Ms. Farheen Begum

CC 94 of 2022 Page 1 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

U/s. 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC

Thursday the 27 th day of March, 2025

Present: Smt. FARHEEN BEGUM, B.Com, LL.M

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOSGI.

CC No. 94 of 2022 (Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

Between: State through Sub-Inspector, PS Kosgi.

...Complainant

And

A1) Telugu Naresh @ Bestha Naresh S/o. Hanmaiah Age: 29 years,

Occ: Business, R/o. Telugu Street of Kosgi Town.

A2) Kudumula Naresh @ Suresh S/o. Anjilaiah Age: 24 years,

Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Telugu Street of Kosgi Town.

A3) Gudise Naresh S/o. Gudise Yadaiah Age: 29 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Kothapally village of Kosgi Mandal.

...Accused.

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 27-03- 2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Sri. P. Sudhakar Reddy for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

CC 94 of 2022 Page 2 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 94 of 2022 (Old CC No. 204 of 2022) for the offences U/s. 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against accused.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That on 12.02.2022 at 1600 hours the complainant

Mohammad Khadeer S/o. Shaik Mahaboob, age: 46 years r/o opposite bus stand, Tawwakkal petrol bunk at Kosgi town came to

PS and lodged a complaint stating that as there is an intention to sale of disputed Tawwakkal petrol bunk by her family members illegally, he residing in the said bunk along with his family, on 11.2.2022 between 1945 hours 2000 hours when one Telugu Naresh and his persons assaulting on Anash Pasha, who is son of his brother

Rasheed Pasha, he went to spot and intervened and pacified the quarrel with severe warning, after that when he sat in petrol bunk at about 2015 hours the said Telugu Naresh called his associates about 20-40 members with criminal history and criminally trespassed into the premises of his petrol bunk an intent to kill him, one Kudumual

Naresh and some others, who are instigated by Telugu Naresh damaged glass of petrol bunk with sticks, due to which pieces of glass hit his younger daughter Bushra and caused bleeding injuries near eye, cheek, and also to him and his wife and both sustained bleeding injuries in fear his wife phoned to Police meantime police came to spot and rescued their lives Further he added that there is life threat from Naresh and his associates Finally he requested to take legal action against above persons.

2. Basing on the contents of the above complaint, the LW-12 registered a case in Cr.No. 30/2022 u/s 447, 427, 324,323 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

CC 94 of 2022 Page 3 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

3. That during the course of investigation, the LW-12 examined and recorded the statement of the complainant cum injured LW-1 at

PS u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C and visited scene of offence situated in

Tawwakkal petrol bunk at Kosgi town and secured the presence LWs 9 & 10 and conducted scene of offence panchanama by preparing crime details form and drawn its rough sketch and seized some broken glass pieces from the scene of offence, where the LW-12 examined and recorded the statements of injured LWs 2 & 3 and eye witness LWs 4 to 8 u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C and visited Govt Civil hospital Kosgi town and gave medical requisition for wound certificates of injured.

4. That on 15.04.2022 the LW-12 served notice u/s 41(A)

Cr.P.C to the accused A1 to A3 with instructions to appear before

LW-12 along with ID proofs on 16.4.2022.

5. That in compliance of notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C on 16.4.2022 the accused A1 to A3 came to PS and furnished acknowledgement of notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C and admitted their guilt and produced their

ID proofs. As such the LW-12 served undertaking notice u/s 41-A(3)

IPC and let off them with instructions to appear before the

Honourable court after receiving summons.

6. That the LW-11 treated the injured LWs 1 & 3 and furnished their wound certificate and opined that there are on external injuries found to LW-1, the LW-3 sustained simple injuries.

7. That on requisition the Municipal commissioner Kosgi town furnished ownership certificate of Tawwakkal petrol bunk situated at

Kosgi town stating that one Md. Taher Pasha, who is brother of LW-1 is absolute owner of the said petrol bunk.

CC 94 of 2022 Page 4 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

INVESTIGATION

8. On receipt of FIR Police Kosgi registered a case in

Cr.No.30/2022 U/s. 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. PS Kosgi after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet after taking the cognizance U/s. 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC before this court for trial.

APPEARANCE

9. On appearance the accused persons are called upon to enter trial and they were furnished with the copies of documents in compliance with Sec. 207 Cr.P.C

10. Thereafter particulars of the offences U/s. 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

11. The prosecution has produced 08witnesses and exhibited 05 documents in order to prove its case.

12. At the conclusion of the prosecution witness evidence the accused are examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating materials were put before them to which they denied. The accused refused to adduced defence evidence on their behalf.

13. I have heard the arguments advance by both the sides and also perused the records along with depositions on record.

TRIAL:

14. During the course of trial prosecution examined PW1 the complainant who in the chief examination deposed that on 11-02- 2022 at about 07:00 PM to 07:20 PM A1 to A3 came to his petrol bunk and destroyed the glass of the office room of the petrol bunk were he was along with his family residing. Because of this the

CC 94 of 2022 Page 5 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022) complainant PW1 and his wife suffered injuries on the feet and his daughter suffered injury on the right he sustained loss of

Rs.90,000/-. PW1 stated the reason of the incident being that he went to stop few peoples whom he does not know who were beating his brother son i.e., LW5 outside the petrol bunk. He deposed that there were around 20 members who will present at the time of this incident but he does not know the names of any of 20 people who were present at the time of the incident. PW1 went on to deposed that he does not know the reasons of A1 to A3 beating LW5 but he deposed that A2 was present.

15. In the cross examination by defence counsel PW1 deposed that he did not write the complaint and the complaint was written by one of his friend name Tahseen as PW1 does not know telugu language. PW1 deposed that SI did not take his complaint which was written in English and he insisted that PW1 writes the complaint in telugu because PW1 cannot write in telugu his friend Tahseen help him in writing his complaint. PW1 deposed that the incident happened at HP petrol bunk, Kosgi and but PW1 does not hold any license of petrol bunk in his name. PW1 went onto depose that he was residing in the said petrol bunk i.e., the scene of alleged offence from passed 6 months from the date of incident and that there were many people was present at the time of incident but he does not know their names.

16. PW1 further deposed that he mentioned in his complaint that (02) people came to tawwakkal petrol bunk and destroyed the glass of his office room in which he was residing but he mentioned the name of A2 in his complaint.

17. Further prosecution produced PW2 who is the wife of PW1 who deposed that she heard the names of A1 to A3 but she never saw A1 to A3. She deposed that the incident happened on 11-02-

CC 94 of 2022 Page 6 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022) 2022 at around 08:00 PM, where 15 to 20 people came to HP petrol bunk, kosgi and destroyed the glass of the office room at petrol bunk were herself and her family were residing. PW2 deposed that she does not know A1 to A3 but she heard their names. In this incident her family members suffered injuries and her daughter PW3 sustained blood injury on right side cheek. PW2 deposed that she does not know the intention behind the alleged incident. PW2 deposed that after the incident PW3 was taken to hospital on next day of the incident. PW2 deposed that she cannot identify and recognize A1 to A3 and other who attack the petrol bunk.

18. In cross examination by defence counsel PW2 deposed that the police never examined and never recorded her U/s. 161(3)

Cr.P.C Statement.

19. Later the prosecution produced PW3 who is the daughter of PW1 and she deposed that incident happen on 11-02-2022 at around 08:00 PM in which few people came with stick in their hands and hit the glass of office room due to which the glass broke and she sustained injury on the right side of her right eye (i.e. right cheek).

That she can identify the accused A1 to A3 they are standing in the accused box of this court.

20. In cross examination by the defence counsel PW3 deposed that she did not go to police station at any point of time and that the police never examined her or recorded her statement. PW3 deposed that she does not know the names of accused A1 to A3 and that only because her father keeps on taking the name of “Naresh” she came to know that some Naresh is involved in this case. PW3 went on to deposed that she has seen A1 to A3 for the first time in this court only.

