Ms. Dora Uma Devi

1

THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : ELURU

Present : Ms.D.Umadevi, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

Friday, this the 27 th day of April, 2018

C.C.No.501/2015

Between:

The State represented by the Food Safety Officer, West Godavari, Eluru

..Complainant

And

Kayala Sankar, S/o.Govindarao, Aged 40 years, Proprietor, M/s.Sai Ganesh Sweets, D.No.20B-4-9, Gandhinagar, Eluru, West Godavari District.….Accused

This case is coming on 24.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Sr. A.P.P. for the complainant and of G.Uma Sankar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Food Safety Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru has laid a complaint against Accused alleging him of the offence under Section 3(1)(zz)

(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that -

On 11.6.2013 at about 3 pm, PW.1, Pw.3 and Food Safety Officer A.Mala

Konda Reddy were visited business premises ie., M/s.Sai Ganesh Sweets,

Elurua and found accused transacting the business, PW.1 disclosed his identity as Food Safety Officer and he secured the mediator i.e.,PW.2 and that in the presence Accused and PW.2, he inspected the business premises of accused and found approximately 90 unlabeled lolly pops I.e, hard boiled sugar confectionery sealed packets and on enquiry, accused disclosed that the lolly pops packets kept for sale to the public for human consumption, the 2 each packet contain 200 gms and PW.1 suspected the above said lolly pops as unsafe and that he purchased eight packets of lolly pops from the accused by paying an amount of Rs.96/- to him and also obtained the cash receipt from him and that PW.1 issued Form VA notice to accused disclosing his intention to send to the lolly pops to the Food Analyst State Food Laboratory,

Hyderabad for analyst and that he divided eight purchased lolly popes in to four equal parts by following the procedure under the Act. All the above process was covered under the cover of mediators report drafted by him and that he also obtained the signature of accused. On the next day morning, he sent one part of the sample bottle along with memorandum form VI to the

Food Analyst, State Food laboratory, Hyderabad and that the Food Analyst,

State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad delivered the analytical report in Form-B with a covering letter, the analyst opined that the sample contains Rhodamin-

B a non permitted colour which is injurious to health, he served notice along with the Analyst report to accused, accused not not responded. After obtaining the prosecution sanction order, he filed complaint. Hence, the complaint.

3.Taken cognizance against Accused for the offence under Section 3(1) (zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)

Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and 3 regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)

Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006, for which, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the offence under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)

(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food

Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 against Accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in oral and documentary evidence and the same was denied by them. Accused was called upon to enter into defence evidence, for which, he reported no defence evidence.

7.Learned APP arguments submitted that PWs.1 to 3 supported the case of the prosecution, PW.1 is the Food Inspector who lifted the samples from the accused shop and Ex.P10 analysis report disclosed that the sample contain

Rhodamin-B a non permitted colour (which is injurious to health). Therefore, it is unsafe. PW.1 evidence is sufficient to punish the accused and PWs.2 and 3 and also supported the case of the prosecution, So, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is corroborated with each other. Hence, it is sufficient to punish the accused.

8.The defence counsel argued that accused total denied the prosecution case as alleged to commit offence by the accused, PW.1 is not conducted inspection in accused shop as there is heavy rain on that day, there is no possibility to walk in that roads due to rain water stagnated on the road and 4

PW.2 also admitted that, on that day, heavy rain on the area of shop of accused located. Ex.p10 is a Analysis report from State Laboratory and

Ex.P17 is second analysis from the Central Laboratory, there are variations in both the documents, the findings of the analysis are different and percentage also different. In Ex.P10, it is mentioned Rhodamin-B a non permitted colour in second analysis, it is mentioned that the sample contain ash. So, as per the both reports are different findings, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

9.Pws.2 and 3 not stated in their evidence that Pw.1 purchased the items and costs paid for that items and accused issued receipt, so, there is an inconsistent in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 that Ex.P2 cash receipt is not obtained from the accused, the accused is sold only branded items, this fact was also admitted by Pws.1 to 3 and the signature of accused on Ex.P4 and

Exs.P2 and P5 are different, Ex.P2 is planted by PW.1 for the purpose of this case and the accused is applied for the renewal of the licence at that time

PW.1 obtained signatures of accused on some papers, due to which, he prepared the Ex.P2 and P5, but Ex.P2 is planted for this case in harried manner, thereby, the signature is forged and it is clearly visible to the naked eye and in this case, as alleged by PW.1 he lifted four samples and one sample for analysis and second sample for reanalysis to Central Laboratory and the remaining two samples are with him, but he is not produced before the Court, even at the time of trial also and it was not marked as material objects, non marking of the material objects also fatal to the prosecution case. PW.1 deposed in his evidence, he affixed identity slips on plastic bottle, after affixing the slips, he closed the plastic bottle with a wrapper paper and some other occasions he stated that he affixed the identity slips on wrapper paper, so, there is an ambiguity in the evidence of PW.1 with regard to affix 5 the identity slips on the samples. Pws.1 to 3 stated that one Food Designated

Officer Malakonda Reddy also present at the time of inspection, he was not signed on any document and in any where not mentioned his presence.

During cross examination also Pws.2, 3 stated that Pws.1 to 3 and accused were present and two or three customers are present, but nowhere stated that the Food Designated Officer Malakonda Reddy is also present at the time of inspection. No document to show that Malakonda Reddy is present. More over, in this case, PW.1 not secured local inhabitants to act as a mediators, even, he admitted that the accused shop is situated at a busy locality, even though, there is a ample opportunity to secure the local persons to act as a mediators, but he secured PW.2 to act as a mediator in this case. PW.1 stated in his cross examination one of his staff made a phone call to PW.2 and requested PW.2 to act as a mediator. PW.2 stated that PW.1 called him while he was passing through the road in front of shop. So, there is an inconsistency between the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 with regard to request to act as a mediator.

10.The defence counsel further argued that PW.3 is the Office Subordinate,

PW.2 also is supporting the evidence of prosecution. So, with the help of

Pws.2 and 3, they planted the Exhibits in this case and filed a false case against the accused. In the evidence of PW.1, he deposed that he asked about the manufacturer of the sample lolly pops, but accused not stated the name of the manufacturer. Pws.2 and 3 stated that PW.1 asked the name of the manufacturer and the accused informed him. So, it is also inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3.

11.The counsel for the accused further argued that the PW.1 sought for the bribe from the accused, the accused refused and brother of accused is a 6

Journalist, he stated to PW.1 that if he is asked for the bribe, he will inform to

ACB Authorities, thereby, the false case filed against the accused, accused only selling the branded items and he is not sold any loose items unbranded or without packing, so, basing on the submissions to pray for acquittal of the accused.

12. Heard arguments on both sides.

13.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

14.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3, Exs.P1 to P19 were marked.

15.PW.1 is the Food Safety Officer deposed that on 11.6.2013 at about 3 pm, himself and his subordinate Pw.3 and Food Safety Officer A.Mala Konda

Reddy were visited business premises of accused ie., M/s.Sai Ganesh Sweets,

Elurua and found accused transacting the business by disclosing his identity as Food Safety Officer and he secured the mediators i.e.,PW.2 and that in the presence of PW.2, he inspected the business premises of accused and found approximately 90 unlabeled lolly popes I.e, hard boiled sugar confectionery sealed packets and on enquiry, accused disclosed that the lolly pope packets kept for sale to the public for human consumption the each packet contain 200 gms and that he suspected the above said lolly popes as unsafe and that he purchased eight packets of lolly pops from the accused by paying an amount of Rs.96/- to him and also obtained the cash receipt from the accused and that he issued Form VA notice to accused by disclosing his 7 intention to send to the lolly pops to the Food Analyst State Food Laboratory,

Hyderabad for analyst and that he divided eight purchased lolly popes in to four equal parts each part contains two packets of lolly popes and placed into four empty clean and dry plastic bottles and each sample bottle screwed, fastened and sealed and that on each sample bottle a lable containing the particulars of the samples are affixed by means of the gum in which mediators himself and signed, he also obtained the signature of accused in

Ex.P4 and that the each sample bottle wrapped in a thick wrapper paper and the ends are neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum and that on each sample bottle, the paper slip issued by the Designated officer Food safety and

Standards 005-West Godavari District are affixed from bottom to top by means of gum and obtained the signature of accused on each sample bottle in such a manner that both wrapper paper and the paper slip carry the part of the signature and that the sample bottle tied with a strong thread and affixed seals on top, bottom and middle of the both sides the sample bottle by using his specimen impression seal with wax and that he informed to accused that if accused is so desired he may make an application immediately to the Food

Safety Officer W.G., for sending the fourth part of the sample to the accredited laboratory and that all the above process was covered under the cover of mediators report drafted by him and that he also obtained the signature of accused and mediators. On the next day morning, he sent one part of the sample bottle along with memorandum form VI to the Food

Analyst, State Food laboratory, Hyderabad and that the Food Analyst, State

Food Laboratory, Hyderabad delivered the analytical report in Form-B with a covering letter, the analyst opined that the sample contains Rhodamin-B a non permitted colour which is injurious to health. On receipt of analytical report the designated officer of Food Safety send a notice along with copy of report to accused intimating him if he desired prefer appeal make application 8 within 30 days. The accused preferred appeal at request the sample was sent to the Central laboratory on 17.7.2013 along with DD Rs.1000/-. The Central

Laboratory analyst opinion that sample does not confirm to Food Safety and standards (Food products and Food additive) Regulations, 2011 and it shows it is a acid insoluble ash and non permitted colour.

