D Rama Mohan Reddy

-1- CC No. 384 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. D.Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

Dated this the 4 th day of October, 2021

CC.No. 384 of 2014

Between: The State through

Municipal Commissioner, Armoor ...Complainant

and

A1: Janardhan Prabhakar S/o Vithoba, aged 33 years, Occu: Business, A2: Janardhan Gopinath S/o Vithoba, aged 38 years, Occu: Business, A3: Janardhan Subash S/o Vithoba @ Vittal, aged 28 years, Occu: Business, All R/o H.No.3-2-106/3 to 9, Gandhi Road, Armoor proper and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

…. Accused

This case coming on 29-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Sudhershan, Learned counsel for the complainant and of Sri M.K.Narender, Learned counsel for accused No. 1 to 3 and the matter having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Municipal Commissioner Armoor filed this complaint by the alleging that Accused No.1 to 3 have constructed 3rd floor unauthorisedly over the existing G + 2 commercial shops building without valid permission and without leaving any parking place for vehicles punishable under Sec.217, 228 R/w 340 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities

Act 1965.

2.The averments of the complaint succintly are that the A1 to A3 have obtained permission for construction of G + 2 floors, but the accused No.1 to 3 constructed 3rd floor unauthorizedly and without leaving any place for vehicle parking. So, the commissioner issued Ex.P1 notice under 228(i)(ii) and 217 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act -2- CC No. 384 of 2014 1965 on 19.12.2012 and directed accused No.1 to 3 to show cause why provisional orders should not be issued for which accused No.1 to 3 failed to comply the same, which constrained the complainant to issue provisional orders under Ex.P2 dtd:24.12.2012. Even then the accused

No.1 to 3 failed to reply the show cause notice, provisional order and confirmation order, as such, commissioner launched prosecution against the Accused No.1 to 3.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under

Sections 217, 228 R/w 340 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 against the accused No.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of the case records were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.A1 to A3 were examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s. 340 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, explaining the accusation levelled against them,for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Inadvertently A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C and that no charge was framed at that time by my learned Predecessor though the offence under Section 340 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities

Act, 1965 attracts punishment upto 3 years. As no prejudice is caused to

A1 to A3, I am proceeding for discussion of the case on merits.

7.During the trial the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. PW.1 is the complainant ie., Municipal

Commissioner (present). Ex.P1 is the provisional order ( notice ) dated 19-12-2012 issued by Commissioner of Municipality, Armoor. Ex.P2 is the confirmation order dated 24-12-2012 issued by the then Commissioner -3- CC No. 384 of 2014 of Municipality, Armoor. Ex.P3 is the complaint filed by Commissioner of

Municipality, Armoor.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which A1 to

A3 pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defense evidence.

9. Heard the learned counsel for complainant who submitted to pass

Judgment on merits. On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for accused No.1 to 3 that prosecution failed to file original sanctioned plan and that no measurements of unauthorised construction were disclosed in the complaint nor by PW.1, as such, prosecution failed to establish its case.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused No.1 to 3 have constructed 3rd floor unauthorisedly over the existing G + 2 commercial shops building without valid permission in contravention of Section 217, 228 R/w 340 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 ?

11.POINT : Perused material available on record. Commissioner of

Municipality is examined as PW.1, who deposed that accused persons obtained permission in order to construct Ground floor + two floors, but constructed third floor unauthorisedly situated opposite to SDPO. Office,

Gandhi main road, Armoor. It is also deposed by him that the then

Municipal Commissioner issued provisional order on 19-12-2012 calling for explanation under Ex.P1, which was served on accused persons, who failed to reply the same, which constrained him to issue confirmation order under Ex.P2 on 24-12-2012 stating to remove the unauthorised third floor construction otherwise he may take steps to remove the same -4- CC No. 384 of 2014 at the costs of accused and that later he filed complaint under Ex.P3 against accused.