CC 94 of 2022 Page 7 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

21. During further course PW4 i.e., the daughter of PW1 was examined who deposed the same with that of PW1 to PW3 regarding the date and time and place of the incident. However PW4 deposed that she does not know the names of accused no.1 to 3 but she heard that some “Naresh” has committed the offence. In cross examination by defence counsel PW4 deposed that she never went police station at any point of time after the incident and that police never examined her and recorded her statement.

22. Subsequently the prosecution produced before this court

PW5 and PW6 who is eye witness and scene of offence panch witness respectively. However both PW5 and PW6 turn hostile and deposed against the case of prosecution. Therefore there is nothing much to mentioned about the evidence deposed before this court

PW5 and PW6.

23. Prosecution further produced PW7 i.e., Dr.S.Anudeep who is working as CAS, Government Hospital, Kosgi since 2017.

Prosecution produced PW7 who is the doctor in the present case who examined PW1 and PW2 and he deposed in his chief examination that he received the requisition from SHO PS Kosgi on 12-02-2022 and examined PW1 and PW2, on examination he found that PW1 does not have no external injuries but PW2 was injured with scratch of 0.25 X 0.25 inch on the left cheek and it appears to be fresh and simple in nature.

24. In the cross examination by defence counsel PW7 deposed that he is not carrying MLC register along with him today before this court and he deposed that PW3 sustained the injury on the left cheek and was caused due to falling on a sharp object.

25. Further prosecution produced PW8 who did not deposed in favour of prosecution and was declared hostile by learned APP.

CC 94 of 2022 Page 8 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

26. Now, the point for consideration is, whether

accused A1 to A3 are involved, for the offence committed

under section 447 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

27. The first charge levelled against A1 to A3 is that they have committed a tresspass and are to be punished as per section 447 of

IPC. Section, 447 deals with punishment for criminal trespassed and section 441 of IPC defines what is an offence of criminal trespassed. “Criminal trespassed is that whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another within intend to commit an offence or to intimidate insult or all any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with the intend their by to intimidate insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit offence is said to have committed the offence of criminal trespassed”.

i) The essential ingredients of the criminal trespassed, which is defined U/s. 441 of IPC are that the person should unlawfully enter into property which is owned by another person.

ii) The person we should be in continuing unlawfully remaining in such property.

iii) Such entry or unlawful remain must be done with an intention to commit and offence.

27. In the present case at hand, the charges against A1 to A3 are that they have entered into petrol bunk which belongs to the defacto complainant PW1. However, the documents pertaining to show that they said scene of offence belongs to PW1 is not filed

before this court. That the defence counsel argued that it is a petrol

bunk and it is not a residential place where PW1 was residing as been stated by PW1 in his chief examination and as well as in his cross examination. However to established an offence under section

CC 94 of 2022 Page 9 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022) 447 against A1 to A3 there are no documents of ownership file by

PW1 to establish that A1 to A3 entered into his real property and property lawfully owned by defacto complaint.

28. The prosecution failed to produce any material to show that the complainant PW1 was in possession of the scene of offence and that he is the owner of the scene of offence as mentioned in the case. Therefore, there can be no charge under section 447 of IPC, be filled against the accused and this court is of view that the charges against the accused A1 to A3 under section 447 was not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.

29. As the offence against A1 to A3 under section 447 was not been properly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, the charges against A1 to A3 under section 427 are also not established as there is no proof of ownership the PW1 is having over the scene of offence where A1 to A3 entered and committed the mischief. Therefore, prosecution fail to established the charges against A1 to A3 under section 427 beyond reasonable doubt, hence answered in favour of A1 to A3.

30. The other charges levelled against A1 to A3 are that A1 to

A3 bet PW1 and PW3 due to which they suffered injuries. Therefore committed an offence under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC.

31. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that he does not own any licence of petrol bunk i.e., the scene of offence and that he does not know if the complaint was filed for the incident which happened outside the petrol bunk or at the petrol bunk. PW1 also deposed that he did not write the complaint and the complaint was written by one tahseen. PW2 who is an eye witness in this case and also the wife of PW1 deposed that she does not know A1 to A3. But she heard their names from her husband PW1. The prosecution has

CC 94 of 2022 Page 10 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022) cited PW2 as an eye witness however, the eye witness does not mention in her chief examination, at any point about A2 and A3 and that and she also deposed that she does not know A1 to A3.

However she went on to deposed that A1 to A3 entered into the petrol bunk and committed the offence and also cause the injury to her daughter. The eye witness PW2 deposed in her chief examination that she did not see A1 to A3 at the scene of offence because the emergency power button was cut off due to which there was no supply of electricity in the office room i.e., the scene of offence. PW2 the eye witness deposed that she could not see 15 to 20 people who destroyed and damage the glass of the office of the petrol bunk. Further PW3 the daughter of PW1 and also the injured mentioned in her cross examination that she does not know the names of A1 to A3 only because her father, i.e., PW1 kept on taking the name of Naresh she came to know that some “Naresh” is involved in the case, which happened against her. PW4 who is also eye witness deposed that there were around 20 people who came to petrol bunk and that she does not know the names of A1 to A3 but she heard some one telling that one “Naresh” has committed this offence. In cross examination PW4 deposed that she was never examined by the police and her statement was never recorded.

32. On careful perusal of evidence given by PW7 who is the doctor in this case it clearly appears that he has examined the injured PW3 on 12-02-2022 and that she sustained a scratch of 0.25

X 0.25 CM on her left cheek and it appears to be fresh and was simply in the nature. On perusal of Ex.P4 that is the medical certificate issued by PW7 in the name of PW3, which shows that there is the injury on left cheek of PW3. However, throughout the evidence, PW1 to PW4 who are the eye witnesses and PW3 who is the injured reported that the injury was committed by A1 to A3 on the right cheek of PW3 however the medical certificate mentions the

CC 94 of 2022 Page 11 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022) body part on which the injuries inflicted as left cheek therefore, there is some discrepancy in the evidence deposed by the eye witnesses and injured and also the medical certificate given by the doctor. On perusal of EX.P3 i.e., the medical certificate issued by

PW7 shows that there are no external injuries. Therefore it appears to the court that there are no clinching evidence so as to prove beyond the reasonable doubt the case of prosecution as there are contradictions in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses.

Therefore, the inherent contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. In the present case going to substantial and material contradictions in the testimony is of prosecution witnesses, the evidence of prosecution is considered only unreliable therefore the charges against A1 to A3 under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

33. In the view of a foresaid discussion this court is of opinion that the prosecution fail to prove all the charges levelled against A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

34. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the

offence punishable U/s. 447, 427, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and

consequently they acquitted U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The

bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period

of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-

A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court by the

prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. Since no

property is deposited, there is no order with regard to

property.

CC 94 of 2022 Page 12 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

Given under my hand and seal of this court on 27th day of

March, 2025.

Typed by the Typist Praveen Nagesh Koban on my dictation,

pronounced in the open Court on this the 27th day of March, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 94 of 2022 Page 13 of 13 27-03-2025

(Old CC No. 204 of 2022)

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1 Mohammad Khadeer PW2 Gousiya Begum PW3 Busheera Begum PW4 Hazira Begum-Nil- PW5 Rasheed Pasha PW6 Jinkala Anjaneyulu PW7 Dr.S.Anudeep PW8 Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1Report is marked through PW1 Ex.P2U/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement is marked through PW5-Nil- Ex.P3MC of PW1 is marked through PW7 Ex.P4MC of PW3 is marked through PW7 Ex.P5Identified his signature is marked through PW8

::Material objects marked for::

-NIL -

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 616 of 2022 Page 1 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017)

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

U/s. 409 r/w 34 IPC , Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Mal Practice and

Unfair Means Act, 1997

Saturday the 29 th day of March, 2025

Present: Smt. FARHEEN BEGUM, B.Com, LL.M

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOSGI.

CC No. 616 of 2022 (Old CC No. 419 of 2017)

Between: State through Sub-Inspector, PS Kosgi.

...Complainant

And

A1) Chintakindi Narayana S/o. Mogulappa Age: 49 years,

Occ: Head Master of ZPHS(Boys) Girls School, Baherpet, Kosgi.

R/o. H.No.1-61, Dudyal Village of Bomraspet Mandal.

...Accused.

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 29-03-2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate

Sri. Venkata Narasimha Goud for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 616 of 2022 (Old CC No. 419 of 2017) for the offences U/s.

409 r/w 34 IPC ,Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Mal Practice and Unfair

Means Act, 1997 against accused.

CC 616 of 2022 Page 2 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017)

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 29-03-2016 at 1100 hours the complainant Sri.V. Venkateshwara Gupta, S/o. Thimmaiah, Age: 55 years,

Caste: Vysya, Occ: Tahsildar, Kosgi, R/o.H.No. 7-5-87/F/3, Laxminagar col- ony. Mahabubnagar came to PS Kosgi along with LWs 2-6 and lodged a com- plaint Stating that on credible information, the Special Branch Inspector con- ducted raid at 2018, Baharpet and caught hold the Chief Superintendent of

Examination Centre who opened the question paper bundle much prior to prescribed time and photographed the question paper to send the same in whatsapp. As per the request of Special Branch Inspector, he along with MRI visited the school and conducted panchanama by securing the presence of three VROs, in which the Chief Superintendent of Examination Centre, ZPHS,

Baharpet by name Chintakindi Narayana has admitted that he is the HM for

ZPHS(B), Baharpet, Kosgi. He is acting as SSC exams question papers cus- tocdian and Chief Superintendent of Examination for his School. One Hari

Prasad(S.A) is Departmental officer, Pullappa is invigilator and one Ravinder

Reddy (S.A) is acting as Confidential Clerk. On every day of exam, they used to collect question papers from Kosgi P.S. On 28-03-2016 all the above four hatched a plan to take the question papers much prior to exam to help the students in preparing chits. Accordingly on 29-03-2016 at 0830 hrs they col- lected Maths-1, set-I question paper bundles from Kosgi P.S. according to their plan, they opened the question paper bundle at 0842 hrs and took pho- tographs of first two pages of English medium question paper in his cell phone. While taking photographs, the Special Branch Inspector and his team raided and caught them. basing on the confession, he seized the English me- dium question paper of Mathematics Paper-1 and also the Samsung Duos phone Br IME Nos: 357926066482584. 3579927066482582 from the posses- sion of Chintakindi Narayana. By attaching the said Panchanama he requested for necessary action against the teachers who involved in malpracticing.

CC 616 of 2022 Page 3 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) 2(i). Basing on the contents of the petition and panchanama, LW-15 registered a case in Cr no: 62/2016 U/S 409 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5, 8 of

Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997 and took up investiga- tion.

2(ii). Meanwhile on the oral instructions of the Superintendent of Po- lice, mahabubnagar, LW-16 rushed to Kosgi P.S and took up further investiga- tion in this case.

2(iii). During the course of investigation, LW-16 examined the wit- nesses LWs 1 to 6 and recorded their statements in Case Diary part-II U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Visited the scene of offence situated at HM room in ZPHS(B), Ba- harpet, Kosgi which is 500 metres away from police station on the east side and secured presence of mediators LWs 10 and 11 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of crime scene in the pres- ence of above mediators mediators.

2(iv). On 30.3.2016 the LW-16 arrested accused A-1 Chintakindi Nara- yana, A Kotla Hari Prasad, A-3 Vanam Pullappa and A-4 Thurupu Ravinder

Reddy and sent him for Judicial custody.

2(v). On same day LW-16 filed petition before Hon'ble court for 5 days

Police custody of the accused Accordingly the Hon'ble court granted 2 days

Police custody on 2.4.2016 and 3.4.216 vide Cr/Mp/ No. 729/2016. As such on 2.4.2016 LW-16 obtained the accused A1 to A4 and recorded their interroga- tion reports and produced them in the court on 3.4.2016 by conducting regu- lar health check up.

2(vi). LW-12 is the Nodal officer BSNL AP Circle, Hyderabad who fur- nished the call details and customer application forms of the mobile phones 9441016125 and 9491410621 used by A-1, 9441076576 used by A-3 and 9441016177 used by A-4.

CC 616 of 2022 Page 4 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) 2(vii). LW-13 is the Nodal officer AP & T Circle, Idea Cellular Ltd who furnished the call details and customer application forms of the mobile num- bers 9948763190 and 8185899915 used by the accused A-2 and A-4 respec- tively.

2(viii). Thereafter LW-16 sent the seized material objects ie Samsung

Duos Mobile Phone in which the accused took photographs of the First two pages of the Mathematics Paper-1 and also the question paper to CFSL Ra- manthapur Hyderabad for analysis. The LW- 14 Sri. Ch E Sai Prasad, M.Sc.,

PGDCAQM who conducted laboratory tests on Material objects at CFSL Ra- manthapur, Hyderabad and furnished expert report.

2(ix). On 02.12.2016 LW-17 collected the CD file from LW16 on point of jurisdiction through Superintendent of Police Mahabubnagar and collected copies of appointment orders of A1 to A4 from DEO office, Mahabubnagar.

INVESTIGATION

3. On receipt of FIR Police Kosgi registered a case in Cr. No. 62/2016

U/s. 409 r/w 34 IPC ,Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Mal Practice and Un-

fair Means Act, 1997 and took up the investigation. PS Kosgi after com- pletion of investigation filed a charge sheet after taking the cognizance U/s.

409 r/w 34 IPC ,Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Mal Practice and Unfair

Means Act, 1997 before this court for trial.

APPEARANCE

4. On appearance the accused persons were called upon to enter trial and they were furnished with the copies of documents in compliance with Sec.

207 Cr.P.C. Accused A3 and A4 filed discharged petition on 17-06-2022 U/s.

239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge the charges against them in this case. Accused no.2 filed discharged petition on 22-07-2022 U/s. 239 Cr.P.C seeking dis- charge of charges levelled against him. This petitions were heard by previous

CC 616 of 2022 Page 5 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) presiding officer therefore were heard by me again in Crl.M.P.No.28 and 29 heard by me. On perusal of the case file and the petitions filed by A2 to A4 I found no incriminating evidence against A2 to A4 except the confession of co-accused which is weak peace of evidence, hence A2 to A4 were dis- charged (VSO) pronounced in open court, however the case continue against

A1. A1 filed discharged petition on 18-04-2023 and counter was filed by learned APP. Heard the both sides and the Criminal MP of discharged was dismissed and pronounced (VSO). After examination of the accused no.1 U/s.

239 Cr.P.C. Thereafter particulars of the offences U/s. 409 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997 were read over and explained to the accused no.1 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

5. The prosecution has produced 09 witnesses and exhibited 08 docu- ments in order to prove its case.

6. At the conclusion of the prosecution witness evidence the accused are examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating materials were put be- fore them to which they denied. The accused refused to adduced defence evi- dence on their behalf.

7. The evidence of LW12 to LW17 and LW3 was closed by this court as the prosecution failed to produce there witnesses even after providing suffi- cient opportunity though this case pertaining to the year 2017. Death Certifi- cate of LW10 was filed therefore the evidence of LW10 was closed.

TRIAL:

8. During the course of trial prosecution examined LW1 as PW1 and

PW1 is the retired Tahsildar who worked at Kosgi at the time of this incident.

PW1 deposed that he does not know A1 to A4 and PW2 to PW4 and PW8. He deposed that he worked officiating Tahsildar, Kosgi from 17-208-2015 to 10- 04-2016 and that on 29-03-2019 at about 08:45 AM he received phone call

CC 616 of 2022 Page 6 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) from special branch inspector relating to leaking of maths question paper at

Zilla Parishad High School, Baherpet, Kosgi and that he reached this school by 09:00 AM and the special branch inspector informed that photographs of maths question paper were taken in cell phone at 08:42 AM and that the cell phone belong to A1. He deposed he was shown the question paper and phone in which photographs of question were taken. According on instruction of su- perior he lodged the complaint against A1 and material exhibit MO1 and MO2 is marked through PW1 i.e., Samsung Dous Mobile phone and Maths question paper respectively. In cross examination PW1 by learned APP, PW1 deposed that panchanama was conducted on 29-03-2016 at 900 hours at Zilla Parishad

High School, Baherpet, Kosgi. PW1 deposed that panchanama was conducted in presence of PW5 to PW7 but he does not the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama. PW1 deposed that he does not know Ex.MO2 belongs to

Samsung Dous company.

9. In the cross examination by defence counsel PW1 deposed that he does not know what happen prior to his reaching at Zilla Parishad High

School, Baherpet, Kosgi and does not know who has taken the photograph of question paper in cell phone of A1.

10. Further PW2 i.e., Special Party Constable No.2973, Mahabubnagar was produced before this court and he deposed that he knows A1 to A4, that on 29-03-2016 at 700 hours he received phone call from LW3 and he in- formed PW2 regarding question paper leak at Zilla Parishad High School, Ba- herpet, Kosgi accordingly PW2 along with PW3 and PW4 reached Zilla

Parishad High School, Baherpet, Kosgi at 08:30 AM waiting for the instruction of LW3 to raid this school and seeing the instruction from LW3, PW2 along with PW3 and PW4 raided the scene of offence and caught red handedly while taking the photographs of maths English question paper Set-I at 08:42 AM .

11. PW2 in his cross examination by defence counsel deposed that he does not know the date of recording of his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement and that

CC 616 of 2022 Page 7 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) he did not informed the police in his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement that PW2 to

PW5 started at 07:00 AM from Mahabubnagar and reached baherpet at 08:30

AM (Omission). PW2 deposed that 6 teachers were present at the scene of offence and out of 6 teachers A1 to A4 were present among the 6 teachers at the scene of offence.

12. Prosecution produced PW3 who deposed the same as the chief ex- amination of PW2. In cross examination by defence counsel PW3 deposed that the time mentioned in his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement is recorded as 09:00

AM. In re-examination by learned APP PW2 deposed that he stated in his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement that he received the information from LW3 at 07:00

AM. Further defence counsel re-examined PW2 in which he deposed that he does not know the rules and regulation for conducting SSC examination. And that he does not know how many class rooms are there in ZPHS, Baherpet,

Kosgi.

13. Prosecution examined PW4 who is also Special Party Constable

No.928, Mahabubnagar who assisted the raid and he deposed the same as

PW2 and PW3 in there chief examination. In cross examination by defence counsel PW4 deposed that he was not issued with any duty passport in this incident. Ex.D2 was marked through PW4 which is marked from second line to fifth line of second Para.

14. During further course of trial PW5 to PW7 were produced who did not deposed in favour of prosecution and were declared hostile by learned

APP.

15. PW8 who is the one who conducted panchanama was produced who deposed that he knows A1 to A4 and the incident happen in the year 2016. PW8 deposed that he signed on panchanama which was produced be- fore him by PW1 relating to leaking of maths question paper. PW8 deposed that he along with PW5 to PW7 went to the scene of offence on the instruc-

CC 616 of 2022 Page 8 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) tion of PW1 at around 10:00 AM. In cross examination by defence counsel

PW8 deposed that he was not present while conducting panchanama in this incident and he does not know who conducted the panchanama and contents of panchanama.

16. Later PW9 i.e., panch for scene of offence was produced before this court and he deposed that he does not know anything about this case but de- posed that panchanama was conducted in the year 2016 at around 11:00 AM and also identified his signature on CDF. In cross examination by defence counsel PW9 deposed that panchanama was not conducted in his presence and that his signature was on plain white paper by the police.

DISCUSSION ON POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

17. Let me examine if the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of accused U/s. 409 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of

Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

18. In the chief examination of PW1 he deposed that he reached the school by 09:00 AM and also that he does not know the facts of panchanama which was conducted by LW3 and his cross examination by learned APP he deposed that he does not know the contents of confession panchanama of A1 and he also does not know the name of company of Ex.MO2. The evidence of

PW2 to PW5 i.e., witness who assist the raid there appears conflicting opinion in there 161(3) Cr.P.C statement with that of there deposition before this court. PW4 in his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement mentioned time of reaching ZPHS,

Baherpet, Kosgi as 09:00 AM and PW3 also mentioned in his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement that they received reliable information about leaking of maths question paper at 09:00 AM. And all the other witnesses turned hostile.

CC 616 of 2022 Page 9 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017)

19. The prosecution has failed to establish its case as all its witnesses have turned hostile. There are no eye witnesses in the present case. There is no collaboration of evidence deposed before this court by PW1 i.e., the complainant and also conducted panchanama and PW8 who also conducted panchanama along with PW1. The time relating to conducting of raid is mentioned differently by PW2 to PW4 therefore no consisting relating to time of offence and conducting of raid. PW5 to PW7 did not support the prosecution case hence there is nothing much to mentioned about their evidence. PW7 who is the panch witness for the scene of offence deposed that he did not conduct the panchanama and he does not know who recorded the panchanama and its contents. PW9 did not support the prosecution by deposing that he does not know anything about the case and that panchanama was never conducted in his presence therefore did not collaborate with the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the case against the accused

U/s. 409 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Malpractice and

Unfair Means Act, 1997cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubts. Only because charge sheet is filed against the accused, case against accused is not proved as charge sheet cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer. If the other witnesses have not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is entitled for acquittal when there is no other incriminating evidence.

20. Hence prosecution agency failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused.

21. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence pun- ishable U/s. 409 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.5, 8 of Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means Act, 1997 and consequently A1 is acquitted U/sec.

CC 616 of 2022 Page 10 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017) 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a pe- riod of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution or by the defacto- complainant. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

22. The samples of case property was deposited vide

CPR.No.357/2017.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on 29th day of March, 2025.

Typed by the Typist Praveen Nagesh Koban on my dictation, pro- nounced in the open Court on this the 29th day of March, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1 V.Venkateshwara Gupta PW2 B.Mahesh PW3 M.Bharath PW4 R.Bala -Nil- PW5 Ligappa PW6 K.Srinivas Goud PW7 Bugyasab PW8 Jetti Ashok Kumar

CC 616 of 2022 Page 11 of 11 29-03-2025

(Old CC No. 419 of 2017)

::Exhibits Marked For::

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1 Report of PW1 Ex.D1 Second Line to Fifth Line is marked through PW2

Ex.P2 Attested signature of PW1 Ex.D2 Second Line to Fourth Line is marked through PW4

Ex.P3 U/s. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P4 Signature on Panchanama is marked through PW5 -Nil- Ex.P5 Signature on Panchanama is marked through PW6 Ex.P6 Signature on Panchanama is marked through PW7 Ex.P7 Panchanama is marked through PW8 Ex.P8 CDF is marked through PW9

::Material Objects Marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:

MO1 Samsung Dous Mobile Phone -Nil- MO2 Maths Question Paper-I

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 1 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: KOSGI

Monday, this the 24 th day of March, 2025

PRESENT: Smt.Farheen Begum,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOSGI.

IA. NO.195 OF 2022

In

O.S. No. 515 of 2022

Between:

1. Hatya Nayak S/o Chandrya Nayak aged about: 55 years,

2. Himli Bai W/o Chandrya Nayak, Aged about: 75 years, all

Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Porlakunta thanda Hio Dorepally village of

Maddur mandal, Narayanpet Dist.

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

1)Kamla Nayak S/o Gobrya Nayak, aged about: 55 years,

2)Narya Nayak S/o Meenya Nayak, aged about: 53 years,

3)Bhasya Nayak S/o Meenya Nayak aged about: 50 years,

4)Surya Nayak S/o Laxman Nayak, Aged about: 55 years,

5)Babyan Nayak S/o Munya Nayak, Aged about: 35 years,

6)Ravi Nayak S/o Hanmya Nayak, Aged about: 30 years,

7)Kalya Nayak S/o Heerya Nayak, Aged about: 55 years,

8)Heeraman Nayak S/o Kandya Nayak, aged about: 35 years, All

Occupation:Agriculture, R/o Porlakunta Thanda, H/o Dorepally village,

Maddur mandal, Narayanpet District.

...Respondents/ Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for Final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.Venkataiah, Advocate for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri.T.Ramulu, Advocate for Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 8

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 2 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, for the Permanent Injunction order restraining the respondents/defendants their men and servants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit lands, till disposal of main suit.

Brief averments of the petition are as follows:

1. That one Bal Reddy is the original owner of land in Sy.No: 260, extent Ac. 19-29 gts, situated at Dorepally village of Maddur mandal, the said owner under land ceiling cases surrendered the surplus lands to the Govt., so, the Govt., after taking possession of surplus land assigned an area of Ac.03-38 gts and to me, the Government after taking possession of Poramboku land assigned an area of Ac. 1-20 guntas to the husband of the second Plaintiff by name husband late

Chandrya S/o Ramdasu in the year of 1976-77. Since then we are in joint possession of suit schedule lands, cultivating the same personally.

2. That at the instance of land lord our names did not record as cultivator regularly, but now and then our names recorded as cultivators of the suit lands in the revenue records. The Govt., did not issue patta pass books to us, but after several representations the revenue authorities conducted local enquiry and demarcated the lands

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 3 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

and issued revised patta pass books vide pass book No: T01140111513 (Khatha No: 15) and and patta pass book No. T01140111535, Katha

No. 1508, our names recorded in the fasli for the year 2017 and issued 1-B form (ROR). We cultivated the suit schedule lands as usual and in the last year rainy season we raised cotton crop and Red-gram crop and harvested the same. Petitioner submit that the respondents/ defendants have no concern either with the suit schedule lands or with us, but the respondents for the first time without any right and title came on the suit schedule lands on 04-03-2022 and tried to dump material for construction of poultry sheds. We came to know prevented the respondents and since then the respondents never tried to enter into possession. But, on 06-03-2022 the respondents again came and tried to occupy part of the suit schedule land forcibly by removing the existing boundary stones by taking law into their own hands. We did not allow the respondents to enter into possession of land and approached the local police and filed a complaint, but the local police advised us to get protection orders from the court. The respondents came to know the fact and constantly tried to occupy the suit schedule lands forcibly. We by virtue of orders of the Govt., are in actual possession so, we are entitled to protect our possession over suit schedule lands. The respondents without any right and title damaged part of the land and the photographs of damaged portion taken by us.

The above acts of the respondents are illegal and injurious to our

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 4 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

lawful possession, if interim injunction is not granted there is possibility of our dispossession from the suit schedule lands forcibly.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO.1 ΤΟ 8.

3. That respondent submit that, the petition under counter is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. The averments made in affidavit of petitioner filed in support of the petition under counter are false and denied.

4. That respondent to the petition under counter, it is denied that one Bal Reddy is the original owner of land in Sy.No.260 extent Ac.19- 29 guntas, situated at Dorepally village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet

District. It is denied that the said owner under land ceiling cases surrendered the surplus land to the Govt. It is denied that the Govt.

after taking possession of surplus lands assigned an area of Ac.3-38 guntas to the petitioner in the year 1976-77. It is denied that the land bearing Sy.No.272 extent 69-25 guntas was the poramboku land situated at Dorepally village, Maddur Received Mandal, under attemtaking possession of Poramboku land assigned an area of Ac.1-20 guntas to the husband of second petitioner by name late Chandrya s/o

Kamdoswin the year of 1976-77. It is denied that since then the petitioners are in possession of suit schedule lands cultivating the same personally.

5. Respondent to the petition under counter, it is denied that at the instance of land lord the names of petitioners did not record as cultivators regularly. It is denied that now and then the names of

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 5 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

petitioner recorded as cultivators of the suit lands in the revenue records. It is denied that after several representations the revenue authorities conducted local enquiry and demarcated the lands and issued revised patta books vide Patta pass book No.T01140111513 (Khatha No.15) and patta pass book No.T01140111535 (Khatha

No.1508) the names of petitioners recorded in the pasli for the year 2017 and issued 1-B form (ROR). It is denied that the petitioners cultivated jointly the suit schedule lands as usual and in this year the petitioners raised Paddy crop and harvested the same. The rest of the facts of the para are denied.

6. That respondent to the petition under counter, it is denied that the respondents have no concern either with the suit schedule lands or with the petitioners. It is denied that the respondents for the first time without any right and title came on the suit schedule lands on 04-03- 2022. It is denied that the respondents tried to dump material for construction of poultry sheds. It is denied that the petitioners came to know prevented the respondents and since then the respondents never tried to enter into possession. It is denied that when the petitioners attend cleaning the suit land on 06-03-2022 the respondents again came and tried to occupy part of the suit schedule land forcibly by removing the existing boundary stones by taking law into their own hands. It is denied that the petitioners did not allow the respondents to enter into possession of lands and approached the local police and filed a complaint. It is denied that the local police advised

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 6 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

the petitioners to get protection orders from the court. It is denied that the respondents came to know the fact and constantly tried to occupy the suit schedule land forcibly. It is denied that the petitioners by virtue of orders of the Govt., are in actual possession of the suit lands.

It is denied that the petitioners are entitled to protect their possession over the suit schedule lands. It is denied that the respondents without any right and title damaged part of the land and the photographs of damaged portion taken by the petitioners. It is denied that the acts of the respondents are illegal and injurious to the lawful possession of the petitioners. It is denied that the petitioners are entitled to sue for the relief.

7. That respondent to the petition under counter, it is denied that the date of cause of action arose on 04-03-2022 and 06-03-2022. It is denied that when the respondents came on suit schedule lands and tried to occupy the suit schedule land. It is submitted that the cause of actions is created only to file this suit only. That as such no cause of action accrued to the petitioner on 04-03-2022 and 06-03-2022 to file this suit.

9. That the respondent No.2 having lands Sy.No.260/EE/2 to an extent of Ac.1-00, Sy.No.264AA to an extent of Ac.2-12 guntas,

Sy.No.264wu to an extent of Ac.3-17 guntas situated at Dorepally village, Maddur Mandal and other respondents are having lands in suit survey numbers. The petitioners suppressing the real facts filed this false suit, only with an intention to occupy the lands of respondents

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 7 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

situated at Dorepally village of Maddur mandal. The petitioners never in possession of the suit lands as alleged in the plaint and the petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands and they have 1 suppressed the material facts before this Honorable court. The petitioners with showing false boundaries without any lands filed this false suit only to occupy the lands of respondents. The petitioners never cultivated the suit lands as alleged in the plaint. The petitioners are not in possession of the suit lands as on date of filling of suit. The petitioners with taking advantage of the weakness of the respondents filed this suit only to occupy the lands of respondents who are having lands in suit survey numbers situated at Dorepally village, Maddur

Mandal, Narayanapet District.

10. That the averments of the petition that are not specifically admitted by the respondents may be deemed to have been denied.

The petitioners may be put to strict proof of the same.

11. That the petitioners have not approached this Honorable court with clean hands and they are suppressed the material facts.

There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the petitioners. In view of the facts and circumstances submitted above there is also likelihood of causing loss and damage to the respondents.

Now the points for determination are:-

I) Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to temporary

injunction against respondent, their men, agents, servants,

friends and any other on their behalf from interfering in the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner right over

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 8 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

suit schedule property pending disposal of main suit, as

prayed for ?

II) To What relief?

Heard the both the counsels and perused the record.

(i). Prima-facie Case :

12. Plaintiff submitted that one Bal Reddy was the original owner of the land in Sy.No.260 to the extent of 19 acres 29 guntas situated at

Dorepally village of Maddur Mandal. After the government took away the possession of surplus land from Bal Reddy, assign land to the extent of 3 acres 38 guntas to first plaintiff and assign land to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in the name of late Chandraiah who is the husband of plaintiff no.2 in the year 1976-77 and since then plaintiff are in possession of suit schedule land and are cultivating the same.

13. To prove above said plaintiff filed CC pahani for the year 1974- 75, CC of old ROR of plaintiff no.1 and 2, CC of New ROR of plaintiff no.1 and 2, Copy of New passbook of plaintiff no.1 and 2, CC of fasli for the year 2017 in the name of plaintiff no.1 and 2, online 1-B ROR for the year 2019 in the name of plaintiff no.1 and 2 and 1-B ROR for the fasli 1431 in the name of plaintiff no.1 and 2.

14. It appears that the names of plaintiff not being recorded as cultivators regularly but finally the names of plaintiffs are recorded as cultivators in the revenue records.

15. Respondent no.1 to 8 denied all the submission made by the petitioner but however did not submit sufficient proof of document to show the reason further denied.

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 9 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

16. By believing the facts mentioned and the documents submitted by the petitioners this court conclude that the petitioners were successful in establishing the prima-facie case in their favour. Hence petitioners are entitle for temporary injunction till disposal of main suit.

The law relating to the temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is well settled by a legal decision of the Hon’ble Apex court as well as those of various High Courts. While granting the temporary injunction under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, the court has to consider three cardinals , namely (a) prima facie case (b) balance of convenience and (c) irreparable loss and injury . Along with these essential requirements interim relief is also viewed as and equitable and discretionary relief, where the conduct of the parties will also be examined. Court is only required to assess whether prima facie case is made out of the dispute raised in the suit, and whether a tenable issue is made out prima facie case is not be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on the evidence of the trial.

One of the important case relating to the cardinal principles is “Dalpat Kumar Vs Prahladsingh, (1992) 1 SCC 719” We may advert to the facts of this case in the light of the above law is ,

(ii) Balance of convenience :

The court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if injunction is refused and compare it which it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. The petitioner/plaintiff has been in the possession of the suit schedule property, if he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property, it will cause serious hardship to the petitioner/plaintiff. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants, being not in the possession of the suit schedule property, they would not subjected to the same amount of hardship as suffered by the petitioner/plaintiff. It appears to the court that the balance of convenience lies in the favor of the petitioner/plaintiff.

(iii) Irreparable loss and Injury:

The court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the court would result in “ Irreparable injury“ to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction, and he needs protection from the consequences of

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 10 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.

The phrases “prima-facie case”, “Balance of convenience” and

“irreparable loss” are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but

words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations

presented by man’s ingenuity in given facts and

circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of

judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The facts are

eloquent and speak for themselves.

17. Thus the above three cardinal principle is well established in this case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, point No.I is answered in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

POINT NO:II:-

In the result, the petition is allowed in favour of petitioner

by restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering in

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the

suit land till disposal of the main suit and IA.No.195 of 202 is

made absolute till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No. 515 of

2022.

Typed by the Typist Praveen Nagesh Koban on my dictation,

pronounced in the open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge, KOSGI.

IA.No.195 of 2022 Page 11 of 11 24-03-2025

OS.No.515 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined

For the petitioner/plaintiff:None

For the Respondent/defendant : None

Documents Marked for Petitioner: Nil Document Marked for Respondent: Nil

Junior Civil Judge, KOSGI.

CC 638 of 2022 Page 1 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

U/s. 304-A IPC

Friday the 28 th day of March, 2025

Present: Smt. FARHEEN BEGUM, B.Com, LL.M

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOSGI.

CC No. 638 of 2022 (Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

Between: State through Sub-Inspector, PS Kosgi.

...Complainant

And

Anthaipally Vishnu S/o. Balakistaiah Goud Age: 27 years, Occ:

Driver, R/o. Kommur village of Maddur Mandal and Mahabubnagar

District.

...Accused.

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 28-03- 2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Sri. Venkat Narsimha Goud for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 638 of 2022 (Old CC.No.350 of 2017) for the offences U/s. 304-A IPC against accused.

CC 638 of 2022 Page 2 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1) On 23.4.2017 at 08:00 hours, the LW.1 complainant Sri.

Chintalakunta Kistappa S/o Hanmamma, age; 55 years, Caste;

Telugu, Occu; Agril., R/o. Gorlonibhavi village of Maddur Mandal, lodged a complaint with the Kosgi Police station, in which he stated that he had three sons and a daughter. On 23.4.2017 in the evening at about 6.00 p.m, his elder son Chinthalakunta Srinu S/o Kistappa, age: 30 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Gorlonibhavi village of Maddur Mandal left the house by saying that he was going to his wife at Kishan Nagar on the motor cycle bearing No. T5-06-E-

D-2184 belongs to his younger brother. On 22.4.2017 at night about 10.00 p.m, his son made call to his daughter in-law Smt.

Rameshwaramma and informed that he was in Gundumal village and was coming to the house. But his son did not reach there till the evening. Later on, the complainant informed to his brother-in-law

Sri. C. Bothan that in the mid night his son C.Srinu was met with an accident by some unknown vehicle, sustained severe head injury and lying dead on the BT road leading to Gundumal from Kothapally village. Due to which his son sustained head injury and broken the head into pieces and died on the spot. On this information, the complainant rushed at Govt., Hospital, Kondagal and found his son died with head injury. Hence, the complainant requested for taking necessary against the driver of unknown vehicle as per law.

2) That basing on the above complaint, the LW-15 registered a case in Cr.No.55/2017, U/s 304-A IPC., and took up the investigation of this case.

3) That during the course of investigation, the LW.15 examined the LWs.1 to 5 who acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded their statements U/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. LW-15 visited the scene of offence, examined it minutely in the presence of

CC 638 of 2022 Page 3 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

LWs.7 and 8 and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence in crime details form. LW-15 held inquest over the body of deceased in the presence of LWs.9 and 10 at Govt., Hospital, Kodangal and subjected the body to PME.

4) While the investigation was in progress, on 26.4.2017, the

LW.6 who is the owner of the crime vehicle produced the accused

before the LW-15. He took the accused who is the driver of the crime

vehicle into custody, interrogated him in the presence of LWs.11 and 12 and recorded his confessional panchanama in which the accused voluntarily confessed that he committed the offence. The LW.15 issued a notice U/s 41(A) (1) Cr.P.C to the accused i.e driver and served it to him for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, on the same day, the accused driver complied with the contents of notice and produced the documents of offended vehicle as well as D.L. The

LW.15 verified them and found they are all valid. The LW.15 collected the ID Proofs of accused and directed him to appear before the Hon'ble Court when he receives summons from the court to face the trial.

5) That the LW.15 has examined the LW.6 and recorded his statement U/s 161(3) Cr.P.C.

6) That the LW. 13 inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of above vehicle.

7) That the LW-14 who conducted PME over the body of deceased has opined that the cause of death to the best of her knowledge and belief was due to "Shock Haemorrhage and multiple or bones i.e. Rt hummer the rt tibla fibulae, Reeoueis Skull bones and Extract or brain Maura".

CC 638 of 2022 Page 4 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

8) Later LW-16 took up the case file from LW-15 for further investigation.

INVESTIGATION

9) On receipt of FIR Police Kosgi registered a case in Cr. No.

47/2017 U/s. 304-A IPC and took up the investigation. PS Kosgi after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet after taking the cognizance U/s. 304-A IPC before this court for trial.

APPEARANCE

10) On appearance the accused persons is called upon to enter trial and they were furnished with the copies of documents in compliance with Sec. 207 Cr.P.C

11) Thereafter particulars of the offences U U/s. 304-A IPC is read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

12) The prosecution has produced 06 witnesses and exhibited 03 documents in order to prove its case.

13) At the conclusion of the prosecution witness evidence the accused are examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating materials were put before them to which they denied. The accused refused to adduced defence evidence on their behalf.

14) I have heard the arguments advance by both the sides and also perused the records along with depositions on record.

TRIAL:

15) Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6. Prosecution has given up the evidence of LW2, LW5 to LW9, LW11, LW14 to LW16. In the present case at hand there are no eye witnesses and PW1 to

PW3 are the family members of the deceased C. Seenu in this case

CC 638 of 2022 Page 5 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017) and are circumstantial witnesses. PW1 who is the father of the deceased c. seenu deposed in his chief examination that he does not know who is the accused in this case but he came to know that the accident was committed by someone from kommuru village and was driving tractor with the sand.

16) PW2 is the wife of deceased and she deposed that she did not witness the incident and that she was informed about the accident the next morning and that the accident was committed by someone from kommuru village PW3 is the younger brother of deceased and he deposed that the accident took place on 22-04- 2017 at 10:00 pm near the outskirts of Gundumal village and that he came to know about the accident being committed by gangadhar elder brother son who is from kommuru village and that his uncle informed him about the name of the accused as Venkatappa .

17) PW4 (Chinna Hanmanthu) is the panch for inquest conducted on the body of the deceased and he deposed that the inquest panchanama was conducted on the body of C.Srinivas in his presence and that he witnessed injury on the head of the deceased

C.Srinivas. But he did not mentioned anything relating to the accused or witnessing the incident and also in his cross examinations he deposed that he does not know anything about the accident except the inquest panchanama being conducted in his presence.

18) PW5 is the panch witness for the confession panchanama of the accused. PW5 deposed that he does not know the accused and he does not know anything about this case. In cross examination PW5 deposed that accused never confession about his guilt of committing accident of C.Seenu S/o. Kistappa by driving his tractor in rash and negligent manner.

CC 638 of 2022 Page 6 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

19) PW6 who is the motor vehicle inspector he deposed that he received the requisition to examine the vehicle bearing No. AP 28 TB 8913, 8858 which is an tractor and trailer at the premises of DTO,

Mahabubnagar and he did not find any damaged to the vehicle and he has given his opinion as the accident was not due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. In the cross examination by defence counsel

PW6 deposed that there is delay of three months in conducting the inspection from the date of accident. And that he did not conduct the inspection on the scene of accident.

20) Now the point for consideration is whether we

accused Appaipally Vishnu as committed the offence U/s.

304-A IPC.

21) In the present case at hand there are no eye witnesses,

PW1 to PW3 are the circumstantial witnesses who deposed that they have not witness the incident and they do not know who has committed the accident. Prosecution produced PW4 and PW5. PW4 is the panch for inquest panchanama who did not deposed in favour of prosecution and PW5 is the Panch for confession panchanama of the accused and he also did not deposed in favour of prosecutions case. Later the prosecution produced PW6 who is motor vehicle inspector who deposed that the vehicle was brought to him for inspection after a delay of three months.

22) Section 304-A IPC deals with causing death by negligence and the punishment. The essential ingredients are elements of section 304-A IPC are as follows:

i)There must be death of the person in question.

ii)The accused must have cause such death.

CC 638 of 2022 Page 7 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017) iii)That such act of accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.

23) In present case at hand there are no eye witnesses who can depose that the accused was driving the tractor in rash and negligent manner and that it was the accused only who was driving the tractor.

24) Non of the witnesses through out evidence mention that they have witness the accused driving the tractor and that he was driving in rash and negligent manner which are the essential ingredients to attract Section 304-A IPC hence the prosecution has fail to establish its case beyond all the reasonable doubts against the accused hence the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

25) The prosecution has failed to establish its case as all its witnesses have turned hostile except the official witness. The investigating officer is material witness in this case because investigated the matters, records the statement of the witnesses, goes to the spot for the objective findings, prepares the case diary, receives the papers during investigation and after collecting the relevant material in support of the prosecution or against the prosecution and submits the report for the prosecution.

26) The Investigating Officer has to place his case unvarnished

before the Court as it is. Under the circumstances of this present

case, a very heavy rather extremely heavy duty lies upon the

Investigating officer in selecting a panch. However the investigating officer was very casual and indiscreet in requisitioning the services of panchas. Because he has undertaken the said task casually the witnesses produced by the prosecution have turned hostile i.e., the panch witnesses, therefore the investigating officers cannot be said

CC 638 of 2022 Page 8 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017) to have discharged duty efficiently because of which the Learned

APP failed to establish the prosecution case before this court.

27) The final report (charge sheet) cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer. If the other witnesses have not deposed

before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is

entitled for acquittal when there are no other incriminating evidence.

28) In the opinion of this court, witness is paramount in a cardinal judicial system and by testifying under oath in the case they assist the court in discovering the truth. Witnesses are the key to the case and when the witnesses turned hostile the importance and primacy of quality of the trial process get paralized, as witnesses are considered eyes and ears of justice and on turning hostile the process of trial is no longer considered.

29) In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the

offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC and consequently he

acquitted U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from

the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for

preferring appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution or

by the defacto-complainant. Since no property is deposited,

there is no order with regard to property.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on 28th day of

March, 2025.

CC 638 of 2022 Page 9 of 9 28-03-2025

(Old CC.No.350 of 2017)

Typed by the Typist Praveen Nagesh Koban on my dictation,

pronounced in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1 Chintalakunta Kistappa PW2 Chintalakunta Rameshwaramma-Nil- PW3 Bontha Venkataiah PW4 Chinna Hanmanhu PW5 Jadaala Srinivas PW6 Naresh Sangem

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1Report of PW1 is marked through PW1 Ex.P2Inquest panchanama is -Nil- marked through PW4 Ex.P3MVI report is marked through PW6

::Material objects marked for::

-NIL -

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

O.S.44 of 2020 Page 1 of 8 28-03-2025

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: NARAYANPET

Friday, the 28 th Day of March, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. Farheen Begum, B.Com, LL.M Junior Civil Judge, KOSGI FAC:Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.

Original Suit No. 44 of 2020

BETWEEN:

1.K.Chennamma W/o Late Chandramappa, Age: 65 years, Occ:House hold.

2.Shivaputra S/o Late Chandramappa, Age: 35 years, Occ:Maistry, 3.Maruthi S/o Late Chandramappa, Age: 31 years, Occ: Maistry, 4.Baswaraju S/o Late Chandramappa,Age: 30 years, Occ:Labour, 5.Bheema S/o Late Chandramappa, Age: 26 years, Occ: Labour,

All are R/o Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

6.Aajamma Suresh Korban W/o Late k.Suresh, Age: 55 years, 7.Chandrakanth S/o Late K.Suresh, Age; 30 years, Occ:Pvt Service, 8.Raju S/o Late K.Suresh, Age: 25 years, Occ:Student,

Plaintiff No.6 to 8 permanent R/o Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal,

Mahaboobnagar District, presently R/o 6-7-138, Near Fish Market,

Hariyali village, Virkholi, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

9.K.Raju S/o Late Ramanna, Age:58 years, Occ:Pvt. Service, Permanent

R/o Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, presently

R/o 8-2-613/106/4, Road No.11, Udayanagar, Banjara Hills. Hyderabad– 34 (Dismissed on 05-08-2024 as Abated).

...Plaintiffs

And

1. Narsappa Povai S/o Late Hanumanthu, Age: 45 years, Occ:

Agriculture (Abated),

2. Basappa S/o Late Hanumanthu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture (Abated),

3. Sivu S/o Late Hanumanthu, Age: 35 years, Occ :Agriculture,

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 2 of 8 28-03-2025

All are R/o. Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

...Defendants

-o0o-

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 28-03- 2025 in the presence of Sri.C. Janardhan counsel for the Plaintiffs and the suit is abated against the defendant No.1 and 2 are abated and defendant no.3 is Set Ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction restraining the

Defendants or other servants, agents, workers or whosoever claiming through them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Brief averment mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

2. That one Late Korban Ramanna was absolute owner of the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.5.38Gts, in sy. No. 116/A, situated at Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal, formerly Mahboobnagar District, presently Narayanpet District by virtue of ancestral property. That the said Late Korban Ramanna was died some 20 years ago, leaving behind 3 sons viz.. Chandramappa, Suresh and Raju. That the elder son of Late Korban Ramanna viz., Chandramappa were leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 as his only legal heirs.

3. That the Second son of late Korban Ramanna viz., Suresh was also died leaving behind the Plaintiffs No.6 to 8 as his only legal heirs. The third son of Korban Ramanna was alive, who is Plaintiff

No.9. That during the life time of said late Korban Ramanna cultivated the said agriculture land along with other agriculture

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 3 of 8 28-03-2025

lands and thereafter his sons cultivated the said lands. The name of the said Ramanna was entered into the revenue records as pattedar and possessor of the suit land, hereinafter called the schedule mentioned property. The suit land was not partitioned among the heirs of late Ramanna and all are enjoying the said property as absolute owners and possessors, but they didn't obtained the pattedar pass books and title deeds in respect of the said property in their names. Due to the livelihood and source of income, the plaintiffs No.6 to 8 migrated to Mumbai, and No.9 migrated to

Hyderabad, but they are permanent residents of the Ayinapur village and used to visit the native place as well as the agriculture lands on occasionally. All are cultivating the land with their joint funds and enjoying the fruitful on the said land equally, without any dispute from anybody.

4. That taking advantage of the absence of some of plaintiffs, and taking advantage of non mutation of their names in the concerned revenue records, the defendants put an evil eye on the suit schedule property belongs to them, and several times try to interfere and trying to disturb the peaceful possession of them over the said property. The plaintiffs restrained their acts from time to time and the suit land grabbers could not succeed in their illegal attempts. That the defendants didn't succeed in their illegal attempts, and trying to mutate their names in the revenue records, by creating forged, fabricated and fictitious documents, and by suppressing the material facts.

5. That the plaintiffs submitted the representation before the

RDO, Narayanpet District, not to mutate the names of any persons in respect of agriculture land admeasuring Ac.5.38 Gts, in

Sy.No.116/A, situated at Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal, formerly

Mahboobnagar District, presently Narayanpet District, in any of the

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 4 of 8 28-03-2025

revenue records who are trying to mutate their names by manipulating and creating the forged documents.

6. That recently on 06-08-2019 the defendants try to interfere into the property. Having came to know the said incident, the plaintiffs approached to the suit schedule property. and strongly restrained the acts of the defendants and their henchmen. The defendants could not succeed in their illegal attempts, and left from the place.

7. CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 6-8-2019 when the defendants try to interfere into the property of the plaintiffs and when the police refused to initiate any action in the matter.

TRIAL:

8. The Counsel for the defendant no.3 filed a memo on 19-10- 2022 stating that Defendant No.1 & 2 were died. Summons were sufficiently summoned by this court however no representation by defendant no.3 he engaged the counsel. The counsel for the

Defendant No.3 failed to file the written statement before this court as such defendant No.3 is Set Ex-parte on 28-10-2024.

9. During trial plaintiff examined one witnesses i.e., PW1 and marked Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 through PW1. Defence evidence recorded nil as Set Ex-parte. After closing of the evidence on the plaintiff side, heard and this case was posted for judgment.

Heard both the side and perused the records.

10. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 (K.Chennamma) and chief examination affidavit is filed in lieu of chief examination of

PW1 and reiterated the same as mentioned in his plaint and exhibits

EX-A1 & EX-A2 were marked through PW1. The plaintiff in his chief

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 5 of 8 28-03-2025

examination reiterated as mentioned in his plaint that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the agriculture land Sy.No.545/A to extent of Ac: 5-1 guntas situated at Gundumal village of Kosgi

Mandal. That the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land from defendant no.1 i.e., Smt. Vadla Venkatamma vide sale deed document no.9573/2019, dated:25-07-2019. That the defendant no.1 subsequently colluded with the defendant no.2 and executed another sale deed document no.1602/2021 dated : 07-09-2021 in the name of defendant no.2.

i. That in September, 2021 the defendant no.2 along with his hencement inter fered that the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

ii. The cross examination of PW1 was recorded as nil as the defendants no.1 and 2 are abated against the suit and defendant no.3 is Set Ex-parte.

iii. As the defendants No.3 did not filed written statement or any other document before this court there is nothing much to mention about the defence by defendant no.3.

iv. After trial, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record place before this court.

v. Thus out of the above mentioned averment the following

Points arises for consideration.

I. Whether the defendant no.1 to 3 are interfering with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the

suit schedule land?

II. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for perpetual

injunction against defendant no.1 to 3 over the suit

schedule land

III. To What relief?

Point for consideration No. I and II

11. To answer the point for consideration no. I and II this court is relying on the plaint, list of documents and chief affidavit in lieu of

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 6 of 8 28-03-2025

chief examination of PW1. The plaintiff filed Ex.A1 i.e., certified copy of 1-B FORM ROR of Sy.No. 116/A agriculture land admeasuring

Ac.5.38Gt situated at Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal, formerly

Mahabubnagar District, presently Narayanpet District in which the name of Korban Ramanna is appearing and the nature of property is appearing as ancestral property and Ex.A2 is Certified copy of the encumbrance certificate in which Korban Ramanna name is appearing as the owner of the suit land . That the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Korban Rammana .

12. To rebut the contentions and submissions of plaintiff, defendant no. 3 neither present personally or through counsel nor filed written statement rebutting the contention and submission of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the plaint and chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination stated that defendant no.1 to 3are interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule land and that the defendants entered into the suit property on 06-08-2019. To answer whether the defendants interfered with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule land, the defendants no. 1 and 2 (died no legal representatives brought on record) and defendant no.3 neither present personally or through counsel nor file the written statement hence there is nothing much to mention from the side of defendants no. 3. By believing the version of plaintiff that defendants no. 3 is interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of plaintiff over suit schedule land the point of consideration is answered in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendant no.3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land.

Hence Point no .1 and 2 for consideration is answered in favour of plaintiff.

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 7 of 8 28-03-2025

Point for consideration No.III

In the result the suit is decreed without cost in favour of

plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 3 restraining

defendants No.1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit land in

Sy.No. 116/A situated at Aiyanapur, Krishna Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District of the plaintiff over the suit land.

Typed by the typist on my dictation, pronounced in the open

Court on this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Smt. Farheen Begum, Junior Civil Judge, KOSGI. FAC:Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiffs For the Defendant

PW1:K.Chennamma-Nil-

Documents Marked

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is CC of 1-B ROR Sy.No.116/A consisting of 1 paper.

Ex.A2 is encumbrance dated 12-03-2018 and 29-11-2018 consisting of 2 papers.

For the Defendant: NIL

Junior Civil Judge, KOSGI. FAC:Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.

O.S. 44 of 2020 Page 8 of 8 28-03-2025