Sri E. Rajendra Babu

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENI

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVAR Tanuku. Class, Calendar case No.220/2015 tried by the 1I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I

Date of offence 19-08-2014 20-08-2014 Report Taken on file 29-12-2014 A1: 25-09-2014 and Apprehension 12-08-2015 A2: 24-10-2014 A1 & A2: 05-01-2015 Release on bail Commencement of trial 27-10-2015 Closure of trial 04-10-2016 Sentence or order 27.04.2017

Explanation for the delay Nil

Name of the complainant

State: Rep. by its Sub-Inspector of Police. Undrajavaram Police Station

Name of the AcCused:

1. Mahesh Manikanta, S/o Mahesh, Age. 36years, Thorapati post, Röyalveloolr Tamilnadu State, now at Narayanapuram Village, Unguture Mandal.

2. Janapala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Vighneswara Rao, Age.32 years, Chebrole Village Unguturu Mandal. :159/2014 of Undrajavaram Police station Crime No. :Section 457 and 380 and 411 IPC Offence Finding : Found guilty

Sentence or Order In the result the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for simple section 457 IPC and convicted unde- a period of 2 years and also fine Rs.2,000/-. In default of imprisonment for payment of fine the accused shall be undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months, Further the accused found guilty fTr the offence under section 380 IPC and convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. fo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also fine Rs.2,000/-. In default of.payment of fine the acçused shall be undergo simple imprisonment for a period' of 3 months. The accused found not quilty for the offence under section 411:IPC and acquitted under section 248(1) froni 25-09-2014 to 05-01-2015 and from Cr.P.C. The remand period of A1 12-08-2015 to 27-04-2017 and the remand period of A2 fröm 24-10-2014 to 05-01-2015 shall be set off under 428 Cr.P.C. The A1 released on 05-01-2015 in this present case as per record but as he vás in Judicial remand in other cases, he has not app�ared before this court and his learned counsel represented the matter by filing petition under section 317 Cr.p.c. However this court issued NBW against the A1 on 23-06-2015 and he was produced before this court on 12-08-2015 by executing P.T.warrant. However this court intimated to accused about their right to prefer an appeal on this Judgment for whi.sh they stated that they have means to engage counsel. All sentences of this case shall run concurrently. The interim

custody of Mo.1 to 20 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

OF OF

IN II I

ADDL.

COURT THE JUDICIAL CLASS

THE MAGISTRATE

TANUKU E. - Present: Sri.

RAJENDRA BABU

II of I

Addl. Judl. Magistrate Class,

of

Thursday, this the April, 2017. 27" day

NO.220/2015 CASE CALANDER Between :

of

by

Police, its Sub-Inspector State: Rep.

Complainant

Station Police

Undrajavaram

And

post, Royalve

Thorapati

Age.36y,

S/o at Mahesh, Mandal.

Manikanta,

1.Mahesh Unguture

Village,

State, Narayanapuram

Tamilnadu now

Village,

Chebrole

Rao, Age.32y, Rao, S/o Vighneswara me

Srinivasa ....Accused

2.Janapala

Mandal. for Unguturu

on

before

is disp0sal the for final for

13.12.2016 of

case in coming prosecutor This Public and Addl.

learned Accused

of presence hearing the for the final Rao and K.Srinívasa Cou Sri S.A.K.Baji this till this day, Complainant and

consideration

over for stood having been following: the matter delivered the

JrDGMENI

section 45/i punishable under 1 offence for the

arraigned

accUsed The

he

IPC. and 411 380, stating that

complainant

2. Defacto The on

averments:

complaint to

The to 19-08 attend marriage Palem Rajam family went with his along nd on broken doors are his house found the next day in back or and came 2014 chains two in to gold pearl tneTt

committed

house and the entered

and

beads chain, bangles gold four gold black with sutrams, gold chain number, small two in gold rings,

bang'es(murukulu),

small ring, two gold

number,

articles, two silver bowis, silver silver holy biscuit, silver of plate, silver he

Rs.4,50,000/-.

cash Hence and gave silver glass,

kumkumabarini,

report. by on this court against the 3 file accused for taken the case was Ihe IPC. and 411 457, 380 Secs. under

unishable

offence

On of on

of Prosecution

the

4, which

Accused coples documents, of

production

of

in Cr.P.C.,

207

furnished Section

upon, were terms he to0 rely intends

of 1

the

denied

which under Section Cr.P.C. for examined 239 accUsed was on 411

and

457, 380 for offence section charge framed the under that same,

in

to

for

telugu,

accused the Over read and and them

against explained

IPC

to be

guilty claimed tried. On which they pleaded not and

P1

to

5. of to 8 Exs.

and

behalf the prosecution, P.Ws.1 are examined,

to

P.16 marked and also Mo.1 20.