16.PWs.2 and 3 who acted as a mediators at the time of lifting the samples. PWs.2,3 chief examination also supported the case of the PW.1.

17.On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution, PW1 deposed that he do not remember, there is a heavy rain on the date of inspection. Pw2 stated that there is a rain on that day, but no water is stagnated on the road. Pws.1 to 3 admitted that accused shop situated in a busy locality and surrounded by shops and PW.2 also accompanied at the time of inspection, he started from their office and PW.1 stated that he is not try to secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators as PW2 who was already secured. PW.2 stated that the accused shop not within his jurisdiction, while, he was going in front of the accused shop on the date of alleged inspection, PW.1 requested him to act as a mediator. So, there is a inconsistency in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 with regard to securing PW.2 as mediator.

18.PW.1 stated that he did not verify owner of shop in which the accused is running shop. Pws.2 and 3 also stated the same as that of PW.1. It shows that

PW.1 not enquired about the owner of the shop whether accused is the owner of the shop or not. Pw.1 stated that without verifying records, he cannot say that his office issued licence to the accused or not. It is shows that PW.1 not asked for the licence of the shop of the accused. Pws.1 to 3 admitted that 80 percent of the food products in accused shop is branded items.

9

19.It is admitted fact that in Exs.P10 and P17 analysis reports the finding of the analyst is different. In Ex.P10, it is mentioned Rhodamin-B a non permitted colour in second analysis, it is mentioned that the sample contain ash. So, as per the both reports are different findings.

20.The defence counsel argued that Pws.2 and 3 not stated in their evidence that Pw.1 purchased the items and costs paid for that items and accused issued receipt, so, there is an inconsistent in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, but on perusal of evidence of PW.2, PW.3 they mentioned the said that in their chief examination. The defence further argument is that Ex.P2 cash receipt is not obtained from the accused, on Ex.P2 signature different from

Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P2 is planted by PW.1 for the purpose of this case. On perusal of Ex.P2, P4, P5, there is a difference in signature of accused, it gives strength to the arguments of the accused.

21.Pws.1 to 3 stated that one Food Designated Officer Malakonda Reddy also present at the time of inspection, he was not signed on any document and in any where not mentioned his presence, it gives suspicious that whether the Food Designated Officer is present at the time of inspection.

During cross examination also Pws.2, 3 stated that Pws.1 to 3 and accused were present and two or three customers are present, but nowhere stated that the Food Designated Officer Malakonda Reddy is also present at the time of inspection. No document to show that Malakonda Reddy is present. More over, in this case, PW.1 not secured local inhabitants to act as a mediators, even, he admitted that the accused shop is situated at a busy locality, even though, there is a ample opportunity to secure the local persons to act as a mediators, but he secured PW.2 to act as a mediator in this case. So, no 10 independent witnesses was secured at the time of inspection and PW.2 stated that accused shop not within his jurisdiction.

22.In view of the above evidence, this Court opined that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii)

(viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubt.

23.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)

Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 and thereby, he is acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no bail bonds. There is no material objects brought before this Court. Hence, there is no property order.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution For Accused

P.W.1:Y.Pandurangarao NONE PW.2:K.Paparao P.W.3:P.Pullarao 11

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecutions Ex.P1:Attested copy of Gazettee notification Ex.P2:Cash receipt Ex.P3:Form VA Ex.P4:Lable on the container Ex.P5:Mediator report Ex.P6:Form VI memorandum to the Food Analyst, dt.11.6.2013 Ex.P7:Speed post receipt Ex.P8:Postal receipt Ex.P9:Acknowledgment Ex.P10:Analyst report Ex.P11:Covering letter of the analyst report Ex.P12:Notice sent to accused Ex.P13:Postal receipt Ex.P14:Form VIII Ex.P15:Memorandum to the Director, central Food Laboratory, Calcutta dt.17.7.2013 Ex.P16:Memo received cash of Rs.1000/- issued by Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta Ex.P17:Form A second analysis report isued by Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta Ex.P18:Proceedings of the prosecution Ex.P19:complaint

For Accused: NIL

Material Objects Nil

II AJFCM

Eluru 12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.501/2015 tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Report Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of on ment of of or Complt. Accused Bail Trial Trial Order 11.6.13 24.4.15 –- -- 20.3.17 24.4.18 27.4.18 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: Due to non availability of witnesses.

Complainant: the Food Safety Officer, West Godavari, Eluru

Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

Kayala Sankar, S/o.Govindarao, Aged 40 years, Proprietor, M/s.Sai Ganesh Sweets, D.No.20B-4-9, Gandhinagar, Eluru, West Godavari District. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(zz)(vii) (viii) and 26(2)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulation 3.1.2(1) of (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)

Regulations 2011 and punishable under Section 59(i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 and thereby, he is acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no bail bonds. There is no material objects brought before this Court. Hence, there is no property order.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ELURU. Copy Submitted to:

1.The Hon'ble I Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru. 2.The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : ELURU

Present : Ms.D.Umadevi, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

Friday, this the 12th day of October, 2018.

C.C.No.504/2012

Between:

Vegi Veera Babujee, S/o.Siva Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 46 years, R/o.Pothunuru Village, Denduluru mandal, West Godavari District.

..Complainant

And

1.T.J.Priyanadam, S/o.Bhujangarao, Retired Hostel Warden, Hindu, Male, Aged 60 years, R/o.Balajee Nagar, Chataparru Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2.K.Suvarnama, W/o.Priyanadam, Retired Hostel Warden, Aged 58 years, SC Girls Hostel, Chataparru road, Eluru West Godavari District.

..Accused

This case is coming on 4-10-2018 before me for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.D.L.Achari,advocate for complainant and of Sri K.Uma Nageswararao and of Sri B.Achutarao, Advocates for A.1 and A.2; and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against A.1 and A.2 alleging them of the offence under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the complainant case are that :

The PW.1 got loan through self employment scheme Gramodaya and started vegetable business and that in the year 1984 he got orders from

Deputy Director Social Welfare Department for supplying of vegetables to 19

S.C./B.C. hostels in Bhimavaram Taluka and that he supplied vegetables and the payments for supplying the same were made to him through D.Ds. by obtaining his signatures on acquittance receipts and that A.1 was warden in 2

Bhimavaram Boys hotel No.II. and A.2 is matron in Bhimavaram girls hostel

No.II. A.1 and A.2are wife and husband and that A-1 and A-2 in active connivance with the then accounts officer Sri Satyaji have misappropriated amount showing that, the complainant directly received cash for the vegetables worth Rs. 15,000/- supplied by him in cash deviating the routine practice for period of 8 months i.e. from August 1984 to March, 1985, thereby, they committed the offence of cheating. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case taken the cognizance against A.1 and A.2 u/s 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC. On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of case documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. A.1 and A.2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sec.

420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC were framed against A.1 and A.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for trial.

5.In order to prove the offence against A.1 and A.2, the complainant examined himself as PW.1, on his behalf Pws.2 and 3 were examined on his behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P22.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A.1 and A.2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in oral and documentary evidence and the same was denied by them. A.1 and A.2 were called upon to enter into defence evidence, for which, they reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec. 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

POINT

9.To prove the allegations against A.1 and A.2, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and on his behalf. PWs.2 and 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P22.

10.The Court is look into the definition of Section 420 of IPC:

Section 420 of IPC defines as follows: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property whoever cheats and thereby, dishonestly induces the persons deceived delivered to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of him valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security is punishable.

11.PW.1 is the defacto complainant in this case, he deposed that he got loan through self employment scheme Gramodaya and started vegetable business and that in the year 1984 he got orders from Deputy Director Social

Welfare Department for supplying of vegetables to 19 S.C./B.C. hostels in

Bhimavaram Taluk and that he supplied vegetables and the payments for supplying the same were made to him through D.Ds. by obtaining his signatures on acquittance receipts and that A.1 was warden in Bhimavaram

Boys hotel No.II. and A.2 was matron in Bhimavaram girls hostel No.II and they are wife and husband and that A-1 and A-2 in active connivance with the then accounts officer Sri Satyaji have misappropriated amount showing that, he directly received cash for the vegetables worth Rs. 15,000/- supplied by him in cash deviating the routine practice and that A-1 and A-2 have misappropriated the amounts for supply of vegetables worth Rs. 15,000/- supplied for period of 8 months i.e. from August 1984 to March, 1985 and that

A-1 misappropriated amount of Rs. 8,170/- and the A-2 misappropriated amount of Rs. 6,610/- and that he asked for the payments towards supply of vegetables the said 8 months period, the A-1 on one occasion has paid two 4

D.Ds for amount of Rs. 310/- and Rs.440/- and the A-2 on one occasion has paid two D.Ds for an amount of Rs. 310/- and 470/- respectively and that except these payments the A-1 and A-2 of you have not made any other payments and misappropriated the rest of the amounts for the said 8 months period and that he has received payments with regard to other hostels by

April, 1985 except the hostels where A-1 and A-2 have working.