12.From the perusal of the above testimony of PW.1, it is apparent that the then Commissioner got issued a notice under Ex.P1 for violation of sanctioned plan and confirmation order under Ex.P2 also for violation of sanctioned plan, but strangely Ex.P1 and P2 do not disclose atleast proceedings number and date of sanctioned plan which was violated by the accused No.1 to 3. Nor any original sanctioned plan is produced

before the court. Without producing atleast the copy of sanctioned plan

or any valuation certificate from the Sub-Registrar nor any map of unauthorised structure prepared by Town Planner, it is not known as to how prosecution is intending the Court to believe that accused violated any plan. Admittedly, testimony of PW.1 is bereft of any other details of measuments of violation. Nor any material is placed before the court to establish that A1 to A3 have raised 3rd floor by violating the sanctioned plan.

13.In addition to that what are the steps taken by the then

Commissioner to remove the unauthorised construction as required under Exs.P1 and P2 and Section 340-A of A.P.Municipality Act is no where stated by PW.1. There is no whisper by PW.1 that accused persons did not leave any place for parking of vehicles. Further, prosecution was launched by Commissioner himself by filing complaint under Ex.P3, though Ex.P3 discloses that he authorised TPBO to file the complaint, which raises reasonable doubt and supports the version of accused that due to political rivalry, the then commissioner lodged a complaint against A1 to A3. Except commissioner none else were examined and not even the witnesses i.e., R.Rajendra Prasad and T.Ram Singh were examined by prosecution, for the reasons best known to them, though -5- CC No. 384 of 2014 sufficient time was granted to the complainant to adduce further evidence on their behalf.

14. It is the case of accused that Ex.P1 and P2 were not served on them and that the signatures appearing on P1 and P2 do not belong to them. But apparently as seen from Exs.P1 and P2, the same are addressed to A1 to A3 at H.No.3-2-106/3/5/6 and as per Sec.353 ( 2 ) of the Act, it is not necessary that notice should be served on owner only and it can be on occupier also. It is not the case of accused that Ex.P1 and P2 were not served on any occupier also. It is only the case of accused that signatures appearing on Exs.P1 and P2 do not belongs to accused persons. Sec.353 (2 ) of the Act, is excerpted as follows :

(2)Where the person is an owner or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier in the notice or document, and in the case of joint owners and occupiers it shall be sufficient to serve it on, or send it to , one of such owners or occupiers.

Thus, in view of the above legal provision, the arguments of learned counsel for defence that Exs.P1 and P2 were not served on A1 to

A3 has no substance, as the same can be served on any occupier also.

That apart, except denying the signatures on Exs.P1 and P2, nothing material is elicited during the course of cross examination regarding service of notices under Exs.P1 and P2. When Ex.P1 and P2 contains the signatures of person receiving the same, it is can be presumed that they are served on person who signed on it and it is for the accused to rebut the same, but except denying the signatures on Exs.P1 and P2 nothing is brought on record.

15.However, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasosnable doubt against the accused and as stated supra the very failure by the prosecution to produce the sanctioned plan, valuation -6- CC No. 384 of 2014 certificate or atleast any map of unauthorised structure prepared by

Town Planner, the uncorroborated sole testimony of PW.1 do not inspire confidence to believe the case of prosecution. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Accused No.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the complaint of the Complainant is dismissed and

A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 340 of Andhra

Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of A1 to A3, if any shall stands cancelled, after six months.

Typed to my dicatation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of October, 2021.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Smt.A.Shailaja -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the provisional order (notice)

dated 19-12-2012 issued by Commissioner -NIL-

of Municipality, Armoor. Ex.P2 is the confirmation order dated 24-12-2012 issued by the then Commissioner of Municipality, Armoor. Ex.P3 is the complaint filed by Commissioner of Municipality, Armoor.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor -7- CC No. 384 of 2014

CC 48 of 20201

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. D.Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

Dated this the 1 st day of October, 2021

CC.No. 48 of 2020

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Balkonda...Complainant

and

A1: Arepally Rajashekar S/o Rajeshwar, aged 27 years, Occu:Agriculture, A2: Smt.Arepally Ganga @ Lavanya W/o Raja Shekar, aged 23 years, A3: Smt.Arepally Laxmi W/o Rajeshwar, aged 45 years, A4: Arepally Rajeshwar S/o Rajanna, aged 60 years, A1 to A4 R/o Kummarigalli of Balkonda village and mandal. A5: Smt.Armoor Sandya Rani W/o Prashanth, aged 23 years,R/o Kaligote A6: Smt.Arepally radha W/o Gangadhar,a ged 29 years, R/o Pedda Valgote A7: Rajarapu Sailoo S/o Rajanna, aged 36 years, R/o Argul villager A8: Smt.Kanugula Kamala W/o Narayana, aged 49 years, R/o Chinnapur A9: Kanugula Ganga Prasad S/o late Narayana, aged 25 yrs, R/o Chinnapur

…. Accused

This case is coming on 30-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Avula Ashok, Learned counsel for the accused and the matter having been heard, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Balkonda P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 9 alleging to have committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 494 r/w 109 IPC, Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, the marriage of the defacto complainant viz., Smt.Arepally Rajitha @ Madhurya was performed with

A1 on 15-05-2014; at the time of marriage her parents presented net cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, five tulas of gold worth Rs.2,00,000/- and house- hold articles towards dowry. After the marriage A1 and the defacto complainant led a happy marital life for a period of six months. Out of

CC 48 of 20202

the wed-lock they were blessed with one son viz., Rajesh and one daughter Rajasheree. When the defacto complainant was pregnant, A1,

A3, A4 to A6 used to quarrel with her on flimsy grounds and harassed her mentally and physically. In this regard panchayath was held and A1 promised to look after her well being. After the birth of daughter, A1, A3 to A6 used to harass the defacto complainant mentally and physically by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and finally driven her out of their house. Thereafter A1 performed second marriage with A2 at with the help of A3 to A9.

3.Basing on the report of PW1, a case was registered by LW7/ Sri

D.Swamy Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police PS Balkonda in Crime No. 92 of 2018 under Section 498-A, 323, 494 r/w 109 IPC, Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation he visited Balkonda village, examined the available witnesses and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. On 21-06-2018 A1 went to the police station and surrendered himself before LW7/Sri D.Swamy Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police PS

Balkonda, who served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 and on submitting sureties, A1 was released on bail. Like-wise, on 03-10-2019 A2 to A9 went to the police station and surrendered themselves before

LW8/SriT.Srihari, Sub-Inspector of Police PS Balkonda, who served Sec.41-

A Cr.P.C notices to A2 to A9 and on submitting sureties, A2 to A9 were released on bail. After completion of the investigation LW8/SriT.Srihari,

Sub-Inspector of Police PS Balkonda laid charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Section 498-A, 323, 352 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1, A3 to A6, under Section 494 IPC against A1 & A2, under

CC 48 of 20203

Sec.494 r/w 109 IPC against A3 to A9.

5.On appearance of A1 to A9, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.A1 to A9 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 352 r/w 109 IPC, Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Since A1 to A9 denied, charges have been framed against them for the above said offences, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 & 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor given up evidence of LW2, 4 to 8/ As there is no incriminating material against the accused persons in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused No.1 to 9 as contemplated u/sec 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A9 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 323, 352, 494 r/w 109 IPC, Section 4 of D.P.Act ?

POINT:

10.To substantiate the version of prosecution, prosecution has examined Pws.1 & 2, Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the report given to the police, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and Ex.P3 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW2. PW1 deposed that she do not know the facts of the case. She further deposed that she never lodged any report before the police. PW2 who is the brother of PW1 also deposed that he do not know any facts of this case. Inspite of cross examination by the learned

Asst.Public Prosecutor, PWs1 & 2 stood intact and destructed the case of

CC 48 of 20204

prosecution. The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses as the victim/PW1 and PW2 both turned hostile to the version of the prosecution

11.A perusal of material available on record discloses that, though the victim/PW.1 set the criminal law into motion, but she failed to stick on to her version when she entered into the witness box and she turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. Even PW2 who is the brother of

PW1 also not supported the version of the prosecution. There is no material available on record to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 9, as such the accused No.1 to 9 are entitled for acquittal. This point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, A1, A3 to A6 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 352 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, A1 & A2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 494 IPC and A3 to A9 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sec.494 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A9 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

Since no case property was deposited,no order need to be passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of October, 2021

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: Smt.Arepalli Rajitha @ Madhurya -NIL- PW-2: K.Ravi

CC 48 of 20205

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the complaint-NIL- given to police

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

CC 48 of 20206

CC 127 of 20201

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. D.Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

FAC I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

Dated this the 18 th day of January, 2021

CC.No. 127 of 2020

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Bheemgal ...Complainant

and

A1. Dubbaka @ Guthpa Thirupathi s/o Balaiah, Age: 28 yrs, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Coolie R/o Project Ramadugu village of Dharpally Mandal.

A2. Dubbaka @ Guthpe Posani W/o Balaiah @ Guthpe Nadipi Balaiah, Ace: 48 yrs, Caste: Gundla, Ccc: Coolie R/o Project Ramadugu village of Dharpally Mandal.

A3. Dubbaka Balaiah @ Guthpe Nadipi Balaiah Balaiah S/o Poshanna , Age: 55 yrs, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Coolie R/o Project Ramadugu village of Dharpally Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 18-01-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri S.Jagan, learned counsel for the accused, having been 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemgal P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 alleging to have committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Section 3 & 4 of DP Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant viz., Smt.Dubbaka Ravali was performed with A1 on 23-02-2018. After the marriage A1 and the complainant lead happy marital life for a period of two months, thereafter A1 went to Kuwait country for livelihood and returned to home at about four months back. Since then accused No.1 to 3 started harassing her physically and mentally to bring an additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- and necked her out from the house.In this regard panchayath was held in presence of elders who advised the accused No. 1 to 3 not to harass the complainant, but they did not changed their behaviour and continued to harass her for additional dowry.

CC 127 of 20202

3.Basing on the report of the complainant/PW1, a case was registered by

LW.7/K.Sridhar Reddy, S.I of Police, PS Bheemgal in Crime No. 100 of 2019 under Section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation Sub.Inspector of police examined the available witnesses. Later on 25-07-2019 issued Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the A1 to

A3. After completion of the investigation LW.8 laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the accused No.1 to 3.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act. Charges have been framed against them for the above said offences, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 & P2. As there is no incriminating material against the accused No.1 to 3 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused No.1 to 3 contemplated u/sec 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act ? POINT:

10.To substantiate the version of prosecution, prosecution has examined

PW.1 and signature of PW.1 on the report is marked as Ex.P1, Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P2. PW1 deposed that she do not know the

CC 127 of 20203

contents of the report. She deposed that the village elders obtained her signature on blank papers as there were petty disputes between her and A1.

Inspite of cross examination by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor PW1 stood intact and destructed the case of prosecution. The learned APPO given up the evidence of other witnesses as the complainant himself turned hostile to the version of the prosecution.

11. A perusal of material available on record discloses that, though the

Complainant/PW.1 set the criminal law into motion, but she failed to stick on to her version when she entered into the witness box and she turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence available on record for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences with which they are charged and accordingly they are entitled for acquittal. Hence, point is answered in favour of A1 to A3 and against the prosecution

12.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

Since no case property was deposited,no order need to be passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of January, 2021

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: Dubbaka Ravali -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

CC 127 of 20204

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Sign of PW1 on report-NIL- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

CC 127 of 20205

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ARMOOR

C.C.NO. 127 of 2020

1. Date of offence: Prior to 05-06-2019

2. Date of report/complaint : 17-07-2019

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 25-07-2019

4. Date of commencement of trial : 06-01-2021

5. Date of closure of trial : 18-01-2021

6. Date of sentence/order : 18-01-2021

COMPLAINANT: The State of through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Sirikonda

ACCUSED : Dubbaka @ Guthpa Thirupathi & others.