On

6. of closure Prosecution evidence, accused examined U/seC.SI3 was

by in

Cr.P.C, explaining incriminating material his mother tongue Telugu ror no which they pleaded not guilty reported defence evidence.

and

7. Heard.

8. is - the point for determination Now a. of Whether the prosecution brings the guilt the accUsed home for the offence Section against under 457 IPC accused beyond doubt? reasonable b. of Whether the prosecution brings the guilt the accused home for the offence under Section against 380 IPC accused beyond doubt? reasonable C. guilt of Whether the prosecution brings home the accused for the the offence under section against beyond all 411 IPC the acCused reasonable doubt?

9. PO : of No.1 The learned argued that the evidence P.W.1

INT APPO

to 8 by reveal that the accused lurking hcuse trespass night and also house in in to breaking night order theft. liable commit Hence they for the On punishment under section IPC, 457 the other hand the learned counsel

for the accused argued that the accused

never committed any offence. of to Further the P.W.1 did enclosed not receipts stolen property show that to the said property belongs hinm, Further the did pw1 not mention the Or in by SOurce the said amount the said house that time and not enclosed

to by

to

of

dding cart prove that they went age the date the said

S

No the ofence. witness incidet while deposed that hence As they witnessed the per accused lurking house trespasS, accused entitle the �cquittal, and EX.P.1 the record examined as the defacto Complainant P.W.1 marked attend he to marriage to report deposed that and when Went Rajampalem hooly of ol and some unknown offenders committed theft gold her property or On report. Later re silver he articles and casn Rs.4,50,000/-, that gave informed to of to P.W.Z police The him about 20. M.0.1 recover her property. is one of pwb at of of the who the mediator that time the arrest deposed A1, A1 ornaments, silver in arrest the his presence and inguired seized and gold of of Further articles and cash mediator report. Rs.2,00,000/-under COver he itself. The he 5

at

depOsed that drafted nearly there or6 mediators reports is of at of of that pw3 who one mediators A2, deposed the the time arrest of of with te the request S.I. proceeded Rural, Tanuku along with L.W.12 Tetali Y he to in

confessed

police Junction inquired their then and presence, is he Manikanta that his Janapala Srinivas with Mahesh name ard along thefts in further Tadepalligudem and committed Tanuku, around and in that he with Manikanta theft committed tne Confessed along Mahesh house at of of village Rs.4,50,000/-, silver gold articies. Chivatam cash and to of Thereafter the Mahesh Manikanta gave Cash and him Rs.2,00,000/- he to un gold murukulu and sold the murukuiu person spent cash known and of for his own. Then the recorded pw3 the same under cover report under

Ex.p3.

of is in

10. P.W.4 who one the mediators The scene

of of observation,

at

deposed of that the request C.I Tanuku, isited the the Scene of ofence with observed dong LW7 and the scene offence

and

at prepareo of sCene observation report under Ex.P.4. Further the request C.Iof he along with conducted property identification Tanoku, Lw7 parade with wife and they identified property under cover report Ex.P.5.

is

the investigating officer register and FIR deposed that he as TheS Who from the istered FIR pwi and the same and d 6 that

deposed

A1, is the

arrest

investigatin9 officer and P.W.6 who another

mediators

and two on

staff

his police credible information along with

and

person

to one

arrested

and he proceeded Duvva near one pan shop one he wíth of along in that

mediators, Confessed of

enquired the presence in Tanuku, thefts around SrinivasS and :Janapala Committed

he

property

seized Some property. Hence of and shared the

Tadepalligudem

to cover under with some other case properties this case along pertaining is investigating omceI P.W.7 the arrest him. The who mediator report and

A2

A2 on he

arrest the and gol deposed that 05-10-2014 and arrest he Al he confessed that along witn confessional statement and recorded of in at theft Chivatam village and spent part the committed the house is property. another investigating officer that deposed stolen The pw8 who of 4 during his investigation Visited the scene offence and got prepared scene he observation also taken photos and prepared rough sketch. Later

and

to that pw7arrest the A2, filed P.T.Warrrant and produced came know the of

before this court after completion investigatíon filed charge sheet.

and

As of to to

11. per the evidence P.W.1, they went Rajampalem attend on on marriage 19-08-2014 back 20-08-2014 and noticed that and came un of persons commnitted theft his property. Admittedly the Some known in no of is lOcated residential locality and one can Scene offence house and in So at into time. that the offence must occurred night enter the house day As of of is at only. evidence one the mediator the time time per the pw2 who A2 A1 by he he of of arrest deposed that: confessed that along with pw6 As of in at Committed theft house Chivatam village. per the Ex.p2 copy the A1 A2 he reveal that accused confessed that along with mediator report the in of at Committed theft house acCused night. mediator report under the The A2 A1 he in reveal confessed that along with committed theft EX.p3 that the

p3

at at

village night. Ex.p2 and mediators reports Uie nouse Chivatam The So in of at theft night the house P.W.1. Lnat the accused committed Peu no at tniS Court Uidt pined ithout urking the house one can tered into to te as Commit theft. house his The hostlle but P.W.2 declared may to of evidence with regard the seizer out and Ex.P.2 not washed execution to investigating officer The not may issued and the pw2 pws any summons to 3

to

prior drafting Ex.p2

and

but said procedure laps not helped the 3 accused since the pW2 and are village servants and they deposed berol 3 this court about the arrest, seizer and drafting the Ex.p2 and nothing

and

by to elicited the learned counsel

for the accused disbelieve their

testimonies to with regard that aspect. this Hence court opined that the accused found doubt. guilty for the offence punishable under section 457 IPC beyond all reasonable

to

12. POINT.NO.2: According prosecution case, the accused after lurKing at of into the house night, break the locks open house and entered into the in to house order commit theft. Later break iron safe committed open and of of theft gold ornamentS silver articles Rs.4,50,000/-. and and cash Later A2 of they shared the property and the spent total his share for his A1 of necessity and the seized the property from the possession under pw6 On of COver mediator report. the othar hand the learned Counsel for the of accused argued that the accUsed nev¬r committed theft the property and

to

the police falsely implicated dispose cases. pending them the The to in prosecution witnessesS failed proved that the accused committed theft As of the house Hence the accused entitle acquittal. evidences pw1. per the

A1

of 3, 2

P.W.2, they categorically deposed that confessed and the and

as in of

before them they committed theft the house the P.W.1 the

and

3 A1 of 2 Ex.P.2 and which are confessional statements also reveal that

and

in of the accused committed theft the house the P.W.1 and the seized pw6

A1

to 20 of

in

Mo.1 from the pOSsession and the P.W.7 deposed that the the A2 presence of th¡t he confessed spent his share for his own pw3 in house of this expenses, COurt opined that the acCUsed committed theft the the P.W.1.' learned counsel for accused nvestigating The the asked the

of

to

Oicer about the eceipts operty card and edding prove that the

n

0s in

to

said house him and the the P.W.1 not

belongs

stolen property tO

necessary prove said documents not court opined that that date. But this such No

of

wedding

accused. receipts and the one can carry the innOCence

of

to

(a) Evidence ACt, section 114 time. However acCording cards for long

of

if

stolen property without

person having custody soon after theft any

he be or of

either thief receiver stolen legal accountability, must having any

of 3 3, as

P.W.2, Ex.P.2 and the property. Since the evidence and and of to 20 confessed that they committed theft Mo.1 accused themselves

of

property the house P.W.1, this Court opined along with some other from that accused liable for the offence punishable under section 380 IPC. the

13. POINT.NO.3: Since prosecution proved the charges section 380 IPC, the to accused is is charge section not attracted the case and the the under 411 entitle acquittal. by me in by proncunced open court this the Typed of me, and corre�ted 27th April, day 2017

OF II I

ADDL, JUDL. MAGISTRATE CLASS,

TANUKU A1 on of aCcused quantum sentence for which the Hearing the he 0s to he stated that small children the sole bread earner his has and A2 he stated that female children family and pleaded mercy. The has two as entire family depends upon hirn and pleaded mercy. But per the

and

of of nature the offence circumst¡nces the case this COurt not applied

and

of to cf provision Right Probation Offenders Act section Cr.P.C, the and 360 in 6 in because the accused faced charges nearly cases simnilar nature

and

pending. Hence the accused liable for the punishment for the offences punishable under section acquitted 457 and 380 and for the offence punishable under section IPC. 411 In the result the accused guilty found for the offence punishable under section convicted 457 IPC and under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for simple a of 2 In of ent for eriod years also and fine 0/-. ault of be fine of the accUsed shall 3

a

undergo simple imprisonment for period Further months. the accUsed round guilty for the offence and under 380 IPC section convicted under section a of 2 248(2) Cr.P.C. for Simple imprisonment for period In years and also of be fine of Rs.2,000/-. default payment shall fine accused a the undergo of 3 simple imprisonment for period i months. The accused found quilty for the offence under section 411 JPC and acauitted A1 under section of 24(l Cr.P.C. to The: remand period fron, 25-09-2014 12-08-2015 to 05-01-2015 and tron of A2 L0 2/-04-201/ and the remand period from 24-10-2014 be A1 05-01-2015 shall on set off " under 428 Cr.pP.c. The released 05-01-2015 as he as in this in present case ne per record but was Judicial remand other cases, has not appeared before this COurt and his learned Counsel represented by the maute filing petition under section Cr.p.c. 317 However this court issued against Al on NBW he Dy on the 23-06-2015 and was produced before this court 12-08-2015 to to executing P.T.warrant. However this court intimated accused about their right an on to prefer appeal this Judgment for vhich they stated that they have means of engage counsel. All sentences this case shall concutrently. run The interim of to 20 be of custody M.0.1 shall absolute after expiry made appeal time. me by pronounced by me , in Typed Corrected and this court of open the 27th April, day 2017

OF

II I

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE

CLASS, TANUKU Appendix of evidence examined Witnesses

Prosecution: For For Defence: P.W.1 : K.Sridhar B. PW.2: Siva Kumar None PW.3 : Raju U.Naga

:

C.G.V.S.S. Bhujanga Rao Chowüary. PW.4 Pw.5: P.Venkata Ramana Pw.7. Pw.6: G.Deva Kumar K.Gangadhara Rao G.Madhubabu Pw.8:

10

Exhibits niarked

Prosecution: the by For to

is A1

-- Lw.1 of Report given police is the Ex.P1/ 2 c.C. mediator. report of is the of Ex.P2/ c.c. mediator repoit is the Ex.P3/ ré:ort

observation re

is the Scene

Ex.p4/0

property identificaticn ort is the

Ex.P7/-Ex.P6 /-Ex.p5/

FIR the

is

15 Sketch

to the Rough

photos

Ex.P.16 C.D E.xp8

Defence: NIL For

Objects: Material

is

gold chain with sutrams M.0.1 is the black beads chain M.0.2 is the gold pearls of chains M.0.3 is the two god gold chair: is the three 4 rowS M.O.4 the gold bangles M.0.5 is M.O.6 the gold ring is M.0.7 the 4 small rings is twO pairs ofgold ear studs M.0.8 is the silver plate MO.9 is the wo lord Vinayaka of idol i Mo.10 is the idols goddess Lakshn Mo.1 s he silver piece Mo.12 is the silver glass Mo.13 is and.ha: ithi stand silver bowls Mo.14 is the two

.silver panchapatra

Mo.15 is the silver deepapu kundulu Mo.16 is the Mo.17 the silver spoon is the Silver kumkumabarini Mo.18 is is the silver of sandle bowl Mo.19 Mo.20 the cash Rs.2,00;000/ /Tanuku. IIAJFCM

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Present: Sri E.Rajendra Babu II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

This the 28th day of April, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.499/2016

Between: Kopparthi Lakshmana rao, Odali village … Complainant

And

Kukkapalli Venkateswara rao, D.No 28-4-26/1, Gokulgiri house, road no-2 .… Accused

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Someswara RAo, counsel for the Complainant and of accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 190(1) (a) Cr.P.C.

against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 and 142 of N.I.Act r/w 357 Cr.P.C.

Both present and petition filed U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C. and same is allowed and accused is acquitted.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- E.Rajendra Babu

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tanuku

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Present: Sri E.Rajendra Babu II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

This the 2nd day of May, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.790/2015

Between: Bandela Balasubrahmanyam … Complainant

And

Thammisetty Shahanas .… Accused

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Srinivasa Kumar, counsel for the Complainant and of Sri V.Venkatesh, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 190(1) (a) Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 and 142 of N.I.Act r/w 357 Cr.P.C.

Both present. Complainant filed petition U.Sec. 257 Cr.P.C and same is allowed. Hence complaint is withdrawn and accused is acquitted

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- E.Rajendra Babu

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tanuku

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Present: Smt G Deena, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

This the 28th day of April, 2017.

M.C. No.79/2016

Between:

M D Sundari …Petitioner

And

M Suresh .… Aggrieved person

O R D E R

Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the Respondent.

Counter not filed and memo filed as to withdraw the case as settled out of court. Hence this petition is dismissed as settled out of court.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

SD/- G DEENA,

II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Tanuku

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

ID/- GD.

IIAJFCM