12.On that, the complainant gave a complaint to the then Deputy Director

Social Welfare Department, but no action taken by them. Thereupon, he gave complaint to the then District Collector and that the District Collector enquired the matter through P.V.S.Ramacharyulu, the then District Social

Welfare Officer, he submitted report the payments were already made to him, no amount was due, on aggrieved by the enquiry report referred appeal to Prl.

Secretary Social Welfare Department and that the Prl. Secretary Social

Welfare Department ordered for A.C.B. enquiry at Eluru and that the

A.C.B.officials conducted enquiry and during the enquiry they found that the

A-1 and A-2 have converted the supply bills as cash bills by forging part of his signatures on the revenue stamps affixed over the signatures in supply bills and that the A.C.B. officials submitted their report to the Government and that basing on the report the Government again initiated Departmental enquiry by appointing R.D.O., Narsapur as enquiry officer and that the

R.D.O.Narasapur conducted enquiry and recommended punishment to A-1 and A-2 along with Satyaji District Account Officer by cutting annual increments and that basing on that report the Social Welfare Department officials have cut the increments of A-1 and A-2 and Satyaji.

13.The D.S.P., A.C.B. felt that the enquiry report of R.D.O., Narasapur was biased and recommended to Government to initiate judicial enquiry and that the Government appointed Smt. J.Sudharani IAS as enquiry officer. Smt.

5

J.Sudharani conducted detailed enquiry by enquiry all the Wardens/Matrons of the 19 B.C/S.C. welfare hostels and after coming to the conclusion about the cheating done by A-1 and A-2 have given a report to the Government and that Basing on that report in the year 1991 the then District Collector instructed the Social Welfare Officials to recover the misappropriated amounts from the concerned officials along with interest and that the District Collector,

West Godavari issued orders directing the Social Welfare Officials to recover the misappropriate amount from the A-1 and A-2 and that the Social Welfare

Department officials have recovered Rs.400/- p.m. from the salary of A-1 and

Rs.230/- p.m. from the salary of A-2 and handed over him the D.Ds concerning the recoveries till 1993.

14.The complainant approached the then District Social Welfare officer

Ch.Malathi and requested her to give him an opportunity to resume vegetable business and that she put forth a proposal to compromise with A-1 and A-2 with regard to the interest due and that on 2-8-1995 at Eluru Social Welfare office the then D.S.W.O. Ch.Malathi arranged a meeting with A-1 and A-2 in the presence of three other A.S.W.Os and convinced him for amount of

Rs.12,000/-to be payable in three installments from A-1 and that he signed on the consent letter and that D.S.W.O Ch.Malathi asked him to bring one five rupees stamp paper and got typed the matter on the stamp paper that he compromised with both A-1 and A-2 and that he withdraw all the cases pending in the court and obtained his signature by handing over money bundle of Rs.10,000/- and that he read the contents of the stamp paper and raised objection for the compromise and that he complaint the matter to the

District Collector, Deputy Director of Social Welfare and S.P., W. G. Then the

S.P ordered the Town C.I. , Eluru to looking to the matter and that upon knowing the complaint preferred by him, D.S.W.O. asked him to withdraw the 6 complaint lodged by him and promised to give Rs.10,000/- in writing and assured that they will facilitate him in starting the business again and that they have not kept their promise and that he again lodged petitions with S.P.

West Godavari and II Town S.I and that he filed PLC 405/2007 against A-1 and

A-2 hearing were absent and then the Secretary D.L.S.A. advised him to file criminal case against A-1 and A-2 and that he approached Hon’ble court with private complaint in S.R.No.599 dt 4-2-2008 and that the Hon’ble court was pleased to refer the matter to Inspector of Police, Eluru Town Circle for registration and enquiry and that a case inCr.No.126/08 u/Sec. 420, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into and referred as mis take of fact, then, he preferred protest petition.

15.On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, during the cross examination, he admitted that he supplied the vegetables to the hostels of A.1 and A.2 basing on the orders from the Deputy Director Social Welfare Department and he obtained initially for one month, later, it is extended for one year. A.1 and A.2 made a default in payment of amount from the month of August 1984 to

March, 1985 and he received payments for the months January to July, 1984, but A.1 and A.2 are committed default in payment from August, 1984 to

March, 1985 and he compliant to the Social Welfare Department.

16.So to constitute the offence u/s 420 IPC, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. To apply this principle to the present facts, it must be said that the promise must be made from A.1 and A.2. In this case, the order received from the Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department to the complainant to supply vegetables to BC hostels at Bhimavaram. Even though, the Court presumed that this is contracting made on behalf of accused, in the cross examination and in chief examination also, the 7 complainant admitted that he received some payments in the month of

January, 1984 to July, 1984, thereby, some part of the amount was already paid to him. So, for mere non payment of amount, which cannot be said that accused have malicious intention of deceiving the complainant even the inspection of contract and without establishing the ingredients the complainant cannot say the accused are cheated him.

17.The learned defence counsel argued that there is a 20 years delay in complaint to the case to the police by the complainant, the delay fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his arguments, he submitted a decision delivered by the Hon'ble Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of

Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh 2018(3) ALT (Crl.)27(A.P) Koruvada Nageswararao and another

Vs.

State of AP rep.,by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another “Filing of criminal prosecution against this petitioners after lapse of 30 years from the date of commencement of litigation between the petitioners and second respondent in R.C.C.No.89 of 1987 indicates the malafides of the second respondent in launching criminal prosecution against these petitioners – On this ground also, proceedings against these petitioners are liable to be quashed”.

18.In this case, the offence is took place in the year 1984 to 1985 at

Bhimavaram and he made a private complaint before the Court in the year 2008 and that was forwarded by this Court to the police, after investigation, the police filed refer charge sheet as there is no case. On that, this protest petition is filed by the complainant. On perusal of the evidence that there is 22 years delay in the complaint to the police by the complaint, in all these years, he gave complaints to the higher officials of A.1 and A.2 and they conducted departments enquiries in this matter, the officials cutted annual increments, A.1 and A.2 are punished by the higher officials and they also 8 conducted ACB enquiry in this matter directed the accused to pay interest every month from their salaries, on that, accused approached to the administrative tribunals and complaint also approach to the administrative tribunals and the tribunal passed award. All these transactions are showing that it is only for recovery of the payment of the amount. The complainant already filed a civil suit for the purpose of recovery of amount due from the

A.1 and A.2 before the Hon'ble District Court, SC & ST Court, Eluru, that case was pending. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC is not attracted.

19.The complainant also examined Pws.2 and 3 and they are came to know the alleged offence through PW.1. PW.3 stated that on one of occasion, he went along with Pw.1 to the Social Welfare Department and another occasion on the date of inspection conducted by Ramachari, Enquiry Officer at Bhimavaram, he was present their evidence is a hearsay evidence.

20.Moreover, in this case, the offence is committed at Bhimavaram enquiry also conducted at Bhimavaram only the complainant made the compliant to the Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department, Eluru, for payment of amount due to him. Thereby, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to the trial of the case concerned.

As per Section 177 Cr.P.C laid down that “Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

21.This Court also taken cognizance u/s 409, 468, 471, 477A IPC against

A1 and A.2, but the offence is criminal breath of trust by public servant and forgery using the forged document as genuine and falsification of accounts all are took place at Bhimavaram jurisdiction.

9

22.As per Section 181(4) of Cr.P.C “Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person”.

23.The learned defence counsel argued that the Court has no jurisdiction on point of offence, is took place at Bhimavaram and during his cross examination of PW.1, he admitted that he was not made any complaint to the

Bhimavaram police and he was not filed PLC in the Bhimavaram Mandal Legal

Services Authority, the business of the complainant is at Pothunu village of

Denduluru mandal and he supplied vegetables to the Bhimavaram, so, the

Court has no jurisdiction.

24.In support of his arguments, he submitted a decision delivered by

Hon'ble Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and for

the State of Andhra Pradesh 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 346 (A.P) D.B.Power limited rep.,by DGM Legal Mr.Vikas Adhia, Mumbai and others Vs. State of Telangana, rep..,by Public Prosecutor, and another

Territorial jurisdiction – From the narration of facts in the complaint, contract was entered at Delhi and executed in Chattisgarh State – No part of the offence could take place at Hyderabad to confer jurisdiction – Except mentioning that the office of the complainant is located within the jurisdiction of XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, complainant could not establish how the said Court has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the case – Mere location of the complainants office will not give jurisdiction.

25.On perusal of the material available in record and arguments of the defence counsel, since the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the Court basing on the complaint made by him to the Deputy Director of Social Welfare 10

Department and Collector, Eluru who are within the jurisdiction of this Court, but the complainant cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court, on that ground he made a complaint to the superiors of A.1 and A.2 here. On perusal of

Exs.P1 to P6 transactions are took place and the alleged offence is committed at Bhimavaram, he only made a complaint to the Collector, Eluru.

Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to trial this case. The decision submitted by the defence counsel is appropriated to the case in hand.

26. In view of the above discussions and decisions cited supra, the Court is find that, the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

27.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not found guilty for the offence under Sec. 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC, thereby, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. No bail bonds, no material objects brought before this Court. Hence, there is no property order.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For ProsecutionFor Defence

PW1:V.Veera BabujeeNONE PW2:V.Durgarao Pw.3:A.Jawaharlal 11

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1:Cash book maintained by warden of Government, SC boys, hostel II Bhimavaram from 13.1.1982 to 5.8.1985

Ex.P.2 :Cash book maintained by Matron of Government SC Girls Hospital from 13.10.1982 to 18.6.1985 Ex.P.3:Triplicate receipt of 11 vegetable bills seized from T.J.Priyanandam

Ex.P.4:Statements and explanation of 15 wardens recorded by DRO

Ex.P.5:Statement of B.Satyanarayana Raju, S/o.Bapiraju the then ASWO, Jangareddigudem before ACB Ex.P.6:Enquiry report of District Revenue Officer, dt.21.4.1990

Ex.P.7:Order of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2910 of 1995 dt.20.6.1995

Ex.P.8:Order of APAT in O.A.No.2898 of 1995 dt.20.6.1995

Ex.P.9:True copy of Order of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2898 and 2910 of 1995 dt.1.9.2003

Ex.P.10:Letter dt.17.1.1986 addressed by SBI, Bhimavaram with regard to Banker cheques to complainant

Ex.P.11:Simple receipt book of Boys Hostel II Bhimavaram for the period August 1984 to March,1985 Ex.P.12:Simple receipt book of Government, SC, Girls Hostel No.2, Bhimavaram for the period August, 1984 to November, 1985

Ex.P.13:Loan Sanctioned letter of Andhra Bank dt.21.2.1984 to complainant

Ex.P.14:34 original receipts signed by A.2 at the time of supply of vegetables

Ex.P.15:ACB report bearing No.25/DE-G/RJY/86, dt.19.2.1986

Ex.P.16:ACB report bearing Rc.No.22/RC-REG/86, dt.7.10.1987 Ex.P.17:Proceedings of District Collector, W.G.,Dist., in Roc.No.A.1/309/89, dt.18.2.1991 Ex.P.18:Proceedings of District Collector, W.G.,Dist., Roc.No.A1/309/89, dt.20.3.1995 Ex.P.19:Attested copies of vegetables bills Ex.P.20:Certified copy of docket order of PLC Ex.P21:Reply letter dt.17.6.1998 addressed a letter to District Collector and copy to the complainant Ex.P22:Letter dt.17.5.1997 got issued to complainant by Deputy Director Social Welfare Department

For Defence: NIL

Material Objects NIL

II AJFCM

Eluru 12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.504/2012 tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of on ment of of or Complt. Accused Bail Trial Trial Order 10.11.1995 23.3.2011 --- --- 28.3.14 4.10.18 12.10.18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: Due to non availability of witnesses.

Complainant: Vegi Veera Babujee, S/o.Siva Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged 46 years, R/o.Pothunuru Village, Denduluru mandal, West Godavari District.

Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1.T.J.Priyanadam, S/o.Bhujangarao, Retired Hostel Warden, Hindu, Male, Aged 60 years, R/o.Balajee Nagar, Chataparru Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2.K.Suvarnama, W/o.Priyanadam, Retired Hostel Warden, Aged 58 years, SC Girls Hostel, Chataparru road, Eluru West Godavari District.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offences : Under Sec. 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC

Finding: Found Not guilty.

Result: In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not found guilty for the offence under Sec. 420, 409, 468, 471 and 477A IPC, thereby, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. No bail bonds, no material objects brought before this Court. Hence, there is no property order.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: ELURU.

* 1 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ELURU

Present : Ms.Dora Umadevi,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 2020.

C.C.No.542/2019

BETWEEN:

The State: The Sub Inspector of police, Eluru I Town Police Station, Eluru.

..Complainant.

AND

1.Isukaleti Mojesh, S/o Santha Rao, Aged 25 Years, SC-Mala, Vangayagudem, Eluru.

2.Mummidi Balajee, S/o. Srinu, Aged 22 Years, C/Yadava, Ramalayam Street, Challa Chintalapudi Village, Denduluru Mandal.

3.Bille Murali, S/o. Late Naga Bhushanam, Aged 32 Years, C/Kuraba @ Yadava, SC Peta, Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal.

4.Bille Jyothi, W/o. Murali, Aged 27 Years, C/Kuraba @ Yadava, SC Peta, Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal. … Accused No.1 to 4.

This case is coming on 13.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.N.Ch.Suresh Babu, Advocate for Accused No.1 and 2 and Sri Y.Venkatesh, Advocate for accused No.3 and 4 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of police, Eluru I Town Police Station has laid charge sheet in Crime No.110/2019 against accused 1 to 4 alleging them for the offences under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

(i)In between 18.04.2019 evening to 19.04.2019 at 6 P.M. in the absence of inmates of house of P.W.1/ Bodapati Suresh unknown offenders gained entrance * 2 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019 into his house and committed theft of one gold black beeds chain, one gold chain, one gold ring and one gold sutram and decamped with booty.

(ii) Basing on the report of PW.1 Bodapati Suresh PW.5/P.Jagadeswara

Rao Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.110/2019 under section 380 IPC and he examined P.W.1 at the police station and recorded his statement. on next day he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, secured witnesses at scene of offence and examined and recorded their statements. During course of investigation, on 02.05.2019 on receipt of credible information he secured P.W.3 and Alla Ganesh (L.W.8) as mediaotrs and arrested the A1 to A3 at Vangayagudem Ganganamma Temple, inpursuance of their confession seized one gold ring, one gold sutram, pair of silver anklets.

(iii)In pursuance of confession of A1 to A3, Sub Inspector of police went to Manapuram finance along with P.W.4 and Vayunandana Rao (L.W.9)and A4 and seized one gold black beeds chain from P.W.2 who is manager of Manapuram

Finance at Jangareddygudem. Accused NO.1 to 3 are produced before court for judicial remand and served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A4. After completion of investigation he filed chargesheet. Hence, this charge sheet.

3.This court taken cognizance against Accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 457, 380 or 411 of IPC. On appearance of Accused No.1 to 4 copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 ( herein after refered as Cr.P.C.).

4.Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Section 457, 380 or 411 of IPC were framed against Accused, read over and * 3 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019 explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for trial.

5.In order to prove the allegations against accused for the offences under

Section 457, 380 or 411 of IPC, the prosecution examined P.W’s.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to 4.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained incriminating circumstances appeared against them in oral and documentary evidence and the same was denied by them.

Accused were called upon to enter into defence evidence, for which, they reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and posted for Judgment, but due to lock down judgment not pronounced and adjourned the matter time to time.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 of the offence punishable under section 457,380 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

P O I N T

9.The allegations against the A1 to A4 are that, the accused 1 to 3 committed lurking house tress pass by night in the house of P.W.1/ B. Suresh and committed theft of one gold sutram, gold black beeds chain, one gold chain, one gold ring. M.O.s 1 to 3 are recovered from A1 and M.O.4 is recovered from

Manapuram Finance Jangareddy gudem which was pledged by A4 who is wife of

A3 knowingly it is stolen property. At the time of their arrest they gave clean and breast confession by admitting the guilt. In order to prove the offences against * 4 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

Accused N0.1 to 4 as already stated, the prosecution examined PW.1 to 5 and

Ex.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to 4 were marked.

10.In order to prove the allegations , the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW.1, he deposed that on 18.04.2019 himself and his family members went to Nuzvid to attend prayers in eve of good Friday and they returned to house on 19.04.2019 at 6 P.M. they noticed their house lock broken and doors were opened. He suspected theft took place in his house, immediately he informed to his ward counselor and he orally reported to police and they verified. Later on 20.04.2019 he gave report to police. He further stated that one week after his report police informed him recovery of M.O.s 1 to 4. In his evidence, PW.5, who is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on 20.04.2019, he received Ex.P.1 report from PW.1 and registered the same as Ex.P4 FIR, conducted investigation, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence, etc facts.

11. A perusal of the said evidence of PWs.1 and 5, particularly the evidence of PWs.1 this Court is of the view that his evidence is little bit of inconsistency with the recitals of Ex.P1 report. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 report and MO.1 to 4, no doubt, it is clear that there was commission of theft of one gold sutram, one gold black beeds chain, one gold ring from the house of PW.1 during night time on 18.04.2019. But in his chief examination he stated about commission of pair of silver anklets. That fact not contained in Ex.P1. But it is the place to mention here that the FIR is not an encyclopedia to contain all facts and accused also not claimed M.O.3 silver anklets.

The learned defence counsel also not cross-examined PW.1 regarding this fact.

* 5 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

12. In cross examination P.W.1 categorically deposed that he personally does not know who committed theft of MO.1 to 4. From this it is clear that the prosecution has not placed any direct evidence to show that accused gained entrance into the house of PW.1 and committed theft of Mos.1 to 4. though the A1 to

A4 confessed in presence of P.w.3 and Alla Ganesh by admitting guilt and in pursuance of their confession property was recovered, confession before police is not admissible unless it does not lead to discovery of material fact. Therefore confession with regard to lurking house tress pass by night into the house of P.W.1 is not proved by prosecution.

13.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution proved the recovery of property from the possession of A1 to A4.With regard to recovery of property from the possession of accused, the prosecution examined PW.2 to PW.5. PW.3 is one of the mediator, he stated that he is retired Village Revenue officer. On 02.05.2019 at 11.30 PM on receipt of credible information about moments of culprits P.W.5 secured himself and Alla Ganesh being summoned, they went to Ganganamma temple in Vangayagudem center along with police. By the time they reached the place three persons stand near a Honda Dio Motorcycle, on seeing police they tried to skulk away. The Sub-Inspector of Police i.e. PW.5 detained them on suspicious and enquired them about their names and details. The said persons revealed their identity as accused No.1 to 3 and voluntarily confessed that they have committed theft of M.O.s 1 to 4 from the house of PW.1

14.A1 further confessed he gave one gold black beeds chain to A3 to pledge the same, he pledged the same for Rs.30,000/- and gave Rs.25,000/- to him and A2 and A3 shared Rs. 5,000/- equally. A3 confessed that he discharge the debt and taken back gold black beeds chain from finance company, later for his * 6 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019 necessities he got pledged the same through his wife (A4) in Manapuram Gold

Finance, Jangareddygudem. M.O.s 1 to 3 recovered from A1 and arrested them under the cover of Ex.P2 mediator report drafted by Alla Ganesh (L.W.). The then

Sub Inspector of police further stated that in pursuance of confession of A1 and A3 he along with P.W.4 and Vayunandana Rao (L.W.9) went to Manapuram gold

Finance comapany, Jangareddygudem and recovered MO.4 Gold black beeds chain from PW.2 Manager of Manapuram Gold Finance company.

15.PW.2 evidence is corroborated with PW.4 and PW.5, he deposed in his evidence, on 02.05.2019 at 3 PM Eluru I Town Sub-Inspector along with A4 and two others came to their office, SI of Police enquired him whether any gold ornaments pledged in the name of A4 he verified and one gold black beeds chain weighing about 31 gms pledged by her on 30.04.2019 in their company and handover the same to police. Police also obtained Xerox copies of loan papers from him. In cross examination PW.2 stated while taking pledge of gold ornaments they did not enquire about owner of ornaments, they only take Adhar card of the customer as identity proof and take pledge of ornaments.

16. PW.4 is one of mediator at the time of recovery of MO.4 from PW.2, his evidence is corroborated with PW.3 and 5 and consistent with Ex.P3 mediator report. So by the evidence of PW.3 to 5, it is established that MO.1 to 4 recovered from the A1 and Manapuram Gold finance, A3 and A4 pledged MO.4 in gold finance knowingly the property is a stolen property. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 contains the signatures of A1 to A4.

17.In cross examination the learned defence counsel suggested to PW.5 20 days prior to 02.05.2019 he illegally detained A1 in his police station the family * 7 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019 members of A1 gave pressure on him for release of him on that he implicated the A1 unsolved crime of their station. Except giving suggestion he did not file any document to show that A1 was detained by PW.5 illegally and kept in his police station. Only because of the suggestion without any documentary proof the contention of the accused cannot be believed. If the contention of the A1 is correct, he should submit any document even in which case he was illegally detained.

Without such facts the defence of the A1 is far away from the truth.

18.In cross-examination PW.3 and PW.5 admitted Vangayagudem center is a busy area, police did not secured any local persons as mediators, PW.3 and

LW.8/Alla Ganesh are not the local persons of Vangayagudem Center. Mere non- securing of local persons at the place of seizure the consistent evidence of PW.3 and 5 coupled with the PW.2 and 4 cannot be doubted. The learned defence counsel suggested to PW.5, PW.3 is stock mediator to their station. PW.5 replied during his tenure as I Town Sub-Inspector PW.3 stood as mediator in this case only.

19. On perusal of Ex.P2 the signatures of PW.3 and PW.5 and accused also contained. The accused No.1 to 3 not specifically denied their signature in the mediator report. Here, in this case the PW.3 and 5 categorically sated MO.1 to 3 recovered from A1. Except the confession of other accused no property recovered from their possession. The confession of the A4 is not recorded in pursuance of the confession of A1 to A3, PW.5 recovered the Mo.4 from Manapuram gold finance.

20.The case in hand, property recovered from A1 and A1 signature contained in Ex.P2 he did not specifically denied his signature and not submitted, any satisfactory explanation for the possession of stolen property with him. Hence this court is inclined to apply the Presumption available under section 114(a) of IPC.

* 8 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

As per Sec.114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, that “a man who is in possession of

stolen property, soon after the theft is either thief or has received the goods

knowingly to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.”

21. Except giving suggestions the defence counsel did not foot forth probable defence for implicating the accused No.1 in this case by police, therefore minor discrepancies cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, the court is of opinion that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of A1 for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

22.In view of above discussion Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.457, 380 of IPC and further find that the A1 found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and remaining accused A2 to A4 found not guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in Open Court on this the 17th day of June, 2020.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ELURU.

23.Heard the accused No.1 through video conference and informed him that he found guilty for the offence under section 411 of IPC, on hearing the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, accused No.1 submitted that he has old aged parents, wife and two minor children, he has to look after their welfare, his earnings only support his family and he has no previous criminal antecedents.

Now he is working as Ambulance Driver, Area Hospital, Chintalapudi, to support his family, without his earnings his family will suffer starvation and he is leading a respectable life and prays to take a lenient view while passing sentence against him.

* 9 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

24.By nature of offence the court is not inclined to apply probation of offenders Act and not inclined release him under section 360 of Cr.P.C. however by taking into consideration the family background circumstances of the accused No.1 and there is no previous criminal antecedents against the accused, then this court is inclined to take lenient view in awarding punishment.

25. IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The court further find that Accused NO.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The court ffurther find that Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC accordingly he is convicted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees Three Thousand Only). In default of payment fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS. The bail bonds of

Accused NO.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The material objects i.e. MO.1 Gold Sutrams, MO.2: One gold ring,

MO.3: one pair of silver anklets and MO.4: Gold black beeds chain which were given to PW.1 for interim custody shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 17th day of June, 2020.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1: Bodapati Suresh.NONE

PW.2: Badarala Madusudhanarao.

* 10 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

PW.3: T.Sada Siva Rao, Retired VRO, Eluru.

PW.4: Mendem Lakshmana Rao, Agent in RTO Office, Eluru.

PW.5: P.Jagadeeswara Rao, CI of Police, Eluru.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1.

Ex.P2: Relevant marked portion of mediator report dt.02.05.2019 at 12.30 PM.

Ex.P3: Mediator report Dated 02.05.2019 at 3.00 PM.

Ex.P4: FIR.

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 Gold Sutrams.

MO.2: One gold ring.

MO.3: one pair of silver anklets.

MO.4: Gold black beeds chain.

II AJFCM

ELURU.

* 11 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No. 542/2019 tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

DATE OF

Report orApprehensionRelease on BailCommenceClose ofSentence Offence Complt.of accusedment of TrialTrialor order.

18.04.2019 20.04.2019A1 to A3:A1 & A2:07.06.201913.03.2020 17.06.2020 02.05.201918.06.2019 A4: Sec.41-AA3:20.06.2019 Cr.P.C. Notice.

Explanation for the delay: No such unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of police, Eluru I Town PS, Eluru.

Cr.No. 110/2019 of Eluru I Town Police Station.

Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1.Isukaleti Mojesh, S/o Santha Rao, Aged 25 Years, SC-Mala, Vangayagudem, Eluru.

2.Mummidi Balajee, S/o. Srinu, Aged 22 Years, C/Yadava, Ramalayam Street, Challa Chintalapudi Village, Denduluru Mandal.

3.Bille Murali, S/o. Late Naga Bhushanam, Aged 32 Years, C/Kuraba @ Yadava, SC Peta, Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal.

4.Bille Jyothi, W/o. Murali, Aged 27 Years, C/Kuraba @ Yadava, SC Peta, Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal. … Accused. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences : Under Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

Finding: A1 Found guilty.

Result: IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The court further find that Accused NO.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The court further find that Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC accordingly he is * 12 *

C.C.No.542 of 2019 convicted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees Three Thousand Only). In default of payment fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS. The bail bonds of

Accused NO.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The material objects i.e. MO.1 Gold Sutrams, MO.2: One gold ring,

MO.3: one pair of silver anklets and MO.4: Gold black beeds chain which were given to PW.1 for interim custody shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ELURU.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : ELURU

Present : Ms.D.Umadevi, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

Friday, this the 27 th day of April, 2018

C.C.No.39/2010

Between:

The State represented by the Insecticide Inspector and Mandal Agricultural Officer, Tadepalligudem.

..Complainant

And

1.Agricultural Market Committee, Padala (Market Yard) Tadepalligudem...Stack Point 2.B.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Swamy, Aged 55 years, Bid Clerk Market Yard Padala, Tadepalligudem ...Person responsible for A.1 stock point 3.M/s.Poorvi Farm Tech(P) Ltd., Patan Cheruvu, Medak District, Hyderabad …..Manufacturing Company 4.B.Madam Rao, Administrative Asst., S/o.Kondiba, Plot No.57, Chemical Zone II, Pashamylaram, IDA, Medak District, (M/s.Poorvi Fard Tech(P),Ltd., Patancheruvu, Medak District.) ...Personal Responsible day to day Administration of A.3 Company.

5.D.D.N.Narasimharao, Chemist (Q.C), S/o.Venkateswarulu Plot No.57, Chemical Zone II, Pashamylaram IDA, Medak District, (M/s.Poorvi Fard Tech(P) Ltd., Patancheruvu, Medak District). ...Chemist of A.3 Manufacturing Company 6.M/s.Rallis India Limited, Appejay House 7th floor, 3 Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400 020. ...Marketing company 7.C.Karunakar Reddy, Area Sales Manager, Aged 30 years, S/o.Changareddy, Flot No.C3, 3rd Floor, Vijayawada-520 008(Rallis India Ltd.,Mumbai) ….Person Responsible for Marketing Company of A.6 2 8.Sri Bhaskara Ferts and Pesticides, Tadepalligudem….Distributing Company 9.Kall Raju, Marketing Accountant Aged 28 years, S/o.Venkateswararao, (Near) Government Hospital, Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem ...Person Responsible for Distributing Company of A.8 (Case against A.5 separated as C.C.No.834/2017; (A.1 is company represented by A.2; A.6 is company represented by A.7; A8 is company represented by A.9); A.3 is company at the time of complaint represented by A4, he resigned hence case against A4 dismissed, now it is represented by S.Swaroop is attended on behalf of A.3) …Accused

This case is coming on 20.04.2018 before me for final

hearing in the presence of the learned Sr. A.P.P. for the

complainant and of Smt.N.Swarnalatha, advocate for A.1, A.2 and

of Sri K.Nagendrababu, Advocate for A.3 and of Sri N.K.M.Advocate

for A.6,A.8, A.9 and having stood over for consideration to this

day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Insecticide Inspector cum Mandal Agricultural Officer,

Tadepalligudem. has laid a complaint against Accused alleging him of the offence under Section 190(a) Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)(i) of

Insecticide Act 1968 Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that -

On 12.8.2005 at about 10.30 am, the PW.1 Insecticide Inspector cum

Mandl Agricultural Officer, Tadepalligudem inspected stock point of A.1, at that time, secretary of A1, A.2 present in the shop and dealing the business transactions and PW.1 disclosed his identity and secured the mediators PW2,3 and inspected A.1 shop and in the presence of Pws.2 and 3, he lifted three samples of insecticide for chemical analysis among one Acephate 75% SP under the brand name ASATAF 75% SP manufactured by A.3 company under

Batch No. HP 00024 packing by following formalities contemplated u/s 21 and 22 of Insecticide Act 1968 and he sent one of the sample to the Government 3 analysis and he received analysis report that the sample fails to confirm to the relevant BIS specification in the test of active ingredient content. Hence,

Misbranded and he served notice to A.1, A.3, A.6 and A.8 on 29.9.2005 and that on 29.9.2005 A1 addressed a letter to PW.1 for reanalysis and at the request the another sample was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory,

Faridabad for reanalysis through the Hon’ble Court on 19.12.2005, he sent report to the Court and the analysis opined that sample does not confirm to the relevant specification in the active ingredient content test requirement and hence, misbranded. Hence, the complaint.

3.Taken cognizance against Accused for the offence under Sec.190(a)

Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)(i) of Insecticide Act 1968 Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.A.1 to A.3, A.6, A.8, A.9 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences under Section 190(a) Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)(i) of Insecticide

Act 1968 Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968, for which, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the offence under Sec. 190(a) Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)(i) of Insecticide Act 1968 Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968 against Accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A.1 to A.3, A.6, A.8, A.9 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in oral and documentary evidence and 4 the same was denied by them. Accused were called upon to enter into defence evidence, for which, they reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec. 190(a) Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)

(i) of Insecticide Act 1968 Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3, Exs.P1 to P26 were marked.

10.PW.1 Insecticide Inspector and Mandal agricultural Officer deposed that on 12-08-2005 at about 10:30 A.M inspected the Agricultural Market

Committee premises at Padala, Tadepalligudem Mandal at that time the secretary of Agricultural Market committee of A1 and A2 were present and that he secured the PW2, PW3 as mediators and in the presence of mediators, he inspect the premise of A1 Market committee, they noticed insecticides in the premises, he verified the licenses, invoices and records and requested A2 to take sample from the available stocks the Melthylparathion 40 packings of 250 M.L. Hexaconazie 5/E.C. 39 packings of 250 M.L.

Acephate 75 S.P 40 packings of 250 grams from the above said stocks as per procedure and PW.1 prepared Form No.XX and served, obtained the signature of Market committee secretary P.Sudhakar and A2 that PW.1 paid an amount of Rs.1,264/- towards of the costs of the above said samples and that PW.1 drafted mediators report covering all procedure followed by him under Ex.P4 in which PWs.1 to 3 and accused signed on it and PW.1 sent A portion sample insecticide analyst D.D.A coding center and P.T.L. Asti, Old Malakpet,

Hyderabad through professions couriers along with covering letter on 13-08- 5 2005 and that on 13-09-2005 PW.1 received analyst report Form No. XVII along with covering letter the analyst opined that the sample contained 66.53% as against the acephate 75% S.P as failed to confirm to the relevant

BIS specification in the test of active ingredients content,hence misbrand and that on 14-09-2005 PW.1 issued show cause notice personally to A1 company represented by A2 along with copy of analyst report and obtained acknowledgement in show cause notice and that on 15-09-2005 PW.1 issued show cause notice to A3 represented by A4 and A5 and A6 represented by A7 and A8 represented by A9 through registered post along with copy of analyst report and that on 14-09-2015 PW.1 visited A1 market committee and that

PW.1 secured the one V.Satnarayana and T.Srinivas as a mediators at the time

A2 present A1 company premises, he hand over the analyst report and obtained the signature of A2 , he seized invoice No.1002, dt:23-09-2004 the sample supplied by Bhaskara Fertilizers under the cover of mediators report.

On 29-09-2005 secretary of A1 sent a requisition to PW.1 for re-analysis along with D.D. of Rs.500/- PW.1 submitted the refery sample acephate 75% S.P through the Hon’ble court A.J.F.C.M, Tadepalligudem and that the Hon’ble

A.J.F.C.M., Tadepalligudem sent the refery sample to Central Laboratory,

Faridabad and that the Hon’ble Court received report along with covering letter from the Central Laboratory, Faridabad, the analyst opined that the sample is misbranded, on that, on 28.01.2006 A.D.A issued a notice along with copy of analyst report to A1, A3, A6, A8 through registered post requesting to furnish person responsible for A.1, A.3, A.6, A8 companies , they send reply letter by mentioned the responsible persons for the firms.

11.During cross examination, Pw.1 admitted that Market Yard Committee

Chairman is custodian, Secretary is the Chief executive, he obtained the signature of A.2 as for sign of Secretary, even though, Secretary namely

P.Sudhakar is present at the time of inspection and he also admitted that he 6 did not receive any complaint from farmers in respect of insecticides in question and on insecticides packet contain the storage condition under

Column No.9(1) insecticides, the pesticide should be stored in mention storage conditions, if not there is a chance for germination to come down.

The complainant filed by one M.Krishna Murthy, Pesticides Inspector and he is no more, he also gave the evidence on behalf of M.Krishna Murthy and he did not produce Government Order before the Court in order to prove that he is authorized to draw the samples and he has no proof to show that he send the sample to analysis within 24 hours and he does not know the procedure followed by the analyst test the sample.

12.Pws.2 and 3 who are cited as a mediators by the prosecution, they are not supported the prosecution case, they turned hostile and deposed that they signed on some papers upon the instructions of PW.1 without knowing the contents of documents.

13.In the present case on hand, A.1 is the Market Yard Committee, A.2 is the bid clerk, but generally A.1 Market Yard Committee should be represented by secretary. In this case, Pesticide Inspector filed case showing the bid clerk , as representative of the Market Yard committee. A.3 is a manufacturer company and Administrative Officer is A.4 and Chemist is A.5.

A.6 Marketing Company of Pesticides who take it from A.8 and A.8 is purchased the insecticide from A.3 company and distributing to A.6 company.

As per Section 3(k)(i) in the Insecticides Act, 1968 “if its label contains any statement, design or graphic representation relating thereto which false of misleading in any material particular, or if its package is otherwise deceptive in respect of its contents”.

7

14.In this case, the prosecution prima facie established that A.1 to A.9 are liable to be punished under Section 3(k)(i) of the Act, but however, looking into the evidence of Pw.1 although he stated that he issued several forms and obtaining signatures of A.2 and one P.Sudhakar, Secretary of A.1 Marketing

Committee but the fact that the samples were drawn from the possession of

A.1 is not established by the prosecution because the mediators Pws.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution, this fact is a fatal to the prosecution case and it is also not clear from the evidence of PW.1 whether he followed the random procedure to took up the samples and whether he taken pesticide by following procedure as samples and he also made several admissions in the cross examination, which are procedure lapse. The PW.1 also not seized the lable of the sample acephate 75%.

15.In the view of the above discussions, this Court holds that since the prosecution failed to prove the alleged sample was drawn from the possession of A.1, in the presence of A.2 and one P.Sudhakar and mediators

Pws.2 and 3. PW.1 not filed any document to show that pesticide in question is marketed by A6 and he received it from A.8 and which is manufactured by

A.3 since there is a procedure lapsed in the prosecution case, the offence against A.1 to A.3, A.6 to A.9 is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, so, they are entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, A.1 to A.3, A.6, A.8, A.9 are not found guilty for the offence u/s 190(a) Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)(i) of Insecticide Act 1968

Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968 and thereby, they are 8 acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no bail bonds. There is no material objects brought before this Court. Hence, there is no property order.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution For Accused P.W.1:P.V.N.Nagachary PW.2:Cirla Srinivasa Reddy P.W.3:Eda Koteswararao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecutions Ex.P1:Form XX notice issued by Pw1 to accused Ex.P2:Office copy of Form XXI issued by PW1 to analysis Ex.P3:Cash receipt issued by accused Ex.P4:Mediator report dt 12.08.2005 Ex.P5:Covering letter of analysis report Ex.P6:Analyst report dt 14.09.2005 Ex.P7:Show cause notice to A2 Ex.P8:Show cause notice to A.3,A.6,A.8 dt 15.09.2005 Ex.P9:Mediator report dt 14.09.2005 Ex.P10:Invoice from A8 Ex.P11:Covering letter dt.12.8.2005 to Analyst Hyd Ex.P12:Office copy of memo filed by Secretary of A1 Ex.P13:Office copy of request letter of Secretary of A.1 Ex.P14:Original covering letter of ROCNo.224/A/05, dt.4.10.2005 from central

Laboratory Ex.P15:Office copy of request for refery analysis memo Ex.P16:Copy of letter dt.7.10.2005 Ex.P17:Analyst reort Form XVII Ex.P18:Covering letter dt 13.12.2005 Ex.P19:Office copy of notice toA1, A3,A6,A8 Ex.P20:Office copy of letter Ex.P21:Reply notice from A.1 Ex.P22:Reply notice from A.3 Ex.P23:Reply notice from A.6 Ex.P24:Reply noticeo from A.8 Ex.P25:Docket sheet of ' C' sample Ex.P26:Prosecution sanction order dt 6.1.2008

For Accused: NIL

Material Objects Nil

II AJFCM

Eluru 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.39/2010 tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Report Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of on ment of of or Complt. Accused Bail Trial Trial Order 12.8.05 27.6.08 –- -- 5.1.18 20.4.18 27.4.18 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: Due to non availability of witnesses.

Complainant: Insecticide Inspector and Mandal Agricultural Officer, Tadepalligudem Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1.Agricultural Market Committee, Padala (Market Yard) Tadepalligudem...Stack Point 2.B.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Swamy, Aged 55 years, Bid Clerk Market Yard Padala, Tadepalligudem ...Person responsible for A.1 stock point 3.M/s.Poorvi Farm Tech(P) Ltd., Patan Cheruvu, Medak District, Hyderabad …..Manufacturing Company 4.B.Madam Rao, Administrative Asst., S/o.Kondiba, Plot No.57, Chemical Zone II, Pashamylaram, IDA, Medak District, (M/s.Poorvi Fard Tech(P),Ltd., Patancheruvu, Medak District.) ...Personal Responsible day to day Administration of A.3 Company.

5.D.D.N.Narasimharao, Chemist (Q.C), S/o.Venkateswarulu Plot No.57, Chemical Zone II, Pashamylaram IDA, Medak District, (M/s.Poorvi Fard Tech(P) Ltd., Patancheruvu, Medak District). ...Chemist of A.3 Manufacturing Company 6.M/s.Rallis India Limited, Appejay House 7th floor, 3 Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400 020. ...Marketing company 10 7.C.Karunakar Reddy, Area Sales Manager, Aged 30 years, S/o.Changareddy, Flot No.C3, 3rd Floor, Vijayawada-520 008(Rallis India Ltd.,Mumbai) ….Person Responsible for Marketing Company of A.6 8.Sri Bhaskara Ferts and Pesticides, Tadepalligudem….Distributing Company 9.Kall Raju, Marketing Accountant Aged 28 years, S/o.Venkateswararao, (Near) Government Hospital, Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem ...Person Responsible for Distributing Company of A.8 (Case against A.5 separated as C.C.No.834/2017; Case against A.4 dismissed; A.1 is company represented by A.2; A.6 is company represented by A.7; A8 is company represented by A.9; A.3 is company represented by S.Swaroopa is attended on behalf of A.3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : u/s 3(k)(i) of Insecticide Act 1968 Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968

Finding: Found not guilty

Result:In the result, A.1 to A.3, A.6, A.8, A.9 are not found guilty for the offence u/s 190(a) Cr.P.C for contravention of Section 3(k)(i) of Insecticide Act 1968

Punishable under Section 29 of the said Act, 1968 and thereby, they are acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no bail bonds. There is no material objects brought before this Court. Hence, there is no property order.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ELURU. Copy Submitted to:

1.The Hon'ble I Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru. 2.The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : ELURU

Present : Ms.D.Umadevi, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

Friday, this the 27 th day of April, 2018.

C.C.No.474/2016

Between:

The State :Inspector of police,

Eluru II Town Police Station ..Complainant

And

1.Kasthuri Appanna @ Veerappan, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 37 years, Voolapalli Village, East Godavari District.

2.Pelivela Sattibabu, S/o.Late Venkanna, Aged 35 years, Settibalija, Rangapuram Village of Bikkavole Mandal, East Godavari District, now at Hafeez pet, near Yellamma Temple, Hyderabad.

(Cast against A.2 is separated as C.C.No.555/2016)

..Accused

This case is coming on 25-4-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.Narasimhulu, Counsel for Accused; and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of police, Eluru II Town Police Station has laid charge sheet in Cr.No.336/2015 against Accused alleging him of the offence under

Sec.457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

Pws.1 and 2 slept in a AC room and the non AC room is kept vacate in the morning hours son of PW.1 came to his house and he asked to open the door from ground floor and when they tried to open their room doors, it was locked from out site, on hearing the crises, PW.3 went to the house of PW.1 and PW.2 their house main door is opened and the AC room doors were bolted from out side, she opened the room bolt, Pws.1 and 2 verified the non AC 2 room, it is in pelmel condition and unknown offenders committed theft of

Mos.1 to 7 and another cell phone.

Basing on the report of PW.1, registered the case by PW.6 and PW.9 took up the investigation and examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses. Basing on the confession of A.2, PW.5 recovered the property from the Manapuram gold,

Borabanda Branch, Hyderabad. On 27.12.2015 PW.8 arrested A.1 and recorded his confession in the presence of mediators, PW.6 filed PT warrant and produced A.1 before the Court. Hence, the charge.

3.Taken cognizance against A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Sec.457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC. On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of case documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.A.1 and A.2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sec.

457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC are framed against A.1 and A.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for trial.

5.In order to prove the offence under Sec. 457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC against

A.1 and A.2, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P9, apart from Mos.1 to 7.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, at the state of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination case against A.2 split up. A.1 was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in oral and documentary evidence and the same was denied by them. A.1 was called upon to enter into defence evidence, for which, he reported no defence evidence.

3

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec. 457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 11, Exs.P1 to P9 were marked.

10.PW.1 is the defacto complainant, he deposed that on 3.8.2015 at about 5.30 pm, himself and his wife slept in a AC room and in a non AC room, some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments and two cell phones and bolted his room doors from out side and at early hours, his son Phani

Kishore came to his house and asked to open the doors and the room doors are bolted from out side, so, they could not open, PW.3 came to PW.1 house on their hearing cries and open the doors,then, Pws.1 and 2 verified the non

AC room and they found missing of gold ornaments and two cell phones and gave a report to police. Police informed the recovery of Mos.1 to 7.

11.PW.2 is the wife of PW.1, she also stated the same lines as that of PW.1.

12.PW.3 is the neighbour of Pws.1 and 2, she stated that she witnessed that Pws.1 and 2 room doors were bolted from outside on hearing cries, she went to their house and open the doors and came to know that the gold ornaments were committed theft.

13.PW.4 is the mediator at the time of arrest of A.2 in this case. He deposed that at the request of PW.5, he went to Eluru II Town police station, himself and B.Suryanarayana and PW.6 and other police staff and went to 4

Hyderabad on jeep when they reached Hyderabad Borabanda near

Pochamma temple, they noticed one person standing near the Pochamma temple, on seeing the police he try to skulk away. PW.6 detained the said person with the help of his staff and asked his identity as A.2 and he confessed that he committed theft of gold and silver ornaments in East

Godavari and Visakha Districts, he was sent to Rajahmundry Central Jail their he met A.1. In the month of August, 2015 A.1 handed over some gold ornaments to him to pledge them and to arrange the money and he handed over the gold ornaments to Sattiraju and PW.10 requested to pledge it and they pledged the gold ornaments in Manapuram gold finance and arranged amounts and gave receipts to him. Basing on the confession of A.2, he arrested A.2 and he seized Mos.5 to 7 from the possession of A.2, in pursuance of the confession, they went to Manapuram gold finance, they seized Mos.1 to 4 from PW.11 under the mediators report Ex.P4.

14.During the cross examination, he stated that on the dictation of the police, he drafted the mediators report, the place of arrest is a busy locality, in his presence, police not secured the independent persons to act as a mediators and he did not mention the descriptive particulars of Mos.1 to 4, 6 and 7.

15.PW.6 is the Investigating Officer in this case, he deposed that on 3.8.2015, PW.1 presented a written report under Ex.P1, basing on it, he registered the crime. On credible information, on 14.10.2015, he secured the

PW.4 and B.Suryanarayana went to Hyderabad and in his presence and in the presence of mediators and A.2 confessed that A.1 handed over the gold ornaments to him to pledge the same and he handed over it to PW.10 and 5 went to Sattiraju and pledged the gold in Manapuram gold finance, he recorded the confession of A.2 under Ex.P2 and he seized Mos.5 to 7 and recorded his confession and in pursuance of A.2, he went to the house of

PW.10 and Sattiraju and along with them, they proceeded to Manapuram gold finance and they produced Ex.p3 cash receipts and PW.11 produced

Mos.1 to 4 under mediators report Ex.P4 and he secured the witnesses, Lws.6 to 8 and recorded statements and he produced A.2 before the Hon’ble Court for remand. On 28.12.2015, LW.8 arrested A.1 and handed over the mediators report, basing on the confession of A.1, he obtained PT Warrant and produced him before the Court.

16.PW.7 is the mediator, at the time of arrest of A.1, he deposed that at the request of PW.8, he went to Chebrole police station, himself and

Kondalarao and police staff accompanied PW.8 and they went to new bypass bridge, Tadepalligudem at 6.00 am and they noticed one person in a suspicious condition holding a bag and on seeing the police, he tried to escape from that place and PW.8 detained him and on enquiry, he disclosed is identity as A.1 and he confessed that he committed theft of gold ornaments in PW.1 house and he produced some gold ornaments pertaining to other crimes and PW.8 arrested A.1 and seized gold ornaments under the cover of mediators report Ex.P7 drafted by him. During the cross examination, he admitted that the place of arrest of accused is not within jurisdiction and it is a busy locality.

17.Pw.8 is the Investigating Officer, who arrested A.1, he deposed that the same lines as that of PW.7 that basing on the confession of A.1, he drafted

Ex.P7 mediator report and arrested A.1.

6

18.PW.5 who acted as a mediator, at the time of scene observation report, he deposed that at the request of PW.9, himself and Nageswararao accompanied PW.9 and they proceeded to PW.1 house and the said house is a terraced building, in the presence of PW.9 observed the scene of offence, the scene of offence is a bed room is in pelmel condition and the bed room doors were broke opened. In their presence clause team obtained chance prints and he drafted the scene observation report under Ex.P5.

19.PW.9 is the Investigating Officer in this case, he deposed that after receipt of First Information Report from PW.6, he took up the investigation, he secured PW.5 and P.Nageswararao and proceeded to the scene of offence and got drafted Ex.P5 scene observation report and he secured the witnesses and examined and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

20.PW.10 is one Talupulamma who said to be pledged the gold ornaments given by A.2, she deposed that she is wife of A.2 and she do not know A.1 and she do not know anything about this case and she turned hostile totally deviated fkrom her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement that she never pledged gold ornaments in Manapuram gold finance even during cross examination by

Assistant Public Prosecutor also she is not supported the case of prosecution.

21.PW.11 is the Manager of Manapuram Finance Company, he deposed that one Sattiraju pledged the gold ornaments in their offence on 4.8.2015 obtained Rs.1,39,600/- and again on 5.8.2015 obtained Rs.40,000/- and 19.9.2015, PW.10 came to his office and pledged the same gold ornaments for an amount of Rs.17,500/-. Accordingly, he issued cash receipt under Ex.P3 7 and on 14.10.2015, PW.6 along with mediators came to his office and showing the Ex.P3 cash receipt, he handed over the Mos.1 to 4 to PW.6.

22.On perusal of entire evidence of prosecution in this case, Pws.1 to 3 are not the direct witnesses to the offence, they stated that some unknown offender committed theft of gold ornaments, so, identity of accused is not revealed by the witnesses. PW.4 is the mediator at the time of arrest of A.2 and seizure of property from him. They recorded the confession of A.2 in his confession, he stated that he handed over Mos.1 to 7 by A.1 except his confession, there is no other material available in the record that A.1 committed theft. In pursuance of confession of A.2, they seized Mos.1 to 4 from PW.11 and cash receipts shows that one Sattiraju and PW.10 pledged gold ornaments in Manapuram gold finance, but in this case, PW.10 not supported the prosecution case, even though, she is not supported the case and there is a chance of deposing false to help his husband. However, her evidence is not supported to come to conclusion that A.1 is handed over the property to A.2, A.2 handed over to PW.10 because in her deposition she stated that she do not know A.1 and PW.7 is the mediator at the time of arrest of A.1, he drafted mediator report in his presence A.1 confessed that he committed theft of gold ornaments in PW.1 house confession before police is hit under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and in this case, no recovery was made from A.1 and remaining witnesses or investigating officer and PW.11 is the manager of Manapuram Gold Finance, he also stated that Pw.10 and one

Sattiraju pledged the gold ornaments in his Manapuram gold finance. The said

Sattiraju was not examined by the prosecution. So, on perusal of entire of prosecution, there is no evidence to show that A.1 committed theft of gold 8 ornaments in the house of PW.1 and no property is recovered from A.1 except the confession no such evidence is available against A.1.

23. In view of the above discussions, this Court find that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of A.1 for the offence under Sec. 457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. In the result,A.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC and thereby, he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. A.1 should be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. No order as to Mos.1 to 7 the case against A.2 is pending.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For ProsecutionFor Accused PW.1: A.K.Visweswararao NONE PW.2:A.Varalakshmi PW.3:K.Ramadevi PW.4:A.S.Umashankar PW.5:K.Veerabhadrarao PW.6:A.Durgarao PW.7:V.Venugopal PW.8:N.Durga Prasad PW.9:U.Bangarraju PW.10:P.Talupulamma PW.11:B.Balakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P1:Report of PW.1 Ex.P2:Mediator report Ex.P3:Six receipts of Manapuram finance Ex.P4:Mediator report Ex.P5:Scene observation report Ex.P6:Original First Information Report Ex.P7:Mediator report Ex.P8:Rough sketch Ex.P9:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10 9

For Accused: Nil

Material Objects MO.1:Gold haram MO.2:One pair of Jukalu MO.3:Four Bangles MO.4:One gold chain MO.5:One cell phone MO.6:One pair of Jukalu MO.7:One gold ring

II AJFCM

Eluru 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.474/2016 tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of on ment of of or

Complt. Accused Bail Trial Trial Order

2/3.8.15 3.8.15 27.12.15 Jail 27.9.16 25.4.18 27.4.18 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: No such unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The Inspector of police, Eluru II town police station

Cr.No.336/2015 of Eluru II town PS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1.Kasthuri Appanna @ Veerappan, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 37 years, Voolapalli Village, East Godavari District.

2.Pelivela Sattibabu, S/o.Late Venkanna, Aged 35 years, Settibalija, Rangapuram Village of Bikkavole Mandal, East Godavari District, now at Hafeez pet, near Yellamma Temple, Hyderabad.

(Cast against A.2 is separated as C.C.No.555/2016)

..Accused

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offences : Under Sec.457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding: Found Not guilty.

Result: In the result,A.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC and thereby, he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. A.1 should be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. No order as to

Mos.1 to 7 the case against A.2 is pending.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: ELURU.