Offence U/s.: Section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

To The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

CC 805 of 20181

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. D.Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

FAC I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

Dated this the 12 th day of January, 2021

CC.No. 805 of 2018

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Sirikonda ...Complainant

and

A1) Thota Balraj S/o. Pedda Rajana, age:- 40yrs, Caste:Munnuru kapu, occ;- Agril, A2) Vancha Mahesh reddy S/oo Janardhan reddy, age:- 48yrs Caste:- Motadi reddy, occ- Agril, A3) Badala Santhosh S/o Ramulu, age: 29 years, Caste: Munnurkapu, Occ: Reporter of Namaste Telangana, All are R/o Sirikonda village and Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 12-01-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Aleti Gangadhar, learned counsel for the accused, having been 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Sirikonda P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 alleging to have committed the offences punishable under Section 188, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant viz., Manda Limba

Goud is BJP party Mandal President and in view of General Election

Legislative Assembly, the BJP party took permission for Eicher Vehicle bearing No AP20W6959 to be used in election campaign process for General election-2018 from 20-11-2018 to 05-12-2018 (5.00 p.m), to carry on the vehicle two box type speakers vide ID.No.S29SUV0311765, Dated:

19.11.2018 and it is order no. A4/4969/2018, dated: 20.11.2018, which is issued by the Returning Officer, 18-Nizamabad rural. On 25-11-2018 at about

CC 805 of 20182

8.00 p.m the BJP party members conducted election campaign procession by the campaign chariot bearing No AP20W6959 and they were proceeding towards their party office. Meanwhile, the TRS party members i.e. A1 to A3 started abusing them in a most filthy language and tried to beat the driver of the campaign vehicle and also damaged the flexy of BJP party and intentionally insulted with an intent to provoke breach of the peace by using ruling party influence.

3.Basing on the report of the complainant/PW1, a case was registered by

LW.8/S.M.Basheer Ahmed, S.I of Police, PS Sirikonda in Crime No. 116 of 2018 under Section 143, 427, 504, 188 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation Sub.Inspector of police examined the available witnesses. Later on 19-12-2018 issued Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the A1 to

A3. After completion of the investigation LW.8 laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 188, 504, 427 r/w 34 IPC against the accused No.1 to 3.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.A1 to A3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 188, 504, 427 r/w 34 IPC, the substance of the accusations was read over to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 and got exhibited Exs.P1 & P2. As there is no incriminating material against A1 to A3 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of A1 to A3 contemplated u/sec 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

CC 805 of 20183

9.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Section 188, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC ?

POINT:

10.To substantiate the version of prosecution, prosecution has examined

PW.1 and signature of PW.1 on the report is marked as Ex.P1, Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P2. He deposed that he do not know any facts of the case and that police obtained his signatures on white papers. Inspite of cross examination by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor PW1 stood intact and destructed the case of prosecution. The learned APPO given up the evidence of other witnesses as the complainant himself turned hostile to the version of the prosecution.

11. A perusal of material available on record discloses that, though the

Complainant/PW.1 set the criminal law into motion, but he failed to stick on to his version when he entered into the witness box and he turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence available on record for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences with which they are charged and accordingly they are entitled for acquittal. Hence, point is answered in favour of A1 to A3 and against the prosecution

12.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 188, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. Since no case property was deposited,no order need to be passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of January, 2021

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

CC 805 of 20184

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: M.Limba Goud -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Sign of PW1 on report-NIL- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

CC 805 of 20185

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: ARMOOR

C.C.NO. 805 of 2018

1. Date of offence: 25-11-2018

2. Date of report/complaint : 25-11-2018

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 19-12-2018

4. Date of commencement of trial : 07-01-2021

5. Date of Closure of trial : 12-01-2021

6. Date of sentence/order : 12-01-2021

COMPLAINANT: The State of through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Sirikonda

ACCUSED : Thota Balraj & others

Offence U/s.: Section 188, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

To The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

CC 201 of 20171

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. D.Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

Dated this the 24 th day of September, 2021

CC.No. 201 of 2017

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Balkonda...Complainant

and

A1: Misala Ganga Sagar S/o Gangadhar, aged 30 years, Caste: Gundla, Occu: Beedi packing R/o Ghanpur village of Dichpalli mandal. A2:Misala Laxmi W/o Gangadhar, aged 50 years, Caste: Gundla, Occu: Beedi roller R/o Ghanpur village of Dichpalli mandal. A3:Misala Gangadhar S/o Gangadhar, aged 40 years, Caste: Gundla, Occu: Beedi packing worker R/o Ghanpur village of Dichpalli mandal. A4:Misala Bhagya W/o Misala Gangadhar, aged 35 years, Caste: Gundla, Occu: Beedi roller R/o Ghanpur village of Dichpalli mandal.

[Case against A3 is split-up and numbered as CC No. 317 of 2019]

…. Accused

This case is coming on 23-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Aleti Gangadhar, Learned counsel for the accused and the matter having been heard, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Balkonda P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 alleging to have committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the defacto complainant viz., Smt.Arram Shyamala was performed with A1 on 30-04-2015; at the time of marriage her parents presented net cash of

Rs.1,15,000/-, half tula gold and house-hold articles, towards dowry. After the marriage they lead happy married life for a period of five months and later accused No.1 started harassing her to bring motor cycle, TV, then her mother gave Rs.15,000/- to A1. On 05-05-2016 at 1.00 p.m A1 to A4 necked her out of their house with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- for her sister-in-law’s marriage.

CC 201 of 20172

3.Basing on the report of PW1, a case was registered by LW.8/ Sri

D.Swamy Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police PS Balkonda in Crime No. 272 of 2018 under Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation he visited

Govindhpet village, examined the available witnesses and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. On 15-06-2017 A2 to A4 went to the police station and surrendered themselves before LW9, who effected their arrest and later released them on bail on furnishing sureties. After completion of the investigation LW10/Ch.Vijay Kumar, Sub.Inspector of Police laid filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A4.

5.Since NBW is pending against A3, the case against A3 is split up and numbered as CC No. 317 of 2019.

6.On appearance of A1, A2 & A4, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

7.A1, A2 and A4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of D.P.Act.

Charges have been framed against them for the above said offences, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 & 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor given up evidence of Lws. 3 to 8, as there is no incriminating material against the accused persons in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused No.1 to 4 as contemplated u/sec 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

CC 201 of 20173

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1, A2 & A4 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A IPC, Section 4 of D.P.Act ?

POINT:

11.To substantiate the version of prosecution, prosecution has examined Pws.1 & 2, Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the report given to the police, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and Ex.P3 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW2. PW1 deposed that she do not know the facts of the case. She further deposed that police obtained her signatures on white papers without disclosing the purpose. PW2 who is the mother of

PW1 also deposed that she do not know any facts of this case.Inspite of cross examination by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor, PWs1 & 2 stood intact and destructed the case of prosecution. The learned Asst.Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses as the victim/PW1 and PW2 both turned hostile to the version of the prosecution

12.A perusal of material available on record discloses that, though the victim/PW.1 set the criminal law into motion, but she failed to stick on to her version when she entered into the witness box and she turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. Even PW2 who is the mother of

PW1 also not supported the version of the prosecution. There is no material available on record to establish the guilt of the accused No.1, 2 & 4. As such the accused No.1, 2 & 4 are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, A1, A2 & A4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A1, A2 & A4 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. Since no case property was

CC 201 of 20174

deposited,no order need to be passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of September, 2021Digitally signed by John Doe

Date: 2021.10.01

12:21:28 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: Smt.Arram Shyamala -NIL- PW-2: Smt.Arram Maruthi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the complaint-NIL- given to police Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL Digitally signed by John Doe

Date: 2021.10.01

12:22:00 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor