Smt E Tirumala Devi

1 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022

Present: Smt. E. Tirumala Devi, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 250/2018

From what court this appeal isThe III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. preferred:

Case Number in that court CC. No. 161/2016

Criminal Appeal Number Crl. Appeal No. 250/2018

Name and description of the AppellantM/s. Vishal Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor Vikram Madanlal Bhandari, S/o. Madanlal Agarchandji Bhandari, Aged: 42 years, Occupation: Business, # 24, 60 Feet Road, Uttarahalli, Channasandra Village, Hobli, Bangalore – 560 061.

Name and description of the(1). M/s. NCL Industries, Represented Respondentby its Authorized Officer, Mr. Ch. Anil Kumar, S/o. Penchalaiah, Aged: 38 years, Sr. Officer (Liaison), Having its registered and corporate office at Raghava Ratna Towers, 7th Floor, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad – 500 001.

(2). The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad.

The law and sentence under which The appellant/accused is found the Appellant was convicted before theguilty for the offence punishable under lower courtSection 138 of NI Act and is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay a sum of Rs.20,54,458/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC to the complainant within two (2) months from today, failing which, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) year.

Whether confirmed, modified orIn the result, the appeal is reversed and if modified, thedismissed by upholding the conviction modification and sentence passed by the III Special

Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.

No.161/2016, dated 09-03-2018.

2 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation23-03-2018 Filing24-03-2018 Notice issued to Respondent to appear04-04-2018 Whether on bail, if so, the bail bond--- Respondent ordered to appear04-05-2018 Hearing12-04-2022 Judgment29-04-2022

This Criminal Appeal is coming on for hearing before me upon perusing the grounds of appeal and record of evidence and upon considering the arguments of Sri G. Ashok Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri G.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for R1, this Court made the following:-

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

1.This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dt:9.3.2018 in

C.C.No.161/2016 passed by the III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2.The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court.

3.1The succinctness of the case of complainant is that the complainant company carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of cement and other building products. The accused entered into dealership agreement with the complainant company and agreed to purchase the cement on credit basis. Based on the agreement, the complainant company supplied cement to the accused on different dates and on different invoices. During the course of business transactions, as on 18.6.2015, the accused is liable to pay an amount of

Rs.20,54,458/- towards outstanding amount. After constant demands by the complainant company, in discharge of his liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing no.037205, dt:28.9.2015 for Rs.20,54,458/- drawn on Indian Overseas

Bank, Banashankari II, State Branch, Bangalore.

3.2The complainant company presented the cheque for encashment through its banker IDBI Bank Limited, Abids Branch, Hyderabad, but the said cheque was returned with a reason “kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again” vide cheque return memo dt:6.10.2015. Thereupon, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt:26.10.2015 to the accused by registered 3 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 post acknowledgment and the accused received the legal notice on 31.10.2015 and issued reply notice dt:24.11.2015, but failed to pay the dues. Hence, the complaint.

4.During trial, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 besides examining PWs 2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P59 and Ex.X1 to X5. On the other hand, the appellant/accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked

Exs.D1 to D11.

5.The trial court after considering the evidence and other material on record, concluded that the appellant/accused is found guilty for the charged offence and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. He is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,54,458/- as compensation under section 357(3) of CrPC to the complainant within two months from today, failing which, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 138 of NI Act.

6.Heard both counsel.

7.The learned counsel for appellant/accused submitted that the complainant failed to establish the legally enforceable debt, hence prayed to allow the appeal.

8.The learned counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused and thus prayed to uphold the judgment of the trial court.

9.Now the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained?

3) To what relief?

POINT NO.1:-

10.The case of the defacto complainant is that their company has delivered the goods worth Rs.20,54,458/- out of acquaintance with the accused and that the accused has issued a cheque, but failed to honour the same and that the complainant has issued notice and inspite of receipt of the notice, the 4 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 accused has not paid the amount under the cheque. Thus, the accused is facing charge under section 138 of NI Act.

11.In support of its case, the complainant has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P59 and also Exs.X1 to X5. The accused got examined DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D11.

12.1PW1 has reiterated the averments of his complaint stating that the complainant company is a public limited company and the accused company is a dealer of the complainant company and that he has been working in the complainant company since 2008, that he is authorised to represent the case by virtue of Ex.P8/authorisation letter, dt:24.2.2011. It is elicited from him that their company carries on business of manufacturing and sale of cement and other building products. The accused is the proprietor of M/s.Vishal Agencies and the accused has entered into dealership agreement with their company and that based on the said agreement, they have supplied cement to the accused on different dates and that as on 18.6.2015, the accused is liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,54,458/-. He further stated that on constant demands made by them and in discharge of the said liability the accused issued a cheque bearing no.037205,

dt:28.9.2015 for Rs.20,54,458/-, that they have presented the said cheque for

encashment through their banker and it was returned for the reason that “kindly contact drawer drawee bank and please present again” vide cheque return memo

dt:16.10.2015/Ex.P2. Thus, they got issued legal notice and that the accused

has received the same, but has failed to repay the amount.

12.2In his cross-examination it is elicited that he was not present at the time of execution of agreement with the accused and that they have not filed agreement in this case. He further stated that the complainant has supplied the material to the accused only in the name of Vishal Agencies and on the purchase orders made by the accused they raised invoices, accordingly the consignment has been dispatched and that they have not filed the purchase orders in this case. He stated that the purchase orders were taken sometimes on phone and sometimes in writing. It is elicited from him that during the past seven years, no 5 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 cheque of the accused was dishonoured and that he does not know whether the subject cheque is non-CTS cheque and that the subject cheque was not returned for insufficiency of funds. He stated that he does not know the particular reason why the complainant waited for such due amount of Rs.20 lakhs, then he added that the accused was previously due for more than Rs.50 lakhs and thereafter some payments were made and the accused fell due for such amount and for subsequent transactions and stopped payments and so the supply was stopped.

He denied the suggestion that the subject cheque was a blank cheque which was obtained by the complainant from the accused at the time of agreement and that the cheque is a non-CTS cheque and that it has become invalid and was presented in the bank by filling up the blanks with those amounts mentioned in the cheque. He further denied the suggestion that the subject cheques series was given by the banker of the accused in 2010 and that the complainant has presented the said cheque in the year 2015.

13.1PW2 is the Senior Sales officer in the complainant company. It is elicited from him that he knows the accused since 2014 and that on behalf of their company he used to send the material to the accused after obtaining permission from E-Sugam from the Department of Commercial Tax, Karnataka

State to supply the cement to the accused. He stated that the said E-Sugam reports show the supply of cement to the accused under Exs.P9 to P52 and that he has downloaded the E-Sugam reports from the official website of the

Department and he saved into DVD which is filed along with his affidavit. He stated that he has personal knowledge about the supply of cement under Exs.P9 to P52 and that the accused is liable to pay Rs.20,54,458/- and has issued Ex.P1 to discharge the said liability. Ex.P53 is the E-Sugam report showing the supply of material to the accused by the complainant dt:8.12.015. Ex.P54 is the CD.

The said exhibits are marked subject to objection raised by the defence counsel.

13.2In his cross-examination it is elicited that he used to get involved whenever the stocks are supplied to the consignees and whenever the invoices are generated. It is elicited from him that one time supply of material to the 6 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 consignee is based on loading slip issued by the consignee. He further stated that they would also supply material whenever there is an order over phone. In the present case, the complainant used to supply material even though the value of the material of some of the invoices is due. It is elicited from him that the cheque amount relates to weight of 350 to 400 tonnes of worth of material and that their company team has collected the present cheque from the accused and it was a post dated cheque and that it was given by the accused for the value of the consignments. He added that though the accused was sending the amount through RTGS, when the accused failed to pay the value of the invoices amount, on demand to pay the due amount to the accused, the accused has delivered the subject cheque. He denied the suggestion that eventhough there is no due by the accused, the complainant company has misused the blank signed cheque given at the time of entering into agreement dt:24.12.2010.

14.1PW3 is the Commercial Tax Inspector. Ex.X1 is the letter of authorisation, Ex.X2 is the tax analysis details for the years 2014-16 pertaining to

Vishal Agencies. It is elicited from him that the accused firm M/s.Vishal Agencies is in their Commercial Tax Circle and that it is registered in their e-filing with TIN

No.29020349880. It is elicited from him that Ex.X2 contain the details of input and output tax analysis. The output tax means levying tax by the manufacturer on the dealer for the consignment sold to the dealer. The input tax means the tax collected by the dealer from the consumers for the material sold by the dealer to the consumer. Ex.X3 is the returns summary through E-filing system for the period April2014 to March2015. It shows the business details of the accused during 2014-2016. Ex.X4 is the attested true copy of E-Sugam report from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2016 submitted by the accused. Ex.X5 is attested true copy of report on invoice details by the accused company for the months from July,2015 to February,2015. As per their record, the business of the accused was stopped on 1.12.2016.

14.2In his cross-examination it is elicited that the invoice details of

Ex.P26, 35, 37 to 42 is not reflected in Ex.X5. He stated that their department is 7 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 not concerned about the details of the person to whom the consignment is delivered. It is elicited from him that the accused company should upload all its transactions in a month and file monthly returns to their department. Likewise the complainant also should file such returns showing all the transactions with the accused in a month. Whatever information is uploaded by the accused with respect to their transactions with the complainant company, such information only be available in their department. It is elicited from him that since the above eight invoices are not shown in Ex.X5, it means the accused has not claimed the input tax. He added that whenever the accused claims input tax, it is shown in Ex.X2 to Ex.X5. He denied the suggestion that E-Sugam can be raised by anybody.

14.3On his re-examination by the counsel for the complainant it is elicited that Exs.P38 to P42 are reflected in Ex.X4 and that it contains the details of dates and time of submitting information by the accused to their department.

15.1DW1 is the proprietor of Vishal Agencies. It is elicited from him that they have entered into dealership agreement with the complainant in 2010 and while entering into the said agreement he has issued blank cheque to NCL

Industries for the purpose of bank details. He stated that they have been making payments through NEFT or RTGS in advance and that as per the bank statement, their payments to NCL Industries Limited were made only through

RTGS and NEFT in advance for every transaction and that they have never issued any cheque for any transaction with complainant. He further stated that he has also got a bank letter given by the Indain Overseas Bank that the cheque book relating to the present cheque was given to the accused on 24.12.2010.

Ex.D8 is the bank statement issued to Vishal Agencies by the banker for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2015. Ex.D9 is the letter issued by Indian Overseas

Bank. It is elicited from him that the complainant created invoices with seal and signatures, and the said seal and signatures on the invoices do not belong to them. He filed a copy of acknowledgment under Ex.D10 which shows that they have received Ex.P5 notice. The said document Ex.D10 is relied upon by him to show that the seal and signature on Ex.D10 is their original seal and signature 8 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 and that it differs from the seal and signatures made on the invoices exhibited by the complainant company. He further stated that the seal put on all invoices is “Vishal Agency”, but the name of their firm is “Vishal Agencies”. He further filed a copy of E-Sugam taken from the Government of Karnataka to show that anybody can submit or take E-Sugam on anybody’s name. Ex.D11 is the said copy of E-

Sugam raised by Jade Studio, Bangalore. Thus, he contends that all E-Sugams filed by the complainant are false documents and that they would not show any proof of delivery. He further disputed that Ex.D1, the receiver of consignment is

Vijaya Cements and the consignee name is Vishal Agencies and thus he has stated that they are not due to pay any amount to the complainant and that it is a mischief played by the complainant. It is contended that they have never taken any consignment on credit and thus they are not liable to pay any amount and that their cheuqe is not returned for the reason of insufficiency of funds, but it was returned for the reason that “kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again”. Therefore, it is the contention of DW1 that there is no legally enforceable debt and that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

15.2In his cross-examination it is elicited from him that he has not filed any document to show that he has given a blank signed cheque to the complainant at the time of entering into the dealership agreement. That in general if a person insists a cheque for bank details, a cancelled cheque would be given normally. He stated that he maintains account for the receipt and sale of material. He was confronted with seven delivery challans and he was questioned as to whether they are one and the same as per Exs.D1 to D7 and he answered that all the documents are one and the same. Exs.P53 to P59 are the seven delivery challans cum tax invoices. He denied the suggestion that 3 copies of invoices would be prepared and that one copy would be retained by the consignor, one copy would be with the receiver and one copy would be sent back to the consignor after being duly signed by the receiver with seal, but there will not be any xerox copy with the consignees signature. He denied the suggestion 9 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 that the accused has received the consignments, the truck driver has mistakenly obtained the stamp and signature of Vijaya Cements on Ex.P53. It is elicited from him that there was no sufficient balance to honour the subject cheque for Rs.20,54,458/-. He added that he has not maintained such amount in his account as he has not issued any cheque for such amount. He further denied that the accused has received the material as per the statement of account and invoices and that he intentionally affixed the stamp of Vishal Agency instead of

Vishal Agencies and that he is deposing false to avoid the payment. He further denied the suggestion that the subject cheque is not given in the year 2010, but it has been issued on demand for discharge of legally enforceable liability.

16.On a thorough perusal of the evidence on record, it is elicited that issuance of cheque is admitted by the accused, but it is contended that it was given towards bank details. But, DW1 has admitted that one would give a cancelled cheque for furnishing bank details. Therefore, the said contention is untenable by his own admission. It is further contended by the accused that the said cheque was given at the time of agreement, but no such agreement is filed

in the court. Admittedly there were business transactions between the

complainant and the accused and it was further admitted that the payments were also made from RTGS. The accused says that it was always through RTGS or

NEFT and that he has never issued any cheque. Another contention raised by the defence is that the cheque pertains to 2010 and the entire leaves in the said cheque book were issued in 2010 itself and that this is the only cheque presented in 2015 and thus argued that it is falsely used. Another contention raised by the defence is that their company is Vishal Agencies while the invoices in Exs.P9 to

P52 bears the stamp as Vishal Agency. Therefore, the endorsement of receiving the goods in the said invoices do not belong to them. Another contention raised in defence is that the return of cheque is not due to the reason of insufficient funds, but due to the reason that ““kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again”. Thus, the accused has taken defence that there is no 10 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 legally enforceable debt between himself and the complainant and that he is not liable to pay any amount.

17.But, the existence of legally enforceable debt is proved by the customer ledger of NCL Industries filed under Ex.P7. It shows the sales invoices value of the customer i.e, the accused/Vishal Agencies on various dates from

March,2011 to October,2015. Ex.P7 discloses all the details as well as invoices pertaining to the accused and it also shows the closing balance as

Rs.20,54,458/- and the dishonor of cheque on 6.10.2015 is also elicited from

Ex.P7. A perusal of Exs.P9 to P52 reveals that they are delivery challans cum tax invoices disclosing that the goods were delivered to Vishal Agencies by the

NCL Industries from January,2015 to February,2015. It is further strengthened by the evidence of PW3, the CTI through the exhibits filed by him under Ex.X4 and X5, as the tax invoice details submitted by accused in Ex.X4 and X5 disclose the transactions under Exs.P9 to P52. Ex.P1 is the cheque dt:28.9.2015 presented on 6.10.2015 which was returned with an endorsement “kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again” under a cheque return memo/Ex.P2. Legal notice Ex.P3 was sent vide postal receipt/Ex.P4 which was received under Ex.P5/the acknowledgment dt:31.10.2015, the accused has not responded to the said legal notice, but instead he has issued a reply notice in

Ex.P6 calling for the details of the bills and supportive documents. Thus, ingredients of section 138 of NI Act are satisfied, therefore presumption under section 139 of NI Act is drawn in favour of the complainant. It is the duty of the accused to rebut the case of the complainant. The accused got examined DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D11, but a perusal of these exhibits coupled with the evidence of DW1 do not aid the accused to disprove the case of the complainant.

Exs.D1 to D7 are the delivery challans cum invoices and they bear the same TIN number as mentioned in Exs.P9 to P52. Ex.D1 is addressed to Vishal Agencies, but received by the Vijaya Cements. While Exs.D2 to D7, the consignee’s endorsement pertains to Vishal Agency. A perusal of Ex.D1 shows that it is the photostat copy of Ex.P53. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the cross- 11 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018 examination of DW1. A suggestion was given by the complainant’s counsel which was denied by him. It was suggested that the truck driver must have mistakenly obtained the stamp and signatures of Vijaya Cements instead of

Vishal Agencies on Ex.P53. The contention of the complainant’s counsel is that the delivery challan and the goods would be entrusted to the truck driver, who obtains the signature on the challan from the consginee and that the consignor should not suffer for the said mistake. The said contention raised by the complainant in this regard sounds reasonable. Since Exs.D1 to D7 bear the same TIN as Exs.P9 to P52 and also further supported by the customer ledger/Ex.P7, it is held that the goods were delivered to the accused company as disclosed from Exs.P9 to P52. Ex.D8 is the bank statement showing that the cheque leaves in the said cheque book are used in 2010 by the accused. Ex.D9 is the letter from the bank saying that it is the cheque from cheque book issued on 24.12.2015 and that it was returned for the reasons “kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again”, since it was a non-CTS cheque. It is pertinent to refer to the Apex Court decision reported in Lakshmi Dyechem Vs.

State of Gujarat reported in 2013(2) ALD(Crl) 823 (SC) wherein it was held that the reasons which are to be considered for dishonour of cheques are such as “account closed, payments stopped, refer to the drawer and that they are the only species of that genus”. It was further held that return of the cheque for the reason that “refer to the drawer” is also dishonour of cheque. Ex.D11 is the sample of tax invoice produced by the accused contending that it can be generated in any consignee’s name. Ex.D11 shows the consignee to be NCL

Industries. But, it is to be noted that it does not disclose the delivery particulars and whether the goods mentioned are delivered to the consignee. Thus, it cannot be taken as reference or cannot be compared with Exs.P9 to P52.

Hence,it is opined that these Exs.D1 to D11 do not aid the defence taken by the accused to disprove the case of the complainant. Thus, it is held that the complainant could prove that the accused committed an offence under section 138 of NI Act.

12 of 12 Crl. Appeal No.250/2018

POINT NO.2:-

18.In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point no.1, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and hence the same is upheld.

POINT NO.3:-

19.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in

C.C.No.161/2016, dt:9.3.2018.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

DATED: 29-04-2022

Since the appellant/accused is absent, the trial Court is directed to execute the sentence.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

1 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2022

Present: Smt. E. Tirumala Devi, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200/2018

From what court this appeal isThe XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan preferred:Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Case Number in that court CC. No. 131/2010

Criminal Appeal Number Crl. Appeal No. 200/2018

Name and description of the Appellant(A4). Shekhar, S/o. Sanjeev (Late), Age: 28 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-125/5, Plot No.52, Boduppal, Hyderabad.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through PS RespondentChikkadpally, Hyderabad.

The law and sentence under which The appellant/accused no.4 is the Appellant was convicted before thefound guilty for the offence punishable lower courtunder Section 498-A IPC and is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, indefault Simple Imprisonment for two months. Fine of Rs.5,000/- paid by A4.

Whether confirmed, modified orIn the result, the appeal is reversed and if modified, thedismissed, upholding the conviction modification and sentence passed by the XIII Addl. ChiefMetropolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No.131/2010,

dated 20-02-2018.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation14-03-2018 Filing15-03-2018 Notice issued to Respondent to appear20-03-2018 Whether on bail, if so, the bail bond--- Respondent ordered to appear24-04-2018 Hearing11-04-2022 Judgment27-04-2022

This Criminal Appeal is coming on for hearing before me upon perusing the grounds of appeal and record of evidence and upon considering the arguments of Sri T. Shivanand, Advocate for the appellant and Smt. P. Shailaja, Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court made the following:- 2 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018

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

1.This present appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dt:20.2.2018 in C.C.No.131/2010 passed by the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

2.The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the

Calendar Case before the trial court.

2.1The succinctness of the prosecution case is that on 10.8.2007, the defacto complainant/B.S.Radha lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with

A1 was performed on 15.1.2004 and at the time of marriage, on the demand of accused, her parents gave Rs.1 lakh, motorcycle, gold ring, household articles worth Rs.50,000/- and adapaduchu katpam Rs.10,000/- and after marriage, she joined A1 at her matrimonial house and thereafter, A1 started harassing and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty by demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and threatened to give divorce to her and perform another marriage to A1 and on that her parents approached the police where the matter was compromised and subsequently again the accused started harassing her for

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and confined her in a room for three days without

proper food and even when underwent for operation for stomach pain, A1 neglected to see her and thereafter when her parents dropped her at their house, A1 at the instigation of A3 and A4, beat her, driven her out of their house along with her daughter, even though she was carrying pregnancy.

2.2Based on the complaint, P.Janakamma, Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.381/2007 under section 498-A IPC.

2.3During the course of investigation, PW5 recorded the statements of

PW1 and other witnesses, effected the arrest of A1 and after causing enquiries, filed charge sheet.

3.During trial, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, the appellant/A4 and other accused did not adduce any evidence.

3 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018

4.The trial court after considering the evidence and other material on record, concluded that the appellant/A4 and other accused I.e, A1 are found guilty for the offence under section 498-A IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months each.

5.Heard both counsel.

6.The learned counsel for appellant/A4 submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the harassment meted out by the appellant against the respondent/complainant on demand of additional dowry. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

7.The learned Public Prosecutor representing State submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused and thus prayed to uphold the judgment of the trial court.

8.Now the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court cannot be sustained?

2) To what relief?

POINT NO.1:-

9.The appellant herein is A4 and was convicted for the offence under section 498-A IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint stating that the accused have harassed her for want of

additional dowry. In support of their case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1

to 5.

10.1It is elicited from the evidence of PW1 that A1 is her husband and

A4 is her brother in law, that her marriage took place with A1 on 15.12.2004 and at the time of marriage, on the demand of the accused, her parents gave an amount of Rs.1 lakh cash, one motorbike, household articles and gold ring and also gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam. She further stated that after the marriage, she joined A1 to lead matrimonial life and that prior to marriage, the accused informed that A1 has got Bright Colours shop, but 4 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018 that he was not actually running any such shop. She stated that A1 was not attending any work, but for consuming liquor and beating her, that A4 also used to consume liquor and beat her. She stated that both A1 and A4 demanded her to bring an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and used to demand that atleast she should get Rs.5 lakhs from her parents or from her brothers. She stated that till the birth of their daughter she did not inform about the said ill treatment to her parents, but subsequently she informed the same and that her parents went to the house of the accused and questioned them about the ill treatment. After the birth of the child for a period of five months, she stayed at parental home and at that time, the accused did not bother to take her back to their house and when her parents questioned them, they demanded to give Rs.25,000/- and thus her parents gave the said amount and the accused assured to look after her well. Then her parents dropped her in the house of the accused after paying the said amount. It is further elicited from her that the accused have taken care of her properly for one day and from the next day onwards, they started ill treating her. She further stated that A1, A3 and A4 used to beat her by demanding her to bring more money. It is elicited from her that initially they used to stay at Ramanthapur and after they were blessed with a daughter, A3 and A4 shifted to Boduppal and that after they get shifted, A1 wrongfully confined her in a room by locking from outside and went to his mother’s place for a period of three days. When he came back, she questioned A1, A1 beat her and dropped her at her parents house.

She stated that subsequently, her parents negotiated with A3 and dropped her along with her daughter at the house of A3,mother in law. She stated that at the relevant time her health was not good, she was suffering with stomachache and that the accused have not taken any care of her, for the said reason she returned to her parents house. She stated that her parents have taken her to hospital for treatment and the Doctor’s advised operation and her parents informed the same to the accused to obtain consent signature for operation by A1, but the accused did not turn up and uttered that they won’t care for her even if she dies. She further stated that after the operation she went to her parents house and after two 5 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018 weeks her parents again dropped her in her matrimonial home. During her stay at Boduppal, the accused used to ill treat her, but she was bearing all the harassment and that when she was carrying her second pregnancy, the accused harassed her demanding more money and necked her out of the house. Then she went to her parents house and informed the same and also lodged a police report before the police. The police have called the accused and advised to pacify the matter and so the accused have taken her to the house from the Police

Station. Thereafter, the accused and PW1 lived properly for about two months and by that time, she was carrying 8th month pregnancy and in July,2007 in the absence of her in laws in the matrimonial house, A1 and A4 beat her and necked her out of the house by putting locks to the door and the gate and went away by leaving herself and her child. She stated that the said incident has taken place at around 1.00 AM in the midnight, and that she waited outside the house till the morning and later on she knocked the doors of their neighbours and that the neighbours provided her with food and gave Rs.5/- to call her parents. By receiving the phone call, her elder brother came and picked her up and taken to her parents house. Thus, she gave a report under Ex.P1. She further stated that even during the pendency of this case, A1 and A4 used to visit their house in a drunken state and created nuisance. It is further elicited from her that A4 sold away the motorbike given by her parents to A1, within one month from the date of her marriage.

10.2In her cross-examination it is elicited from her that during her second pregnancy she was residing along with A1 separately from A3 and A4 and that she has not given any complaint to the police prior to 2007, when A4 beat her and abused her. It is elicited from her that she has not mentioned in the enclosures in Ex.P1 to show that she handedover the medical certificate to the police and that Ex.P1 does not disclose the name of the neighbour, who helped her and provided food and that the said person is not cited as a witness. She admitted that Ex.P1 does not disclose the RC number of the bike and the type of the vehicle. It is further elicited that she has not filed any documentary proof to 6 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018 show that she has taken treatment when she sustained injuries in the hands of the accused and that she has not mentioned the specific dates of harassment made by the accused in Ex.P1. She admitted that she has not mentioned the specific dates of A1 beating her and dropping her in parents house and also the date on which the parents went to her in laws for talks. She further admitted that she has not stated specifically about the treatment taken by her in the hospital and she had taken treatment or operated.

11.1PW2 is the father of PW1. It is elicited from him that at the time of marriage, they gave an amount of Rs.1 lakh cash, Hero Honda bike, household articles worth Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam. He stated that after the marriage, PW1 joined the accused for matrimonial life and after two to three days, the accused sent back PW1 to their house. He stated that PW1 was sent to her in laws house, but again the accused sent back to their house. He stated that on one day A4 beat PW1 due to which PW1 gave a complaint to the police.

11.2In his cross-examination it is elicited that he has not stated the specific dates as to when did the accused send back PW1 to the parental home and the date on which A4 beat PW1.

12.1PW3 is the mother of PW1. Her evidence runs in corroboration with that of PW1 with regard to the demand of dowry and harassment. The only difference that appears in her evidence from that of PW1 is the alleged amount of

additional dowry demanded by the accused. PW1 has stated that they

demanded Rs.50 lakhs and that A1 and A4 have asked to get atleast Rs.5 lakhs from the parents of PW1, while PW3 has stated that A1 detained PW1 inside the house for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs of additional dowry. She further stated about an incident that on one day, while PW1 was staying at Uppal, A4 leaked the gas for want of Rs.5 lakhs and with an intention to kill PW1 and necked her out from the house, that PW1 waited till morning outside the house and that after receiving the phone call, PW4 went and brought her back and that she has provided food 7 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018 to her. It is further elicited from her that due to the said reason, PW1 has given a complaint to the police.

12.2In her cross-examination it is elicited that they have not filed any medical record to show that PW1 got operated due to stomach pain.

13.1PW4 is the brother of PW1. His evidence also runs in corroboration to that of PW1, but for the quantum of additional dowry alleged to have been demanded by the accused. It is elicited from him that after three months of marriage, they came to know that A1 was not doing any business and that he was working as a car driver. He stated that A1, A3 and A4 have started harassing

PW1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. He stated that in view of the harassment, their father approached PS Chikkadpally, but the police have not received the same and advised to compromise. He stated that A3 has put up a separate family for PW1 and A1 at Ramanthapur and that one day, A1 went to work place by locking the house doors and did not return for two days and that on learning the same from the neighbours, immediately their family members went to the house of A1, called A1 and got the lock opened and that when they questioned A1, he informed that he went to his parents house. He stated that A1,

A3 and A4 started harassing and threatening PW1, necked her out and that PW1 had to sit alone on the road from midnight till morning.

13.2In his cross-examination he admitted that he stated to the police that A2 to A4 came to their house and promised that they will take care of PW1 and also requested to withdraw the case from the police station, but no undertaking was executed at that time. He further admitted that he stated to the police that Doctors scanned PW1 and suggested an operation and that there is a danger to the life of PW1 if not operated and that they informed the same to A1, but he has not responded, even when his consent signature was asked by the

Doctors and after the operation also he has not come to see PW1. He also stated in his cross-examination that he stated to the police that on 14.7.2007, A1 and A4 forced and tortured PW1, beat her to leave the house and that A4 said that he would leak the gas.

8 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018

14.PW5 is the investigating officer, who registered the FIR/Ex.P2 based on the complaint of PW1. It is elicited from her in the cross-examination that prior to registering the case, she has not conducted preliminary enquiry and that she has not collected any document to show the capacity of father of PW1 for paying the dowry, that she has not collected any document to show that A4 sold away the bike of PW1. It is further elicited from Pw5 that she has not examined the elders and mediators in this case.

15.It is the argument of appellant counsel that the ingredients of section 498-A IPC for which the trial court has convicted the accused, do not get attracted in this case. It is pertinent to refer to the said section which reads as follows:

Section – 498 A IPC-- Husband or relative of

husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

16.Explanation of cruelty as laid down under section 498-A IPC involves two limbs. The first limb is with regard to willful conduct of such a nature so as to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her. The said ingredient does not get attracted in the present case. But, as far as the second limb is concerned, demand or coercion for demand of property or unlawful security is perceived from the attitude of A4.

17.In the present case, A1 and A4 were convicted by the trial court.

PWs 1 to 4 have consistently stated about the specific incidents of harassment.

9 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018

The said instances are narrated in Ex.P1 and the same are deposed before the court by these witnesses. The only discrepancy is that in Ex.P1, PW1 has mentioned that A4 necked out A1 also along with PW1 and locked the doors.

But, in the court they have stated that PW1 was necked out. Through the said incident, the harassment made by A4 is clearly elicited. It is a minor discrepancy, and all the other incidents as deposed by PWs 1 to 4 show that A1 and A4 were harassing PW1 for want of additional dowry. Another specific incident of threat of gas leak posed by A4 is mentioned in Ex.P1 and the said incident is narrated by

PW3 and PW4 who are none other than the mother and brother of PW1. The defence counsel has argued that PW1 failed to state the same and thus the said allegation is false. But, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that Ex.P1 is lodged by PW1 and she narrated about the said incident of threat posed by A4 in Ex.P1.

The contents of complaint are corroborated consistently by the evidence of PW3 and PW4. Therefore, the said contention of the counsel cannot be considered.

18.The defence counsel has argued that no independent witness is examined in proof of alleged harassment. In such cases, no evidence can be expected from the outsiders, as the alleged harassment is within the four walls of the house. The incident of necking her out as deposed by PWs 1, 3 and 4 is consistent enough to hold that she was beaten and necked out by the accused. It is contended by the counsel that the neighbour who helped PW1 is not examined and that necking out PW1 by A4 is a concocted story. PW1 has mentioned in her complaint that A4 has necked out both herself and A1 also. PWs 1 to 4 have consistently stated in the court that A1 and A4 beat her and that they have necked out PW1 and that she was standing alone in the midnight and she sought help of the neighbours. Even if the contention of the defence counsel with regard to the said incident is considered and even if this incident is brushed aside, there are other incidents of harassment as narrated by PW1, which are well corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 with regard to beating of PW1 by A4.

19.It is further argued by the defence counsel that the witnesses failed to mention even the number of the bike and that no document is filed to prove 10 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.200/2018 that A4 sold away the motorbike and contended that A4 has not sold away the bike of A1. The prosecution has not filed any document to prove that the vehicle of A1 is sold away by A4. But, PWs 1, 3 and 4 have stated uniformly that A4 sold away the bike given by them to A1 at the time of marriage. The incident of selling away the motorbike by A4 is mentioned in Ex.P1 and deposed by PWs 1, 3 and

4. PWs 1 to 4 have consistently stated that A4 beat PW1 along with A1. PWs 3 and 4 have consistently stated that A4 posed a threat to PW1 that he would leak the gas if she does not bring additional dowry and it corroborates the contents of

Ex.P1. All these witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and stood unshaken during their evidence. Hence, the allegation of harassment made by A4, the appellant herein against PW1 is proved.

POINT NO.2:-

20.In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point no.1, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not need any interference and the same is upheld.

POINT NO.3:-

21.In the result, the appeal is dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in

C.C.No.131/2010, dt:20.2.2018.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

DATED: 27-04-2022

Since the appellant/A4 absent, the trial Court is directed to execute the sentence.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

1 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2022

Present : Smt. E. Tirumala Devi, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 190/2017

Crime Number & Police StationCrime No. 410/2016 of PS Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the Accused(A1). Katta Padma Rao @ Katla Padma Rao, S/o. Late Krishnaiah @ Kistaiah, Age: 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-7, Near Church, Perika Kondaram(V),SCColony, Shaligowraram (M), Nalgonda District.

(A2). Gangaram Narsing, S/o. Late G. Pochaiah, Age: 28 years, Occupation: Contract Driver in HMWS&SB at Red Hills, Present address: Nandanavanam Colony, LB Nagar, R.R. District, Permanentaddress:Beside Shahinayathgunj School, Jummerath Bazar, Hyderabad.

(A3). Bommagani Srinivas @ Sreenu, S/o. B. Ilaiah, Age: 31 years, Occupation:Business,R/o. Venkatapuram (V), Duggondi (M), Nalgonda District.

(A4). Singampally Sreenu, S/o. Late Appala Konda, Age: 30 years, Occupation: AutoDriver,R/o. Ratnampeta (V), Rolugunta (M), Vishakapatnam District, AP State.

(A5). Domala Ramulu, S/o. Late Tirupathaiah,Age:55years, Occupation: Auto Driver, R/o. Present address: Nandanavanam Colony, LB Nagar, R.R. District, Permanent address: Pallepadu (V), Narkatpally (M), Nalgonda District.

(A6). Bontha Parmesh, S/o. Rama Chandru, Age: 28 years, Occupation: Labour, R/o. Present address: Near Mutyalamma Temple, Thatikallu Road, Nakrekal (V&M), Nalgonda District, Permanent address: Masannapally (V), Gundala (M), Nalgonda District.

2 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017 (A7). Bommagani Rajesh, S/o. Late B. Sambaiah, Age: 30 years, Occupation: CarDriver,R/o.H.No.1-44, Venkatapuram (V), Duggondi (M), Narsampet, Warangal District.

(A8). Bommagani Sadanandam, S/o. Late B. Pochaiah, Age: 38 years, Occupation:Medicines Distributor/Medical Camp Organizer, R/o. H.No. 1-45/4, Venkatapuram (V), Duggondi (M), Warangal District.

(A9). Dinesh Singh, S/o. Late Eshwar Lal, Age: 39 years, Occupation: General Store Business, R/o. 13-1-1099 Balramgalli,UpperDhoolpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through the ComplainantInspector of Police, PS Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. P. Shailaja, Public Prosecutor of this Court.

Accused defended bySri Rakesh Pathak, Advocate for the accused.

Offence ChargedUnder Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act

Plea of the accusedNot guilty.

Finding of the court A1 to A9 are found not guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act

ResultIn the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A3 to A9 shall stand cancelled. A2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case. MO3, MO3(1) to MO3(6), MOs 4 to 6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MOs 1 and 2 shall be returned to its owners on proper identification and acknowledgment.

3 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Chaderghat PS, Hyderabad, has laid a charge sheet against the accused, for the offence under sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.

2.1The succinctness of the prosecution case is that on 25.11.2016 at about 2030 hours, the Addl. Inspector of Police/PW1 lodged a report stating that on the same day at about 1400 hours on receipt of information that three persons were carrying ganja, informed the said information to his superior officer under a written report, proceeded to the spot along with other police officials at about 1510 hours, apprehended A1 to A3, secured the presence of panch witnesses, issued a notice under section 50 of NDPS Act to A1 to A3, who agreed to be searched before the gazetted officer, upon which PW3 was called by PW1, recorded the confessional cum seizure panchanamas of A1 to A3, seized 7 kgs of ganja from A1 to A3, drawn two samples from each contraband weighing 50 grams each, marked them as S1 to S6, and handed over the investigation to

PW4.

2.2Basing on the report of PW1, PW4 registered a case in

Cr.No.410/2016 under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act.

2.3During the course of investigation, PW4 recorded the statement of

PW1, effected the arrest of A1 to A3, and disclosed that A1 to A3 along with A4 to

A9 hatched a plan to sell the ganja and as per the plan, A1 to A8 procured the ganja from Vishakapatnam and contacted A9, who is a regular customer and willing to purchase the same and thereafter forwarded the seized material to FSL and received report, later PW4 on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file, for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

4.Upon appearance of the A1 to A9 in this Court, on consideration of the material and upon hearing for the prosecution as well as the accused, a charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed 4 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017 against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, examined

PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs 1 to 3, 3(1) to 3(6), 4 to 6.

6.The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no evidence.

7.The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of the official witnesses proves the seizure, even if the evidence of PW2, panch witnesses is ignored. She further submitted that the investigating officer has followed the mandatory provisions to prove the case against the accused and thus prayed to convict the accused.

8.The learned defence Counsel has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. He further submitted that the panch witness turned hostile to the prosecution case and that the prosecution has not followed the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and failed to prove the guilt of the accused and hence, prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

9.Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charges under sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that the accused were carrying ganja and they were moving under suspicious circumstances and thus they were apprehended, the ganja was seized from the accused. Hence they are facing charge for the offence under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.

11.To prove their case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11, MOs 1 to 3, MOs 3(1) to 3(6), MOs 4 to 6.

5 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017

12.PW1 has deposed that on 25.11.2016, at about 3.00 PM, he along with few other police officials were proceeding towards Charmas, Malakpet, observed the accused moving under suspicious circumstances and thus, they apprehended them and on their enquiry, the accused revealed their names and stated that they were carrying ganja which was brought from Vizag with the help of A1 to A3. Then they checked and found the ganja in the carry bags which are in the possession of A1 to A3. Thereafter requested the MRO and secured the presence of PW2 and LW6/Narsimha Reddy as panch witnesses and in their presence, he served notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtained their willingness to be searched before the gazetted officer and he sought the presence of PW3 to act as gazetted officer. Exs.P5 to P7 are the notices under section 50 of the NDPS Act was served on A1 to A3 respectively. Ex.P8 is the notice under section 50(2) of the NDPS Act, served on PW3. In the presence of

PW3 and in the presence of panch witnesses, personal search of the accused was conducted and they found ganja in plastic carry bags in the possession of accused and that Exs.P2, P3 and P1 are the admissible portions of confessional panchanamas of A1, A2 and A3 respectively. MOs 1 and 2 are the cellphones seized from the possession of A2 and A1 respectively. MOs 4 to 6 are the contraband I.e, the ganja carried in plastic covers seized from the possession of

A2, A1 and A3 respectively. MO3 is the samples drawn from the contraband seized from A1 to A3. PW1 has submitted the report to the SHO under Ex.P9 and also handed over the accused and the contraband to the SHO. The contention of the defence counsel is that the police have filed a false case against the accused and that three of the accused are apprehended in this case, but the report filed by PW1 discloses that there were only two persons. A perusal of

Ex.P9 discloses that all through its contents it is mentioned as three persons, but at one of the paragraph it is mentioned as two persons. The defence counsel further submitted that in Ex.P8, notice served on PW3 it is mentioned in the last line as four persons. A perusal of Ex.P8 reveals that it is mentioned as four 6 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017 persons, but only the names of A1 to A3 are mentioned in Ex.P8. PW1 in his cross-examination added that it is a typographical mistake and the said explanation is satisfactory in view of the other evidence on record.

13.PW2 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure. His evidence runs in corroboration to that of PW1. He deposed that the accused 1 to 3 carrying contraband in blue colour polythene bags. He admitted in his cross- examination that MOs 4 to 6 are found in blue colour carry bags. He further stated that ID slips with their signatures were affixed on blue colour polythene bags which are not found at present on the MOs that are produced before the court.

14.PW3 is the gazetted officer. In his presence, personal search of the accused was conducted by PW1. His evidence also runs in corroboration to that of PW1. In his cross-examination he admitted that in Ex.P8 in the first line it is mentioned as four suspects. It is already discussed in the preceding paragraph that though it is mentioned as four suspects, the names of only three persons I.e,

A1 to A3 are mentioned in Ex.P8. It is further elicited from him that his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer.

15.PW4 is the ACP, who registered the FIR under Ex.P10 on receiving the complaint under Ex.P9. He identified the material objects Mos 4 to 6 by the names on the white plastic bags in which they are contained. It is further elicited from him that the samples MO3(1) to MO3(3) are in the yellow coloured paper covers containing S2,S4 and S6. He also collected the FSL report under Ex.P11 and then filed charge sheet. On his admission, Ex.D1 was marked. He further admitted that the information was received by him on 25.11.2016 at about 10.30 and that below his signature, the date is mentioned as 5.12.2016. A perusal of

Ex.D1 discloses the said fact. He further admitted that as per the entries in

Ex.P11, the samples were sent to FSL on 16.12.2016 and the report was received on 28.1.2017. But, he denied the suggestion that there is a delay of four years in sending the samples to FSL and further pointed out that Ex.P11 shows 7 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017 that his letter dt:15.12.2012 and that he has sent the samples to FSL on 16.12.2016.

16.A perusal of Ex.P11 shows that the letter from ACP is

dt:15.12.2012, but the samples are received on 16.12.2016. The contraband

was seized on 25.11.2016 as per Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 shows that the letter of

ACP is dt:15.12.2012. One cannot expect that he would write a letter four years prior in time. Thus, it appears to be a typographical mistake. The FSL expert is not examined to explain the same. The investigating officer has not offered any explanation in this regard. Further, it is revealed that the samples were received on 16.12.2016 I.e, after twenty days from the date of seizure. The panch witness has turned partly hostile. He admitted in his cross-examination by the Public

Prosecutor that two samples of 50 grams each was drawn from the contraband seized from each of the accused and that the remaining contraband is seized as

P1, P2 and P3, but the investigating officer/PW1 says that the contraband is seized under MOs 4 to 6. Further, the panch witness/PW2 had denied that the contraband is not in blue colour covers and that it is not mentioned in the panchanama. According to him, the material objects were seized and placed in blue colour polythene covers, but the MOs 4 to 6 are not found in such covers.

He further said that the panch chits containing their signatures were affixed to the covers which are also not found on the MOs 4 to 6. So according to the panch witness, the material objects produced in the court are not affixed with the identification slips on the covers and they do not match with the description of covers as narrated by the panch witness/PW2. Therefore, the seizure of contraband is viewed with suspicion. Hence, it is opined that the prosecution could not prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

Hence, they are entitled to acquittal.

17.In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty of the charge under section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and is acquitted under section 8 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A3 to A9 shall stand cancelled. A2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.

MO3, MO3(1) to MO3(6), MOs 4 to 6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

MOs 1 and 2 shall be returned to its owners on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1.P. Raju PW.2.K. Raju PW.3.C. Anjaiah PW.4.P. Sathaiah

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1.Admissible portion in panchanama of Narsing Ex.P.2.Admissible portion in panchanama of Padma Rao Ex.P.3.Admissible portion of A3 in panchanama Ex.P.4.Notice under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act Ex.P.5.Notice under Section 50 of NDPS served on A1 Ex.P.6.Notice under Section 50 of NDPS served on A2 Ex.P.7.Notice under Section 50 of NDPS served on A3 Ex.P.8.Notice under Section 50(2) of NDPS served LW7 Sri Anjaiah Ex.P.9.Report Ex.P.10.First Information Report Ex.P.11.Forensic Science Laboratory Report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Ex-D1.Report under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- M.O.1.Snexian cell phone seized from A2 M.O.2.One samsung phone seized from A1 M.O.3.Samples collected from A1 to A3 M.O.3(1)Yellow colour sample marked as S2 M.O.3(2)Yellow colour sample marked as S4 M.O.3(3)Yellow colour sample marked as S6 M.O.3(4)Brown colour envelope contraband sample of contraband marked as S1 M.O.3(5)Brown colour envelope contraband sample of contraband marked as S3 9 of 9 SC. NDPS. NO.190/2017

M.O.3(6)Brown colour envelope contraband sample of contraband marked as S5 M.O.4.Remained contraband seized from Narsing M.O.5.Remained contraband seized from Padma Rao M.O.6.Remained contraband seized from Srinivas

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

1 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2022

Present: Smt. E. Tirumala Devi, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34/2020

From what court this appeal isThe XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan preferred:Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Case Number in that court CC. No. 111/2015

Criminal Appeal Number Crl. Appeal No. 34/2020

Name and description of the Appellant(A1). Mohammed Majeed @ Denter Majeed, S/o. Mohammed Ismail, Age about 34 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 10-5-4/3, Behind Meher Function Hall, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

(A3). Mohammed Mujafar Khan @ Muzaffar, S/o. Md. Yousuf Khan, Age: 28 years, R/o. H.No. 16, 108 Bazar, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through RespondentAutomobile Team, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

The law and sentence under which The appellants/accused no.1 and the Appellant was convicted before the3 are found guilty for the offence lower courtpunishable under Section 411 IPC and is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each.

Whether confirmed, modified orIn the result, the appeal is reversed and if modified, thedismissed upholding the judgment in modification C.C. No.111/2015, dated 20.12.2019 passed by the XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation08-01-2020 Filing08-01-2020 Notice issued to Respondent to appear09-01-2020 Whether on bail, if so, the bail bond--- Respondent ordered to appear27-02-2020 Hearing11-04-2022 Judgment28-04-2020

This Criminal Appeal is coming on for hearing before me upon perusing the grounds of appeal and record of evidence and upon considering the arguments of Sri K. Ravi Kishore, Advocate for the appellant and Smt. P. Shailaja, Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court made the following:- 2 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020

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

1.This present appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment

dt:20.12.2019 in C.C.No.111/2015 passed by the XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2.The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court.

2.1The succinctness of the prosecution case is that on 25.2.2008, on receipt of information, PW1 along with his staff by drafting search proceedings in the presence of mediators, conducted raid at Unique Auto garage, Old

Bowenpally, Secunderabad, recorded the confessional cum seizure panchanama of A1 and seized the fake documents and five 4 wheelers. As lead by A1 to the house of A2, where they also seized four 4 wheelers and fake documents. From there they went to the house of A3 and seized one vehicle.

2.2Based on the report, Mohan Reddy(LW21), SI of Police, CCS registered a case in Cr.No.36/2008 under sections 41(1)(d)/102 CrPC, 379, 411, 468, 471 read with 109 IPC and handed over investigation to PW10.

2.3During the course of investigation, PW10 recorded the statements of witnesses, affected the arrest of accused and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.During trial, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the appellants/A1 and A3 did not adduce any evidence.

4.The trial court after considering the evidence and other material on record, concluded that the appellant/A1 and A3 and other accused are found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/A1 and A3 only.

5.Heard both counsel.

6.The learned counsel for appellants/A1 and A3 has submitted that the prosecution has not filed any document to show that it is a stolen property 3 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020 and further the investigation was without jurisdiction. Therefore, prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

7.The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial court has awarded the conviction and sentence after perusing the evidence thoroughly and hence prayed to uphold the judgment of the trial court.

8.Now the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained?

3) To what relief?

POINT NO.1:-

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused with an intention to earn huge money illegally, procured stolen vehicles from neighbouring States of

AP and other places and prepared NOC and other related documents and sold the vehicles to the innocent buyers on high profits with fabricated RC books and therefore, the accused are facing charges under sections 379, 411, 468, 471 read with 109 IPC. The trial court has convicted the accused under section 411 IPC.

10.1PW1 is the complainant and investigating officer. His evidence reveals that on 25.2.2008, he received credible information that one person by name Majeed/A1, who is the owner of Unique Auto Garage at Secunderabad is offering to sell stolen four wheelers. Then, he immediately informed the same to his superior, obtained oral instructions, secured the presence of mediators and proceeded to the said place and conducted search. He further deposed that on his questioning, and in the presence of panch witnesses A1 confessed to have committed the offence of selling stolen cars. In pursuance of his confession, they have seized coloured xerox copy of RC book of vehicle bearing no.AP29-AA- 6804 issued by Addl. Registrar, RTA, Secunderabad in the name of A1, RC Book of Scorpio vehicle with fake registration no.HR-63-6222 in the name of Aziz

Akthar issued by Addl. Registrar, RTA, Rajahmundry, the driving licence number

DL FAPO 224342006 issued by RTA, Hyderabad, a black colour Scorpio bearing 4 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020 no.AP01-AJ-7910, Scorpio vehicle bearing no.HR-63-6222, Santro Xing bearing no.HR-27A-1371, Tavera bearing no.HR-67-4165, Toyoto Qualis bearing no.AP- 05BA-8573 and LG cellphone and that he seized the vehicles and affixed the identification slips. It is further elicited from him that A1 has sold one Innova car bearing no.AP-29AB-9053 to one Rajeshwar Goud, one Scorpio bearing no.AP- 29AB-5286 to one Arshad, one Tata Indica car bearing no.AP-29AA-6804 to one

Pavan Kumar and then he lead them to the house of A2, whereupon they apprehended A2 and A2 also confessed and pursuance to his confession, they have seized one Scorpio bearing no.AP29-AC-0075, scorpio vehicle bearing no.AP09-FA-TR-8513, Innova vehicle with chasis no.KUN 047027700305, Maruti 800 car bearing no.AP-10AJ-7910, one photo copy of RC dt:16.1.2007 of Tavera vehile, driving licence of A2, and Nokia make cellphone. Thereafter A2 lead them to the house of A3 and they apprehended A3 and on his confession, they have recovered Tavera vehicle without registration number. After completing search proceedings and seizure, PW1 has lodged complaint/Ex.P1. Exs.P2 to

P4 are the relevant portions of confessions of A1 to A3 respectively, Ex.P5 is the search proceedings, Exs.P6 to P8 are the seizure reports of material objects seized from A1 to A3.

10.2In his cross-examination PW1 admitted that old Bowenpally area comes under North Zone Task Force area and that they have no right to register the crime and investigate in that matter. He admitted that he has no GO to handover the entire file to the concerned police station through the Commissioner of Police. He admitted that he has mentioned in the complaint that the vehicles were stolen vehicles.

11.1PW3 is the witness for confession cum seizure. His evidence runs in corroboration to that of PW1. He deposed with regard to the confession made by the accused and the recovery pursuant to their confession. He stated that

Exs.P2 to P4 and P5 to P8 were prepared in his presence and that seizure also taken place in his presence.

5 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020 11.2In his cross-examination it is elicited that he has not enquired the accused and that the police enquired the accused in his presence.

12.PWs 2 and 4 assisted PW1 in the investigation. They went along with PW1 to the garage of A1. They deposed that A1 confessed and lead them to

A2 and from there they were lead to A3. All the three accused confessed and they recovered vehicles and cellphones pursuant to their confession.

13.PW5 is the person who deposed that he purchased a car from A1.

But, in his cross-examination he deposed that he purchased it from an agent. His evidence reveals that he did not check the record prior to its purchase and that on learning that it is a stolen property, he returned the vehicle to the agent

Shoukat and the police seized the vehicle from that agent. A1 himself revealed the car number AP-29AA-6804 stating that he sold it to PW5. Though PW5 stated the same in his chief-examination, denied it in cross-examination to have purchased from A1. Thus, he is a partially credible witness. It is a fact established by the other evidence on record that the police have seized the vehicle and the witness/PW5 also stated the same. PW5 further deposed that he returned the vehicle and refused to take it back. This evidence of PW5 to the extent of purchasing and returning the vehicle i.e. India car bearing no.AP-29AA- 6804 to the seller supports the case of prosecution. The cars were found to be stolen property as they could recover fake registration certificates from the accused. No explanation is offered by the accused for being in possession of the said vehicles. Ex.P8 is the seizure report which reveals that the Indica vehicle bearing no.6804 is seized from A3. It is revealed from PW1 that on verification through the website, they found that the stolen vehicles pertaining to

Cr.No.22/2008 under section 380 IPC of PS Maldauda of Panipat and

Cr.No.16/2008 of City Police Station, Panipat, Haryana are stolen by this gang.

Further, the accused confessed the offence and the seizure of vehicles is in pursuance to their confession and they do not have any answer for possession of the stolen property.

6 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020

14.The learned appellant counsel has argued that the prosecution could not establish the offence against the accused as they have not filed document to show that it is a stolen property. However, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 proves that the accused were in possession of the stolen property. A perusal of

Exs.P5 to P8 reveals that the seizure of vehicles were made from the possession of the accused.

15.Though it is contended by the defence counsel that the investigation was without jurisdiction and that the confessional panch has deposed that the enquiry was made by the police officer and that the said confession cannot be held to be relevant, it is reiterated that the seizure is made pursuant to the confession of the accused. Further under 41(1)(d) CrPC, any police officer may arrest any person in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing.

Altogether, 10 vehicles were seized from the possession of the accused, which is a fact that cannot be disputed by the defence counsel. The accused have not offered any plausible explanation for possession of the said vehicles. On the other hand, the seizure of vehicles and the concerned documents, pursuant to the confession of the accused is proved by the prosecution.

16.Section 411 IPC is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“Section 411 IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen property – Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

17.In the present case, the accused are found to be in possession of stolen property and hence they are held to be liable for conviction under section 411 IPC.

POINT NO.2:-

18.In view of the findings arrived at point no.1, there is no need to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the same is upheld.

7 of 7 Crl. Appeal No.34/2020

POINT NO.3:-

19.In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment in

C.C.No.111/2015, dt:20.12.2019 passed by the XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

DATED: 28-04-2022

Since the appellants/A1 and A3 are absent, the trial Court is directed to execute the sentence.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

1 of 6 S.C. NO.122/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2022

Present : Sri N. Tukaramji, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 122/2018

( PRC No. 21/2017 on the file of XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad )

Committed bySri B. Srinivas Rao, XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Crime Number & Police StationCrime No. 30/2017 of PS Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the AccusedJameeruddin @ Abdul Gaffar, S/o. Late Md. Afsar, Age: 20 years, Occupation: Scrab Labour, R/o. H.No. 1-4-550/27, Gulshan Nagar, Bholakpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, Through the ComplainantSub-InspectorofPolice,PS. Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. P. Shailaja, Public Prosecutor of this Court.

Accused defended bySri P.V. Srinivas, Advocate for accused

Offence ChargedUnder Section 307 IPC

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the court Accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC

ResultIn the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC and is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Musheerabad PS, Hyderabad, has laid a charge sheet against the accused, for the offence under section 307 IPC.

2.1The succinctness of the prosecution case is that on 8.2.2017 at 0600 hours, the defacto complainant/Md.Hafeez lodged a complaint stating that 2 of 6 S.C. NO.122/2018 on 7.2.2017 at about 2030 hours, while his house owner’s son and his neighbour’s son were quarrelling with each other, meanwhile he along with others interfered to pacify the matter, but the accused quarrelled with them and threatened them and also attacked them with a knife with an intention to commit murder, as such himself and his sister/Sultana Begum sustained bleeding injuries on their head and also his neighbour by name Shaik Younus Khan received minor injuries.

2.2Basing on the complaint, PW5/Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.30/2017 under section 307 IPC.

2.3During investigation, PW5 recorded the statements of witnesses, drafted observation panchanama of scene of offence, rough sketch, effected the arrest of the accused, collected the medical certificates and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file, for the offence under Section 307 IPC against the accused, by the XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who has committed this case to the Court of Sessions, Metropolitan Sessions

Division, Hyderabad, by committal Order dated 28.11.2017 in PRC No.21/2017, by following due procedure contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.Upon appearance of accused in this Court, on consideration of the material and upon hearing for the prosecution as well as the accused, a charge under section 307 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, examined

PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

6.The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no evidence.

3 of 6 S.C. NO.122/2018

7.The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5. She further submitted that the evidence of the victim/PWs1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PW4, and with the evidence of PW5, official witness, proves the offence against the accused and has therefore prayed to convict the accused.

8.The learned defence Counsel has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. He further submitted that the prosecution based its evidence on PWs 1 and 2, injured, who did not state anything against the accused. Therefore, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. He further submitted that in the absence of any evidence, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused and hence, prayed this court to acquit the accused.

9.Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charge under section 307 IPC against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that the accused has attempted to kill

PWs 1 and 2 by attacking them with a blade. Thus, the accused is facing charge under section 307 IPC. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

11.1PW1 deposed that around 3 to 4 years ago there was a quarrel between the brother of the accused and the son of their house owner/LW4/Khaleena Begum and that he went to stop them and pacify the issue and in the meantime the accused attacked him with a blade and that he sustained injury on his left side of the head above the ear. He further stated that he also attacked PW2 and his elder brother LW3/Younus Khan and that immediately they went to Musheerabad Police Station and from there they were sent to Gandhi

Hospital. He underwent treatment, returned to the police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.

4 of 6 S.C. NO.122/2018 11.2In his cross-examination he stated that he sustained the injuries accidentally and that the accused has no enimity against him.

12.PW2 is the sister of PW1. Her evidence in chief-examination corroborates the evidence of PW1. In her cross-examination it is elicited that she does not know the contents of 161 CrPC statement and that the accused has accidentally attacked them.

13.PW3 is the house owner, Khaleena Begum. She turned hostile and denied to have stated as in Ex.P2. According to prosecution, she is the eye witness and that a quarrel ensured between the son of PW3 and the brother of accused and that while separating them PWs 1 and 2 were attacked by the accused. Since the witness has turned hostile, her evidence does not aid the case of prosecution.

14.PW4 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch marked through this witness. He deposed that the panchanama was conducted in his presence.

15.PW5 is the investigating officer, who registered FIR/Ex.P5 and also collected the medical certificates of PWs 1 and 2 under Exs.P6 and P7.

16.PWs 1 and 2 are the injured witnesses. Though PW1 stated in his chief-examination that he sustained injuries when he was attacked by the accused with a blade, it is elicited during the cross-examination that he sustained injuries accidentally when the accused was about to beat others. PW2 also stated in her cross-examination that the accused beat them accidentally and that she does not know the contents of 161 CrPC statement. PW3 is the house owner of PWs 1 and 2, but since she has turned hostile, her evidence is of no avail to the case of prosecution. PW4 is a witness for scene of offence panchanama, but in his cross-examination it is elicited that he does not know the contents of

Exs.P3 and P4. PW5 is the investigating officer, through whom Exs.P6 and P7 are marked. A perusal of these medical certificates reveals that PWs 1 and 2 sustained injuries I.e, PW1 sustained a stab injury on left side of scalp which is a oval shaped injury and he is alleged to be beaten by a knife. Ex.P7 reveals that 5 of 6 S.C. NO.122/2018

PW2 sustained injuries on the back of his head and that he is alleged to be beaten by a rod. That means injuries on these witnesses has been elicited, but no weapon is seized in this case. Both the injuries are stated to be simple injuries. The evidence of these witnesses is to the effect that they sustained injuries accidentally and that the accused has no enimity against them. Thus, the important component of mensrea is absent in the present case as per the version of injured witnesses. Hence, the offence of 307 IPC is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under section 307 IPC and is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 2 nd day of May, 2022.

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1. Md. Hafeez PW.2. Smt. Sulthana Begum PW.3. Smt. Khalina Begum PW.4. B. Ramu PW.5. K. Rama Rao

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1. Complaint dated 08.02.2017 Ex.P.2. 161 CrPC of PW3 Ex.P.3. Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.4. Rough sketch Ex.P.5. First Information Report Ex.P.6. Injury certificate of PW1 Ex.P.7. Injury certificate of PW2

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil 6 of 6 S.C. NO.122/2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- Nil

Sd/-xxx

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD