Smt. Faizunnisa Shaik

C.C.No.429 of 2019 1 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st

CLASS :: RAJAMPET

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik, Judicial Magistrate of 1 st

class, Rajampet

Wednesday, this the 27th day of May, 2020.

C.C.No.429/2019

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Mannur Police Station:: Complainant

Vs

1:-Poola Sreedhar S/o Venkateswarulu, Age:27 years, Resident at

Cheemakurthey Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Now at

Annamaiah Dam, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District.

2:-Gugilla Ganapathi, S/o Sankaraiah, Age:26 years, Resident at

Chowdamma Street, K.Boyanapalli Village, Rajampet Mandal,

Kadapa District.

:: Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri V.N.Rao Legal Aid counsel for the accused NO.1 and Sri

D.Karunkara Raju counsel for the accused No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mannur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.274/2019, 275/2019, 276/2019 for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC.

2. The Case of prosecution as per charge sheet in

Cr.No.274/2019, 275/2019, 276/2019 U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC of

Rajampet PS is that the defacto complainant Y.Naga Raju gave

C.C.No.429 of 2019 2 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

report alleging that on 09.11.2019 at TSR Kalyanamandapam

Splender Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP04 AT 1219 was committed theft worth of Rs.60,000/-. SI of Police Mannur PS registered above report as a case in Cr.No.274/2019

On 10.11.2019 some unknown offenders have committed theft of Shine Motor Cycle bearing No.AP04 BC 9162 of P.Venkata

Subba Reddy. The vehicle was searched but in vain. Hence report in Cr.No.275/2019 was registered by Mannur PS.

That on 10.11.2019 at 4.00 pm on the main road of Rajampet – Rayachoty near Edga Bramhanapalli village some one has committed theft of TVS XL Motor Cycle bearing No.AP04 AT 7404.

The vehicle was searched but in vain. SI of Police registered above crime 276/2019 and investigated into.

SI of Police arrested accused on 14.11.2019 at Isukapalli

Cross road, K.Boyanapalli of Rajampet. He seized the stolen property from their possession and sent for remand in

Cr.No.280/2019. In this crime accused was produced on PT

Warrant. After completion of investigation Charge sheet was filed.

3) This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4) On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished and when they were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec.379

IPC or 411 IPC is framed and got read over and explained to them

C.C.No.429 of 2019 3 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11, MO.1 to MO.3 were marked, the evidence of LW.2,3,4,6,7,9,10,12 (Pandurangi

Gopinath, Maditadu Krsihanaiah, Yeddala Prakash,Tupaki

Sreenivasulu, Bellam Manohar ReddyAmruthpuri Gangadhar,

Bheemu Sivanrayana Reddy @ Pitchi ReddySyamanaboyana subbarayudu) were given up by A.P.P., No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.

8) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC?

9)The investigation in Cr.No.274/2019 commenced on the report of P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P1 through him. The brief

C.C.No.429 of 2019 4 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

contents of Ex.P1 is that on 09.11.2019 at TSR Kalyanamandapam his motor cycle was committed theft. That he searched for the vehicle but in vain. He gave report on 11.11.2019.

The investigation in Cr.No.275/2019 commenced on the reprot of P.W.2 which is marked as Ex.P2 through him. The brief contents of Ex.P2 is that on 10.11.2019 there was theft of Shine

Motor Cycle bearing No.AP04 BC 9162 in front of house of manohar

Reddy at Rajampet. Hence the report.

The investigation in Cr.No.276/2019 commenced on the report of P.W.3 which is marked as Ex.P3 through him. The brief contents of Ex.P3 is that on 10.11.2019 there was theft of TVS XL bearing No.AP04 AT 7404 in Rajampet-Rayachoty main road, near

Bramhanapalli. The report was given on 11.11.2019.

10) The prosecution to prove its case got examined P.W.1 to

P.W.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11, M.O.1, M.O.2 , M.O.3 were marked.

11) P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 are the defacto complainants in respective crimes. P.W.4 is the mediator.P.W.5 is the investigating officer.

12) P.W.1 the defacto complainant deposed as to theft of motor cycle bearing No.AP04 AT 1219 Splendor Pro Vehicle at TSR

Kalyanamandapam. That he gave report under Ex.P1. Through him

M.O.1 is marked.

C.C.No.429 of 2019 5 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

He was not cross examined as there is no identity of accused in his evidence.

13) P.W.2 who is another defacto complainant deposed as to theft of Bike earing No.AP04 BC 9162 Honda Shine on 10..11.2019.

That he searched for the vehicle but in vain and gave report under

Ex.P2. Through him M.O.2 Motor cycle bearing AP04 BC 9162

Honda Shine is marked.

He was not cross examined as there is no identity of accused in his evidence.

14) P.W.3 who is also another defacto complainant deposed that on 10.11.20.2019 his TVS XL bearing No.AP04 7404 was committed theft at Bramhanapalli. That he gave report under

Ex.P3. M.O.3 TVS XL bearing No.AP04 7404 is marked through him.

He was not cross examined as there is no identity of accused in his evidence.

15) P.W.4 who is the VRO deposed that on 14.11.2019 he along with L.W.12 Subbarayudu went to Mannur PS and later to

Isukapalli Road. That they observed two persons on bike. That they were caught hold and gave their identity as accused. That they confessed the theft of five motor cycles. That they also seized four bikes in the bushes the same day at Annamaiah Dam under cover of seizure Panchanama under Ex.P5.

In the cross examination he admitted that the confessional and arrest mahazarmnama does not disclose the place of arrest. It is the plea of defence that the accused were not arrested as

C.C.No.429 of 2019 6 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

deposed by P.W.4 for which defence put suggestions that there are villages surrounding the place of arrest for which he admitted. He deposed that he cannot tell the color and registration number of the bike seized.

He also admitted that there are several villages and officials near place of seizure. He admitted that he has not seen accused committing theft.

16) Now remains the evidence of investigation officer who deposed as to various aspects of investigation. He deposed as to registering FIR, examined witnesses, preparing rough sketch, producing accused on P T Warrant and filing of charge sheet.

In the cross examination suggestions were put that he made table investigation, the vehicles are planted one and the accused are no way concerned with the offence for which he denied.

17) From the evidence of record there is no identity of accused in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. However P.W.4 deposed as to arresting accused, seizing property under Ex.P4 and also seizing the vehicles under Ex.P5. However his cross examination does not with stand to support his version of chief examination. It creates doubt in the mind of court, whether accused is arrested and property seized as in Ex.P4 and as to seizure under Ex.P5.

18) The sole evidence of the investigation officer is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In absence of corroboration to the version of

C.C.No.429 of 2019 7 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

interested official witness P.W.5 the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19) For the above discussion this point is answered against prosecution.

M.O.1 given for interim custody to P.W.1 shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 given for interim custody to P.W.2 shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time. M.O.3 given for interim custody to P.W.3 shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time.

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and they are acquitted of the same

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 given for interim custody to

P.W.1(Y.Nagaraju) shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 given for interim custody to P.W.2 (P.Venkata

Subba Reddy), M.O.3 given for interim custody to P.W.3 (M.Nagaiah) shall become their absolute property after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of

May, 2020.

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Rajampet.

C.C.No.429 of 2019 8 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:-

P.W.1:Y.Nagaraju

P.W.2:P.Venkata Subba Reddy

PW.3:M.Nagaiah

PW.4:V.Raghavendra

PW.5:P.Hanumanthu

Witnesses examined for defence:- Nil Exhibits marked for prosecution:- Ex.P.1:Complaint of Y.Nagaraju

Ex.P.2:Complaint of P.Venkata Subba Reddy

Ex.P.3:-Complaint of M.Nagaiah

Ex.P4:-Mahazarnama

Ex.P.5:-Panchanama

Ex.P6:-FIR in Cr.No.274/2019 of Mannur Police Station

Ex.P.7:- Rough Sketch

Ex.P8:-FIR in Cr.No.275/2019 of Mannur Police Station

Ex.P.9:- Rough Sketch

Ex.P10:-FIR in Cr.No.276/2019 of Mannur Police Station

Ex.P.11:- Rough Sketch

Exhibits marked for defence:- Nil Material objects marked for prosecution:- MO.1:-Motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 AT 1219 MO.2:-Motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 BC 9162 MO.3:-Motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 7404 TVS XL

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Rajampet.

// True Copy //

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajampet.

C.C.No.429 of 2019 9 Dated:27.05.2020

J.F.C.M., RJPT.,

// True Copy //

Judicial

C.C.No.430/2019 1 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st

CLASS :: RAJAMPET

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik, Judicial Magistrate of 1 st

class, Rajampet

Thursday, this is the 28 th day of May, 2020.

C.C.No.430/2019

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Mannur Police Station:: Complainant

Vs

1:-Poola Sreedhar S/o Venkateswarulu, Age:27 years, Resident at

Cheemakurthey Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Now at

Annamaiah Dam, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District.

2:-Gugilla Ganapathi, S/o Sankaraiah, Age:26 years, Resident at

Chowdamma Street, K.Boyanapalli Village, Rajampet Mandal,

Kadapa District. :: Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri D.Karunkar Raju counsel for the accused No.2 and Sri

V.Nageswara Rao counsel for the accused No.1 having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Mannur

Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.278/2019 and 280/2019 for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411

IPC

2) The Case of prosecution as per charge sheet in

Cr.No.278/2019, 280/2019 U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC of Mannur Police

Station is that the defacto complainant C. Sai Prathap Reddy gave report alleging that on 10.11.2019 at Issukapali Cross road TVS XL

C.C.No.430/2019 2 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

bearing No.AP04 N 0050 was committed theft worth of Rs.30,000/-.

SI of Police Mannur PS registered above report as a case in

Cr.No.278/2019

On 13.11.2019 at Lakshim Vilas Boys Hostel some unknown offenders have committed theft of motor cycle and reported on 14.11.2019 registered by SI of Police Mannur PS in Cr.No.280/2019 and investigated into.

SI of Police arrested accused on 14.11.2019 at Isukapalli

Cross road, K.Boyanapalli of Rajampet. He seized the stolen property from their possession and sent for remand in

Cr.No.280/2019. He produced accused on PT Warrant in

Cr.No.278/2019. After completion of investigation Charge sheet was filed.

3) This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4) On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished and when they were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec.379

IPC or 411 IPC is framed and got read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined PW.1 to

PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, MO.1 & MO.2 were marked, the evidence of LW.2,3,5,6,8 (Nalikiri Ramaiah, Athingeri Madhu

Babu, Kataru Siva, Cheruvu Durga Prasad, Syamanaboyana

C.C.No.430/2019 3 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

Subbaryudu) were given up by A.P.P., No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.

8) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC?

9) The investigation in Cr.No.278/2019 commenced on the report of P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P1 through him. The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that on 10.11.2019 there was theft of TVS XL

AP04 N 0050 at Issukapalli Cross Road near Tamarind Tree. He searched the vehicle, but in vain and gave report on 12.11.2019.

The investigation in Cr.No.280/2019 commenced on the report of P.W.2 which marked as Ex.P2 through him. The brief contents of Ex.P2 is that on 13.11.2019 there was theft of Honda

Shine Motor Cycle bearing No.AP04 AY 0792 at AITS College. He gave report on 14.11.2019.

C.C.No.430/2019 4 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

10) The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, M.O.1, M.O.2 were marked.

P.W.1, P.W.2 are the defacto complainants in respective crimes. P.W.3 is the mediator. P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

11) P.W.1 the defacto complainant deposed as to theft of TVS

XL motor cycle bearing No.AP04 N 0050 at Isukapalli Cross of

Boyanapalli. That he gave report under Ex.P1. Through him M.O.1 is marked.

He was not cross examined as there is no identity of accused in his evidence.

12) P.W.2 who is another defacto complainant deposed as to theft of Bike on 14..11.2019. That he searched for the vehicle but in vain and gave report under Ex.P2. Through him M.O.2 Motor cycle bearing AP04 AY 0792 was marked.

He was not corss examined as there is no identity of accused in his evidence.

13) P.W.3 who is the VRO deposed that on 14.11.2019 he along with L.W.8 Subbarayudu went to Mannur PS and later to

Isukapalli Road. That they observed two persons on bike. That they were caught hold and gave their identity as accused. That they confessed the theft of five motor cycles. That they also seized four bikes in the bushes the same day at Annamaiah Dam under cover of seizure Panchanama under Ex.P4.

In the cross examination he admitted that the confessional and arrest mahazarmnama does not disclose the place of arrest. It is the plea of defence that the accused were not arrested as

C.C.No.430/2019 5 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

deposed by P.W.3 for which the defence put suggestions that there are villages surrounding the place of arrest for which he admitted.

He deposed that he cannot tell the color and registration number of the bike seized.

He also admitted that there are several villagers and officials near place of seizure. He admitted that he has not seen accused committing theft.

14) Now remains the evidence of investigation officer who deposed as to various aspects of investigation. He deposed as to registering FIR, examined witnesses, preparing rough sketch, producing accused on P T Warrant and filing of charge sheet.

In the cross examination suggestions were put that he made table investigation, the vehicles are planted one and the accused are no way concerned with the offence for which he denied.

15) From the evidence on record there is no identity of accused in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2. However P.W.3 deposed as to arresting accused, seizing property under Ex.P3 and also seizing the vehicles under Ex.P4. However his cross examination does not with stand to support his version of chief examination. It creates doubt in the mind of court, whether accused is arrested and property seized as in Ex.P3 and as to seizure under Ex.P4.

16) The sole evidence of the investigation officer is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In absence of corroboration to the version of interested official witness P.W.4 the prosecution failed to bring

C.C.No.430/2019 6 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

For the above discussion this point is answered against prosecution.

M.O.1 given for interim custody to P.W.1 shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 given for interim custody to P.W.2 shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time.

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and they are acquitted of the same

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 given for interim custody to

P.W.1(C.Sai Prathap Reddy) shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 given for interim custody to

P.W.2 (Cherukuri Nagaraju) shall become his absolute property after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of May,

2020.

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Rajampet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:-

P.W.1:-C.Sai Prathap Reddy

P.W.2:-Cherukuri Nagaraju

P.W.3:-V.Raghavendra

P.W.4:-P.Hanumanthu

Witnesses examined for defence:- Nil

C.C.No.430/2019 7 Dated:28.05.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

Exhibits marked for prosecution:-

Ex.P.1:-Report of C.Sai Prathap Reddy

Ex.P.2:-Report of Cherukuri Nagaraju

Ex.P.3:-Mahazarnama of motor bike Shine

Ex.P.4:-Panchanama of four Bikes

Ex.P.5:-FIR in Cr.No.278/2019 of Mannur Police Station

Ex.P.6:- Rough Sketch of Cr.No.278/2019

Ex.P.7:-FIR in Cr.No.280/2019 of Mannur Police Station

Ex.P.8:-Rough Sketch of Cr.No.280/2019

Exhibits marked for defence:-Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:- MO.1:The motor cycle TVS XL bearing No.AP 04 N 0050 MO.2:- The motor cycle Honda Shine bearing No.AP 04 AY 0792

Sd/-ShaikFaizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Rajampet.

// True Copy //

Sd/-Shaik Faizunisa

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajampet

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

C.C.No.430/2019 8 Dated:……....0.2020

JFCM.,RJPT.,

C.C.No.149/2019 1 Dated:23.06.2020

JFCM., RJPT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st

CLASS :: RAJAMPET

Present: Smt.Faizunnisa Shaik, Judicial Magistrate of 1 st

class, Rajampet

Tuesday, this is the 23rd day of June, 2020.

C.C.No.149/2019

State Represented by the Inspector of Police Chitvel Police station :: Complainant

Vs

Kaveti Sudhakar, Age:38 years, S/o Kondaiah, Resident of

Nethivaripalli S.T. Colony Village of Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District.

:: Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri K.Giri

Chandara Reddy counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day,this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Chitvel

Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.81/2019 for the offence U/Sec.188, 171(E) IPC.

2)The case of prosecution as per charge sheet in

Cr.No.81/2019 U/Sec.188, 171(E) IPC of Chitvel PS is that in view of general Elections SI of Police of Chitvel PS along with his staff were moving in Chitvel Police limits.

That on 05.04.2019 at 8.00 pm when they reached

Nethivaripalli ST Colony found one person who on seeing them

C.C.No.149/2019 2 Dated:23.06.2020

JFCM., RJPT

tried to skull away. That they detained and on enquiry gave his identity as accused. He confessed that owing to Election he is distributing the liquor bottles to the Voters to vote for one political party. From him six Knock Out Beer Bottles were found.

SI of Police Chitvel PS registered above case and took up investigation. Accused is released on bail. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3) This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence U/Sec.188, 171(E) IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4) On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C was furnished and he was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation in the charge sheet for the offence U/Sec.188, 171(E)

IPC is got read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined PW.1 &

PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 & Ex.P2 and MO.1 was marked and the evidence of LW.2 ( R.Vijaya Kumar Reddy) given up by A.P.P. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read

C.C.No.149/2019 3 Dated:23.06.2020

JFCM., RJPT

over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.

8) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.188, 171(E) IPC?

9) The investigation in this case commenced on the police proceedings which is marked as Ex.P1 through P.W.2. The brief contents of Ex.P1 is that on 05.04.2019 P.W.2 and his staff in view of General Election went to Nethivaripali ST Colony at 8.00 pm and found one person who on seeing them tried to escape.

That they detained him and on enquiry he gave his identity as accused. From him six Knock Out Bear bottles were found. The accused was arrested and property seized under cover of above police proceedings.

10) The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined P.W.1,

P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2, M.O.1 is also marked.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the interested official witnesses.

11) P.W.1 deposed that on 05.06.2019 he, SI of Police Chitvel

PS, L.W.2 PC.No.787 went to Nethivaripalli ST Colony in view of

C.C.No.149/2019 4 Dated:23.06.2020

JFCM., RJPT

General Election. That they observed one person carrying plastic bag. That on seeing them he tried to escape but they detained him. That on enquiry he confessed the offence that in view of

General Election distributing liquor on behalf of one political party.

12) From the bag they found six liquor bottles. That the person gave his identity as accused. That they arrested accused and seized property under cover of police proceedings.

13) As per the police proceedings the date is 05.04.2019 but as per evidence of P.W.1 it is 05.06.2018. P.W.1 varies with the date itself which is a material variation. The evidence of P.W.1 does not corroborate with the Ex.P1 as to the date of offence itself.

In the cross examination submissions were put supporting the defence version for which he denied.

14) P.W.2 is the official who detected the offence as well as the investigating officer. It is a settled law in 2002(3) ALD Crl.13 that the official who detected the crime cannot also be the investigating officer. In the present case P.W.2 is both the official who detected the crime as well as the investigating officer.

P.W.2 deposed on the lines of P.W.1 as to reaching

Nethivaripalli ST Colony, observing one person, detaining him on enquiry he gave his identity as accused and confessed the offence.

He deposed as to registering Ex.P1 police proceedings under Ex.P2

FIR, releasing accused on bail and filing of charge sheet.

C.C.No.149/2019 5 Dated:23.06.2020

JFCM., RJPT

Through him M.O.1 the liquor bottles were marked.

In the cross examination suggestions were put that he has not went to the scene of offence, nor seized liquor bottle, false case was foisted for which he denied.

15) There is a variation in the date deposed by P.W.1 on one hand and P.W.2 and Ex.P1 on the other hand. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not corroborate on the vital aspect of date of offence.

16) Further the defence counsel argued that no prohibitory order is placed. That no over tact is proved. That there is no proof as to purchase of liquor bottles.

17) Added to this the prosecution is only relying on the confession made to a police officials. As per Sec.25 of Indian

Evidence Act any confession made to police official is in admissible.

Apart from producing M.O.1 there is no supporting evidence that the accused has violated the prohibitory orders.

For the above discussion the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

This point is answered against prosecution.

In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.188, 171(E) IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

C.C.No.149/2019 6 Dated:23.06.2020

JFCM., RJPT

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of June 2020.

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Rajampet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:-

P.W.1:-K.S.Raghavendra Varma

P.W.2:-L.Venkata Naidu

Witnesses examined for defence:- Nil

Exhibits marked for prosecution:- Ex.P.1:-Police Proceedings

Ex.P.2:-FIR in Cr.No.81/2019 of Chitvel Police Station

Exhibits marked for defence:-Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:- MO.1: Seized liquor bottle

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class

Rajampet.

// True Copy //

// True Copy //

Sd/-Shaik Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajampet.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.71.140/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet

Case No. :CC/0000121/2016 Sub Inspector of Police, Mannur PS Vs Pasupuleti Subbaiah

Date : 24-06-2020

Business: Accused called absent due to Lock Down because of COVID-19. Notice is given to both counsels and also notice is kept in Official District Court Website as required in ROC No.192/SO/2020 dated 08.04.2020. Judgment

pronounced as per ROC No.192/SO/2020 dated 08.04.2020. In the result the

accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 24-06-2020 Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet 1 of 111/02/25, 13:50

Case Historyhttp://172.17.71.140/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet

Case No. :CC/0000121/2016 Sub Inspector of Police, Mannur PS Vs Pasupuleti Subbaiah

Date : 24-06-2020

Business: Accused called absent due to Lock Down because of COVID-19. Notice is given to both counsels and also notice is kept in Official District Court Website as required in ROC No.192/SO/2020 dated 08.04.2020. Judgment

pronounced as per ROC No.192/SO/2020 dated 08.04.2020. In the result the

accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 24-06-2020 Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet 1 of 111/02/25, 13:50