. Pw3 deposed about conducting panchanama, vide ExP1 ob- serving the scene and preparing Naksha in ExP2/Crime Detail

Form , seizure of MO1/bag containing ganja and MO2/samples and

MO3/Bajaj Discovery motorcycle (no number plate) and MO4/Lava phone from A1.

12. Pw4 also deposed about conducting ExP3/panchanama. Pw5 deposed about apprehending A2 at Ichoda Bus stand on 4.4.2019 and recording his confession in the presence of Lw6/Shaik baba and Lw7/Charan and after receiving FSL report i.e ExP4 filing charge sheet. Pw6 deposed about conducting panchanama and registering the case and issuing ExP5 FIR and sending a report to the court vide ExP6 and effecting arrest of A1 and remand.

13. In this case the riding team did not comply any mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. First of all the prosecution did not com- plied provision of sec. 50 of NDPS Act. Pw4 and 6 did not state that they have issued Notice u/sec. 50 of the Act to A1 informing

Page 7 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021 his right to be searched before Gazetted Officer. There is no evi- dence adduced before this court to say that A1 was apprised of his right being searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or

Judicial Magistrate of First Class as required u/sec. 50 of the Act.

Notice required tobe issued to A1 u/sec. 50 of NDPS Act is also not filed before the court. Even in ExP3 also it is not averred that

A1 was informed his right as per sec. 50 of the Act. Therefore it is violation of sec. 50 of the Act.

14. As per sec. 50 (6) of the Act, after a search is conducted un- der sub section (5) , the Officer shall record reasons for such be- lief which necessitated such search and within 72 hours send a copy therof to his immediate official superior. In this present case also the investigation officers did not send report within 72 hours . Therefore, it is violation of sec. 50 of NDPS Act.

15. As per sec. 42 (2) of the Act, the police officer shall send a report to his immediate superior officer regarding information in writing within 72 hours. In this present case also the investigation officers did not send report within 72 hours . Therefore, it is vio- lation of sec. 42 of NDPS Act.

Page 8 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

16. As per record when A1 apprehended on 13.2.2019 and he allegedly confessed that he purchased Ganja from A2 at cheeper rate. But police apprehended A2 on 4.4.2019 i.e nearly after 1 month 20 days after apprehension of A1. Further there is no re- covery of anything from A2. Witnesses for alleged confession of

A2 also not examined before the court. Thus absolutely there is no material before the court as to involvement of A2 in the al- leged offence.

17.The prosecution also violated the mandatory provision of sec. 57 of NDPS Act. Pw5 and 6 did not stated about sending any detailed report as to arrest of A1 and registering the case, to their superiors within 48 hours. In this regard the counsel for accused relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judica- ture, AP at Hyderabad held between Ankireddy Ramanareddy

Vs State of AP reported in [2005 (2) ALD (Crl.)263 (AP)] where it was observed that failure on the part of Investigation Officer to comply the requirements of sec.57 of the Act, the trial can be viti- ated.

Page 9 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

18. The evidence of Pw4/Tahasildar also shows that she learn Telugu and English language only but do not learn Hindi and Marati languages and there was no endorsement on panchanama that the panch wit- nesses made translation as to enquiry of accused No.1. Pw6 also has admitted that the scribe of panchanama did not signed thereon. There- fore, conducting panchanama is not also as per Law.

19. In view of above observation, since the prosecution failed to comply mandatory provisions of sec. 42, 50 and 57 of the Act, the trial can be vitiated. Hence, I hold that the evidence adduced

before the court is not at all sufficient to convict the accused.

Thus the prosecution failed to prove its case against accused be- yond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable Secs.20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act -1985 and A2 is not found guilty of sec.20(a)(i), 20(b)(ii) R/w 20(B) of NDPS Act-1985 andaccordingly they are acquitted of the said offence under Sec- tion 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain inforce for six months, as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Page 10 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

The MO3/ Bajaj Discovery motorcycle and MO4/white color LAVA company cell phone shall be returned to A1, after appeal time.

MO1/bag containing Ganja, MO2/three samples shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W-1: P.Srinivas, Police Constable --None-- P.W-2: G.Satish/weighed the ganja P.W-3: D.Satyaraj/panch witness P.W-4: D.Sujatha/Tahasildar P.W-5: N.Srinivas/Investigation officer P.W-6: B.Ramu Goud/1st Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Relevant portion of panchanama, dt: 13.02.2019 Ex.P.2:Crime Detail Form Ex.P.3:Panchanama Ex.P.4:FSL report Ex.P.5:First Information Report Ex.P.6: Crime Detail form ExP.7: Letter of advice and authorization letter

FOR DEFENCE:

--Nil--

Page 11 of 11 NDSC.No.10 of 2021

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1:Bag containing Ganja

MO.2:Three samples

MO3: Bajaj Discovery motorcycle

MO4:White color LAVA company cell phone

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD

I

Page 1 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -cum-

SPL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF ELECTRICITY ACT CASES:

ADILABAD.

Present : Smt.D.Madhavi Krishna, I Addl. Sessions Judge -cum-Spl. Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act, Adilabad

Monday this the 10th day of April, 2023

SPL. CC.No. 47 of 2019

Name of the Complainant:State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of Police, Neradigonda PS Name of the AccusedAnugu Laxmareddy, S/o. Laxmareddy, Age.46 years, Occ: Agril. R/o.Buddikonda village of Neradigonda Mandal Offence under section:Sec.337 IPC and sec.135 of Electricity Act. Plea of the accused:Not Guilty

Finding:Found not Guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.337 IPC and Sec. 135 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

MO/Black colour service wire, MO2/electric wire with red and black color with with bulb holder and MO3/rod shall be destroyed after appeal time Name of the counsel for prosecution:Sri.M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for Defence:Sri. T.Devender Singh

Page 2 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

This case has come before me on 3.4.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T. Devender Singh, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Neradigonda P.S. has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.337 IPC and Sec.135 of Electricity Act in Cr.No.

14/2019 of PS Neradigonda.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that: The accused is the resident of Buddikonda Village of Neradigonda, he is having agricultural land and he erected the iron rod on his agriculture field and illegally gave live electric connection to iron road with service wire from one Anreddy

Venkataramana Reddy who is having legal service connection vide 54/5HP, but the accused illegally got live electric connection from Anreddy Venkataramana Reddy motor starter without his consent for shining bulbs on the accused

Page 3 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019 field. Accordingly on 17.02.2019 at morning hours, while

Pw1 was proceeding towards one Chinna Bapu Reddy’s agriculture field for attending coolie work, on the way at 11.00 hours, when she reached at accused agriculture field, he got electrocution on right hand and sustained injury.

2(a). Basing on the report of Pw1, police registered a case and investigated into the matter and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the above said offences.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offence under

Sec.337 IPC and sec. 135 of Indian Electricity Act against the accused. On his presence, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges offence under Sec. 337 IPC and sec. 135 of Indian

Electricity Act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 4 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

5. During the course of trial, to prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and MOs1 to 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against him, but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel appearing for the accused and perused the record.

8.Having regard to the submissions and on a consideration of the material on record, the following point would emerge for determination namely:

Page 5 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

Whether the prosecution has established its case for the

offence punishable u/sec.337 IPC and sec.135 of Indian

Electricity Act against the accused, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT :

9.This is a case of committing theft of electricity and causing injuries due to negligent electrical connection.

Accused allegedly got electricity connection from his neighbor and got erected iron rod and fixed a bulb and due to his negligence Pw1 got electric shock when she touched iron rod.

10.When the alleged incident was occurred on 17.2.2019,

Pw1 reported the matter to police on 20.2.2019 at 1.00 p.m., through ExP1/complaint. Pw1 working in the fields of Chinna

Bapu Reddy and on 17.2.2019 at 11.00 a.m., she was proceeding in the fields of accused to reach the fields of

Chinna Bapu Reddy and when she touched the electric pole situated in the fields of accused, she got electric shock to her right hand and sustained injuries and lost conscious and later she took treatment at Govt. Hospital, Boath and

Page 6 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019 thereafter i.e. on 20.2.2019 she lodged the complaint. Basing on said complaint in Cr.No. 14/2019 was registered for the offence u/sec. 337 IPC and sec. 135 of Electricity Act.

11.Apart from Pw1, prosecution got examined Pw2 who is husband of Pw1, circumstantial witness as Pw3, A.E.E., TS

NPDCL, Neradigonda as Pw4, Panch for Crime Detail Form as

Pw5, Medical officer at Community Health Center, Boath who treated Pw1 as Pw6 and investigation officer as Pw7.

12. Therefore, it is the initial burden of the prosecution to establish that accused has got illegal electricity connection to his fields and due to his negligence Pw1 sustained injuries. Even as per prosecution and as per evidence of Pw4 and ExP4/report, one Anreddy Venkatramana Reddy has got electric connection/starter legally in his fields and from that starter electricity connected to the bulb fixed to a iron rod in the fields of accused. The said Ramana Reddy has got 3-

Phase electric motor starter box and electricity connection

Page 7 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

No. 54/5 HP legally but the accused un-authorizedly run a cable wire by erecting iron rod temporarily in his fields. At the time of alleged incident Pw3 was cultivating the lands of said Ramana Reddy on lease basis. Therefore, it is for said

A.V.Ramana Reddy or Pw3 to speak that the accused un- authorizedly and illegally took electricity connection from their starter. But it is the evidence of Pw3 that he heard that

Pw1 got electric shock in the fields of accused,but there is no electricity connection. He did not depose that accused take electricity from the starter of Ramana Reddy.

13.Furthermore, Pw3 deposed that there is no way to the fields of Ramana Reddy and accused and there is no electric pole in the fields of accused and he has no knowledge about this case and police did not examine him. The investigation officer also did not examine Ramana Reddy to establish the fact that accused got electric connection without his consent.

Thus, there is no evidence available before the court to say that accused committed theft of electricity from the service connection of Ramana Reddy.

Page 8 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

14.The evidence of Pw1 and 2 is that when Pw1 going through the land of accused to reach the land of Chinna Bapu

Reddy alleged incident was happened. But it is also not established that there is only way to the fields of Chinna

Bapu Reddy i.e. through the land of accused. The investigation Officer also did not show the fields of Chinna

Bapu Reddy in ExP5/Rough sketch. Therefore, it is not established that Pw1 has to cross the land of accused to reach the land of Chinna Bapu Reddy. Further Pws 1 to 3 categorically admitted that there are no talking terms between Chinna Bapu Reddy and accused. The evidence of

Pw3 shows that there is no way to the fields of Ramana Reddy and accused. Pw4 also did not took any photographs at the scene of offence and he also did not conduct any panchanama at the scene . Though he stated that he gave information to his higher officials in writing regarding inspecting the scene of offence, no such copy has been produced before this court. He also admitted that he did not

Page 9 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019 collect any documents regarding providing service connection to Ramana Reddy fields.

15. To establish the fact that accused un-authorizedly took electricity from the electric connection of Ramana Reddy, without his knowledge or consent the best evidence is the evidence of said Ramana Reddy and Pw3 who was cultivating said land on lease. But as I already observed above, that investigation officer did not examine said Ramana Reddy and

Pw3 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Even there is no complaint form A.V.Ramana Reddy that the accused stolen electricity from his starter. Therefore, the sole testimony of

Pw4 cannot be relied upon to give conclusion as to guilty of accused.

16.Further there is 3 days delay in lodging the complaint.

When the incident was occurred on 17.2.2019, the complaint was lodged on 20.2.2019. But in the F.I.R it was mentioned as no delay. Pw7 in his evidence deposed that the delay was

Page 10 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019 explained. His evidence is against the record. Further the evidence of Pw7 is suspicious because basing on ExP1 complaint he registered the case u/sec. 135 Electricity Act , though the contents of ExP1 did not reflect the ingredients of sec. 135 of Electricity Act. He also did not examine the

Lineman or any other field officers of that area, to show pilferage of electricity. If he examine any of them, it would be known since how long accused got unauthorized electric connection from the fields of Ramana Reddy. Therefore, for all these reasons this court held that the evidence adduced

before the court is not at all sufficient to find the accused

guilty of charged offences. Hence it is held that prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.337 IPC and Sec. 135 of Indian

Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

Page 11 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as per

Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

MO1:Black colour service wire; MO2:electric wire with red and black colour wire with bulb holder and MO3:Rod shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

I Additional Sessions Judge Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence Pw1:P.Laxmi/complainant/injured-- None -- Pw2:Parla Lasmanna/husband of Pw1 Pw3:S.Ramreddy/Circumstantial witness Pw4:B.Krishna Rao/Electricity A.E.E. Pw5:K.Laxman/panch for Crime Detail Form Pw6:Dr.Md.Saddam/treated the injured Pw7:S.Venkanna/Investigation Officer

Page 12 of 12 Spl. CC.No. 47 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Complaint, dt: 20.02.2019 Ex.P2Sec. 161 cr.P.c statement of Pw3 Ex.P3Requisition to Pw4 Ex.P4Report by Pw4 Ex.P5Crime Detail Form Ex.P6Wound Certificate Ex.P7First Information Report

For Defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Black colour service wire

MO2: Electric wire with red and black colour wire with bulb holder

MO3: Rod

I Additional Sessions Judge Adilabad