Smt G Anusha

1 CC No.7441 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE : AT :: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SMT G. ANUSHA,

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

C.C.No.7441 of 2022

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, F-Division, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

AND

Nagula Ram Mohan, S/o. N. Venkataramana, aged 42 years, Occ: Reserve Sub- Inspector of Police, CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.3-10-20/29/A/4, Gokhalenagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri G. Raghavendra, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Kum. Sravanthi, Advocate, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The then Assistant Commissioner of Police, F-Division, CCS, DD,

Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.188 of 2012 for the offences punishable U/Sec.409 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short “IPC”) against the Accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:- 2 CC No.7441 of 2022

(i) On 20.10.2012 at 17.00 hours the def-complainant/ LW1-K. Kalyan

Kumar. Inspector of Police lodged a police report stating that N. Ram Mohan/ accused was entrusted with MV Act challan books for issuing challans to the violators and collecting compounding fee and that he resorted to criminal breach of trust and cheated the Police Department with intent to defraud the public money by issuing original challans to erring public for amount higher than that was written by him in copy of the same towards compounding fee for the offences committed under the provisions of MV Act. This he could perpetrate by not inserting carbon paper while writing the challans. Thus, the accused would issue a original challan for Rs.650/- and later while rendering amount for the days collection he would fill in the copy showing as if he collected Rs.100/- only and pocketed the differential amount of Rs.550/- which belongs to the Department, by falsifying the records and cheated the Payer and the Department. Hence, police report.

(ii) Basing on the contents of above report LW8-G. Shanker, Sub-Inspector of Police registered this case in Cr.No.188 of 2012 U/s.409 & 420 of IPC and handed over the CD file to LW9-B. Prathap Kumar, Inspector of Police for further investigation. During the course of investigation LW9 examined and recorded the statements of LW1, LW2-U. Sathi Babu, LW3-Manohar Reddy, LW4-Bhaskar

Reddy, LW5-Manikreddy & LW6-S.R. Pandey and collected the concerned 3 CC No.7441 of 2022 challan books i.e. book no. 6936 containing challan Sl.Nos.693501 to 693600 and challan book No.3305 containing challan Sl.Nos.330401 to 330500 and Xerox copies of challan No.693599 dated 02.10.2012 & Xerox copy of challan

Sl.No.330444 dated 30.08.2012 from the Traffic Police Station Chikkadpally.

During the course of his further investigation, on credible information, LW9 deputed his staff to apprehend the accused, accordingly, the deputed staff apprehended the accused and produced him before the LW9. On interrogation by the LW9, the accused voluntarily confessed the commission of offence, accordingly, LW9 affected his arrest and remanded him to judicial custody.

(iii) During the course of his further investigation LW9 collected the admitted documents of the accused and filed requisition before this court to forward the question and admitted documents to the FSL for comparing the hand writings/ signatures. On 05.11.2023 LW9 received the expert opinion from the

LW7-P. Rajani vide Lr.No.OC/212/2013 dated 05.11.2013. Further, LW9 sent letter to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad along with legal opinion

U/s.197(1) CrPC proceedings with a request to accord permission to prosecute the accused. In reply the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City vide Memo

No.L&O/M3/3139/2014 dated 24.10.2014 opined that there is no need for getting sanction orders as per Sec.197 CrPC as the accused was dismissed from service vide office DO No.5737 dated 30.09.2014. While the investigation is under 4 CC No.7441 of 2022 progress, the accused approached the Hon’ble High Court and obtained Stay

Orders vide Crl.P.MP.No.16778/2014 in Crl.P.No.15693/2014 and later the said stay was vacated by ordering the Investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and to bring the case to its logical end. After completion of investigation LW11-B. Chand Basha, Assistant Commissioner of Police filed charge-sheet against the Accused for the offences U/s.409 & 420 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.409 & 420 of IPC against the Accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences U/Sec.409 & 420 of IPC. Hence charges for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW8 and the documents under Ex.P-1 to P-9 are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating prosecution evidence 5 CC No.7441 of 2022 appeared against him, for which the Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/Sec.409 & 420 of IPC ?

8. POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the then

Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and was entrusted with Motor Vehicle Act Challan books for issuing challans to the violators and collecting the compounding fee, wherein, the accused has committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the Police Department with intent to defraud the public money by issuing original challans to erring public for an amount higher than that was written by him in copy of the same towards compounding fee for the offences committed under the provisions of MV Act.

9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offences U/s.409 & 420 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients.

Section 409 of IPC:-

1. The offence must be committed by a public servant, broker, attorney or agent, 6 CC No.7441 of 2022

2. The accused was entrusted with the property,

3. the word “dishonestly” in the section portrays the presence of mens rea.

4. And lastly, the accused must commit a criminal breach of trust in respect of the property entrusted.

Section 420 of IPC:-

1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under section 415 of IPC,

2. the accused cheated must be dishonestly induced to

3. deliver property to any person; or make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security

10. In order to prove their case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

PW1 to PW8.The PW1-Sathi Babu, witness, deposed that the accused was

Reserve SI in Traffic PS Chikkadpally. PW1’s duty timings are from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM and on his relieving, Manohar Reddy has to report the duty. Challan books, handcuffs, cameras and etc will be in the custody of GD writer. Generally, the control room will issue challan book to the stations and while handing over the challan books to SI of police, they will obtain acknowledgments and it will be returned after completion. While returning the challan books, they used to calculate the amounts in duplicate and after tallying the amount, they will enter into the registers after receiving the amounts and will pay the same to the Control

Room. The original challans will be given to the owner/payer of the challan amount. This case is registered against the accused as there is an excess amount in 7 CC No.7441 of 2022 the original challans than the duplicate challans. The PW2-M. Manohar Reddy, witness, deposed that in the year 2012 the accused was incharge of Crane 12. This case is registered against the accused as he misused the challan books. The challan books are issued by control room and after acknowledgment the said books will be issued to SHOs and in turn the same will be handed over to SI of police for receiving of challan amounts and issuing of receipts to the payers and the SI of police shall return the said challan books after completion.

11. The PW3-K. Kalyan Kumar, who is the def-complainant, deposed that on 06.10.2012 he gave his report to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Traffic,

Hyderabad against the accused for enquiry on mis-conduct and misappropriation done by the accused and in turn the said report was forwarded to CCS PS on 20.10.2012. Coming to the evidence of PW4-Manik Reddy, who deposed that one day the police Traffic Police Musheerabad stopped him while he was driving the DCM vehicle and imposed a fine and after paying the fine, the police issued challan to him and the same was handed over in his office. The PW5-S. Pandey, deposed that he used to drive TATA DCM vehicle. During that time, the Traffic

Police used to stop the vehicles and impose fines and the staff used to pay the fines.

8 CC No.7441 of 2022

12. Coming to the evidence of PW6-P. Rajani, Scientific Officer, deposed that their office received a letter dated 14.06.2013 from this court along with letter of advice and certain documents. The questioned signatures on three original challans and receipts bearing Nos.693530, 693560, 693588 respectively were encircled and marked as Q1 to Q3. Their office also received standard signatures purported to be of the accused. The standard signatures on 6 sheets of account opening form of SBH dated 05.02.2007 were encircled and marked as S1 to S10.

The standard signatures on a sheet of paper were encircled and marked as S11.

The standard signatures in a challan receipt book bearing Nos.279701, 279703, 279705 to 279708, 279710 to 279712 respectively were encircled and marked as

S12 to S20. After careful examination and comparison of above documents under instruments PW6 gave her opinion as; the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S20, also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked as Q1 to Q3.

13. It is the evidence of PW7-B. Prathap Kumar, First IO, that on 20.12.2012

LW8-G. Shanker received police report from PW3, basing on which he registered this case in Cr.No.188/2012 U/s.409 & 420 of IPC and issued FIR and handed over the CD file to PW7 for investigation. During the course of his investigation

PW7 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and collected original 9 CC No.7441 of 2022 challans and challan books vide bearing Nos.6936, 3305, 9085, 1575, 3720, 246, 620, 2791, 5651, 4069 from PW3. On 28.12.2012 he apprehended the accused and interrogated him and sent him to judicial custody after completion of legal formalities and collected standard signatures of the accused from the concerned department. Thereafter, filed requisition before the court to forward the questioned and standard signatures of the accused to FSL to compare with disputed signatures and accordingly, the same were forwarded. Thereafter, PW7 collected the FSL report. Subsequently, on his transfer PW7 handed over the CD file to his successor for further investigation. The PW8-B. Chand Basha, IO who filed charge-sheet, deposed that he received CD file from Karunakar Reddy, Inspector of Police for further investigation. In this case by the time of he receiving the CD file almost the investigation has been completed. After completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

14. It is the case of the accused that he is falsely implicated in this case and that nothing incriminating evidence against the accused is placed before this court.

Further, several omissions were elicited during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. It is the further specific case of the accused that all the material forwarded to the FSL are the office records and personal records of the accused. The duplicate challan receipts or the original receipts bearing 10 CC No.7441 of 2022

Nos.693530, 693560, 693588 were not placed before this court to prove the fact that the accused allegedly took excess challan amounts from the payers. Further, the signatures of the accused on the original challan receipts marked as Q1 to Q3 are not compared with the duplicate of said challans to prove the material fact, on the other hand duplicate receipts of said challans are not even part of this case.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15. After meticulously scanning the entire material on record, the sole base on which the case is registered is that, on 03.10.2012 the driver of vehicle

B.No.AP11W 7692 approached the PW3 with a request to reduce the penalty of

Rs.650/- paid by him towards the challan no.693599 dated 02.10.02012 issued by the accused. On verification with duplicate copy by the PW3, he noticed that the accused wrote Rs.100/- instead of Rs.650/- as written on the original challan receipt, the LW1 also noticed that the sections mentioned in both the challans were not tallying. Suspecting a foul play PW3 secured original challan nos.693530

dated 30.09.2012, challan no.693570 dated 01.10.2012 and challan no.693588

dated 02.10.2012, wherein, PW3 noticed that the accused mentioned different

section of laws compared to both original and duplicate receipts and accordingly, the same was informed to the superior officers.

11 CC No.7441 of 2022

16. On perusal of the record, which clearly shows, the driver of vehicle

B.No.AP11W 7692 who approached the PW3 with a request to reduce the penalty of Rs.650/- paid by him towards the challan no.693599 dated 02.10.02012 is not examined before this court. Further, the said challan is also not placed before this court to prove the fact as to who issued the said challan. Further, the duplicate receipt of the said challan is also not placed before this court.

17. After going through the entire record, this court is of the opinion that, in the case on hand the disputed documents are the duplicate copies of receipts to the original challan receipts alleged to be issued by the accused, where the excess amounts are mentioned. Further, this court is of the opinion that the signatures of the accused on the original receipts must have to be compared with the signatures of the accused on the duplicate receipts of the said original receipts. But, in the case on hand, the investigating agency forwarded the original challan receipt’s alleged to be issued by the accused and the admitted signatures of the accused to the FSL for comparison. Though, the report under Ex.P3 issued by the PW6 says, ‘the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S20, also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked as Q1 to Q3’, this court is of the opinion that said report is not helpful to the prosecution, as the document with which the comparison had to be done is not done.

12 CC No.7441 of 2022

18. Though, the oral evidence of the PW1 to PW3 prove the fact that the accused worked as SI of Police at Traffic Police Station, Chikkadpally,

Hyderabad, their evidence no where reveals that they are the direct witnesses to the offence and that they personally noticed that the accused has been mentioning excess amounts in the original challan receipts issued to the payers when compared to the duplicate. Further, their evidence no where reveals as to how much excess amount the accused allegedly received and misappropriated. On the other hand, two material omissions have been elicited by the learned counsel during the cross-examination of PW1 & PW2 regarding the alleged excess amounts in challan and misuse of the challan amounts (PW1 did not state in his 161 CrPC statement that this case is registered against the accused as there is excess amount in original challan than the duplicate challans) (PW2 did not state in 161 CrPC statement that the accused misused the challans). Further, the evidence of PW4 & PW5 who are the independent witness, reveals nothing incriminating against the accused, as such, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case between Harbeer Singh

Vs Sheehspal and Others,reported in 2017(1) ALD (Crl) 5452(SC), wherein the

Hon’ble apex court held that “It is a cardinal principle of Criminal

13 CC No.7441 of 2022 jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another burden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to accused be adopted. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of Jharkhand in a case between State of Bihar Vs Reyaz Ahmad wherein it was held that “ this follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to be benefit of every reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is , the benefit will go the accused.

20. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of the defacto-complainant himself and any corroborative piece of evidence, and lack of documentary evidence, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of 14 CC No.7441 of 2022

Accused for the offences charged against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

21. In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under

U/Sec.409 & 420 of IPCand he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Direct typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: U. Sathi Babu, Witness,- Nil - PW-2: Manohar Reddy, Witness, PW-3: K. Kalyan Kumar, complainant PW-4: Manik Reddy, circumstantial witness PW-5: S.R. Pandey, circumstantial witness PW-6: P. Rajani, scientific officer PW-7: B. Prathap Kumar, Investigating Officer PW-8: B. Chand Basha, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

NIL 15 CC No.7441 of 2022

Ex.P-1: Complaint dated 06.10.2012 Ex.P-2: Relevant portion of 161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P-3: Report dated 05.11.2013 Ex.P-4: Challan receipts Nos.693530, 693570 & 693588 (questioned signatures) Ex.P-5: Account opening form of accused (6 sheets containing standard signatures) Ex.P-6: Leave application letter submitted by accused to the ACP, Central Zone, containing admitted signatures Ex.P-7: Challan book receipt bearing nos.279701, 279703, 279705 to 279708, 279710 to 279712 Ex.P-8: FIR Ex.P-9: Letter of advice

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

NIL NIL

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

// True Copy //

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

16 CC No.7441 of 2022 ….............CC No.7441 of 2022 .................

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

CC.No.7441 of 2022

Date of report/complaint::20.10.2012 Date of apprehension of accused::28.12.2012 Date of commencement of trial::06.08.2025 Date of closure of trial::25.09.2025 Date of sentence/order::22.10.2025 Explanation for delay/remarks :: --- Complaint:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, F-Division, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

Accused: Nagula Ram Mohan, S/o. N. Venkataramana, aged 42 years, Occ: Reserve Sub- Inspector of Police, CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.3-10-20/29/A/4, Gokhalenagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

Offence:: 409 & 420 of IPC

Finding:: Found not guilty

Sentence/order:

In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.409 & 420 of IPCand he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 CC No.21 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE : AT :: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SMT G. ANUSHA,

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

C.C.No.21 of 2016

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

AND

Gopi Dhana Mohan Rao @ Mohan, S/o. G. Narsimha Rao, aged 49 years, Occ: Cutter in SRI Umiya Saw Mill, H.No.1-10-66/1, Auto Nagar, Medka, R/o. H.No.1-12-M/14, Jammikunta, Medak.

... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri G. Raghavendra, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri. D. Rohit, Advocate, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The then Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.229 of 2011 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short “IPC”) against the Accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:- 2 CC No.21 of 2016

(i) On 03.08.2011 at 13.45 hours the complainant/ LW1-B. Manya Naik, lodged a police report stating that he is working as PSO to Dr. P. Shanker Rao,

Minister for Handlooms and Textiles, AP. On 02.08.2011 at 09.22 PM received a phone call from unknown person with phone No.8341671252 to the Minister’s phone No.9703293939 and the said person started threatening the Minister in abusive words and threatened that he will kill his family and blast his home with bomb. Hence, police report.

(ii) Basing on the contents of above report LW12-G. Shanker, Sub-

Inspector of Police registered this case in Cr.No.299 of 2011 U/s.66(A) of IT Act,

Sec.307 & 511 of IPC and handed over the CD file to LW13-G. Venkatesham,

Inspector of Police for further investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW-13 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and mailed a requisition letter to Nodal officer, Uninor Service Provider to furnish the call details of the cell Phone SIM No. 8341671252 with CAF particulars from January, 2011 to proceed further investigation and from the provided information LW13 in the data that there are 9 IMEI Nos. including IMEI No. 355819034110910 cell phone used with SIM No. 8341671252. Again LW-13 sent mails to Nodal officers of Uninor,

TATA, Airtel, Aircel, Reliance, BSNL, Idea etc., with request to provide the call details of the SIMs used in the said 9 IMEI Nos including IMEI No.

355819034110910. Accordingly, LW-13 got the data from idea and Vodafone 3 CC No.21 of 2016

Service Providers wherein SIMs 9505298791, 8886457463 were also used in

IMEI No. 355819034110910, 55819034110928 cell phone (s). After analyzing the data, and tower locations, LW-13 found that the call went from cell phone having

SIM No. 8341671252 to cell phone with SIM No. 9703293939 on 02-08-2011 at 9:22 P.M. and the call emanated from Medak. LW-13 secured the LW-4 examined him and recorded his detailed statement in part-II case diary.

(iii) During the course of his further investigation analyzed the call data and took the most frequent called numbers and reached Medak and enquired there with

LW3-B. Rajesh Patel about the accused, who revealed that one Monan who is working since 3 years in Sri Umiya Saw Mill along with him is found with SIM

Card No. 8341671252 and the said Mohan left the Saw mill to his house after his work, accordingly, LW.13 examined him and recorded his detailed statement in part-II case diary. LW.13 also secured LW2-Vidhya Sagar and examined him and recorded his statement. Later, went to the house of the Mohan/ Accused and found locked. Later, on information LW.13 deputed LW.8 to cause clandestine enquiry in the Ravindra nagar area to apprehend the Mohan for interrogation in this case and also kept his informants in the area to get the information of the said Mohan.

While the efforts are in progress to apprehend the accused, on 04-08-2011 at 14:00 hours, LW.13 received credible information that the accused is available at his wife's residence at Ravindra nagar, Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad. On that 4 CC No.21 of 2016

LW.13 along with LW8-P. Prashanth, LW9-K. Chandra Shekar, LW10-V.

Maheshwar Reddy & LW11-Abdul Kareem proceeded there and apprehended him. On interrogation the accused revealed his identity and confessed his guilt of commission of offence. Accordingly, LW.13 served Notice U/s 41 (1)(a) Cr.P.C.

to the accused and secured the presence of LW5-K. Sharath & LW6-Y. Jeevan

Kumar and recorded the confessional cum seziure panchanama of the accused and seized one cell phone make FORBY, Model No. S3650, Duel SIM mobile phone having IMEI Nos. 355819034110910, 355819034110928 having uninor SIM Nos.

89918 19107 20344 50911, connection No. 8341671252 in one slat and Vodafone

SIM bearing No. 89911 302 40 55412, 8030 connection No. 8886457463 2) One cell phone make ZTE without back cover Model: Classic 261, s/no.

321371019576 with Reliance mobile SIM connection No. 9397392033 and 3) One idea SIM bearing No. 89910 70532 00048 83348 with connection No.0505298791 from his possession before the said mediators for material evidence. Later, took the accused to police station and effected his arrest and remanded to judicial custody. As the section of law 307, 511 IPC does not attract to the case, LW13 deleted the section and added Sec.506 & 507 of IPC. After completion of investigation and collection of FSL report, LW14-P. Ravi Kiran, Inspector of

Police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.67(A) of IT Act,

Sec.506 & 507 of IPC.

5 CC No.21 of 2016

3. This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of IPC against the Accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences

U/Sec.67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of IPC. Hence charges for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW4 and the documents under Ex.P-1 to P-4 and MO1 to MO3 are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating prosecution evidence appearing against him, for which the Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:- 6 CC No.21 of 2016

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offence punishable U/Sec.67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of IPC?

8. POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused took a lost Uninor

SIM of someone from the helper Vidyasagar and got recharged the said SIM for

Rs.10/- and tested by calling other numbers and found SIM is working. On 02.08.2011 the accused inserted the Unionr SIM card No.8341671252 in his mobile Forby-dual SIM and recharged for Rs.10/- and called to Minister Shankar

Rao’s number 9703293939 by using said Unionr SIM and threatened him by saying that he will kill all the family members of the Minister and blast his house with a bomb and used abusive language and switched off the phone.

9. In order to prove their case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1-

B. Manya Naik, defacto-complainant, PW2-B. Rajesh Patel, witness, PW3-G.

Venkatesham, First Investigating Officer & PW4-P. Ravi Kiran, Investigating

Officer filed charge-sheet.

10. The PW1-B. Manya Naik, who is the def-complainant, deposed that previously, he worked as Prl. Security Officer to Sri. P. Shankar Rao, former

Minister, in the year 2011. On 02.08.2011 while he was on duty, at about 9.20 PM, some unknown person called to Minister’s mobile phone and he attended the said 7 CC No.21 of 2016 call. The said person started threatening by stating that SHANKER RAO

UNNADA and that he will kill him and his family members with a bomb.

Immediately, PW1 informed the same to the Minister and on his instructions, PW1 approached the police and lodged a complaint. The PW2-B. Rajesh Patel, who is cited as witness stated he does not know anything about the case and did not support the prosecution case and accordingly, he was declared as hostile witness.

11. Coming to the evidence of PW3-G. Venkatesham, First IO, deposed that on 03.08.2011 at 1445 hours, LW12-G Shanker, SI of Police, CCS, Hyderabad received a complaint from PW1, basing on which he registered this case in

Cr.No.229/2011 U/s 66A of IT Act, 2008 and Sec.307/511 of IPC and handed over the CD file to him for investigation. During his investigation PW3 examined the

LW1 and recorded his statement and mailed a requisition letter to Uninor Service provider, Nodal Office for furnishing the call records of mobile No.8341671252 and customer application form and details from January onwards for investigation.

Accordingly they furnished such data and after analyzing PW2 found that there are 9 IMEI Number including IMEI No. 355819034110910 and cell phone used with SIM No.8341671252. PW3 again sent mails to Nodal Officers of Uninor,

Tata, Airtel, Aircel, Reliance, BSNL, Idea and etc with a request to provide the call details of SIMs used in the said 9 IMEI numbers including IMEI 8 CC No.21 of 2016

No.355819034110910. Accordingly the Vodafone, Idea have provided the data, wherein, PW3 found that mobile SIM Nos.9505258791, 8886457463 and they were also used in the above said IMEI number. Further, there is another IMEI No.

55819034110928.

12. It is the further evidence of PW3 that after analyzing the data and tower locations, he came to know that the crime call is enumerated from Medak. Later,

PW3 secured the LW4-Dharmendra Kumar Pandey and examined him and recorded his statement and the PW3 along with his team visited Medak and caused enquiries and secured the presence of PW2 and examined him and recorded his statement and wherein the LW3 revealed that the accused was working since 3 years in Sri Omiya saw Mill and found the SIM card No.8341671252. Further,

PW3 secured the presence of LW2-Vidhya Sagar Kashyap and examined him and recorded his detailed statement and came to know that the accused took the lost

Uninor SIM. On 04.08.2011at 1400 hours on credible information they apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused admitted his guilt of commission of offence and accordingly, PW3 recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW5-K. Sharath & LW6-Y. Jeevan Kumar and seized one cell phone make forby, model No.S3650, dual SIM mobile phone having IMEI Nos.355819034110910, 355819034110928 having Unior SIM 9 CC No.21 of 2016

Nos.899181910, 74034450911 connection Number 8341671252 in one slot and

Vodafone SIM No.8991130240554128030, connection No. 8886457463 (2) one cell phone make ZTE without back cover, model Classic 261, S/N 341271019576 with mobile Sim connection No.9397392033 and (3) one IDEA SIM Card No,.

89910705320004883348 with connection no. 9505298791 from the possession of accused before the mediators under cover of panchanama. Later, affected the arrest and produced him before the court for judicial remand. At the time of remand, PW3 deleted the section 307 and 511 of IPC from the existing sections and added Sec 506 and 507 of IPC and later, sent seized mobile phones to FSL for examination and expert opinion. Later, on his transfer he handed over the CD file to Mazid Ali for further investigation.

13. Coming to the evidence of PW4-P. Ravi Kiran, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet, he deposed that he took the CD file from his predecessor namely

Mazid Ali Khan for further investigation and verified the investigation done by his predecessors and found in correct lines and found that FSL report was received in this case and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

14. It is the case of the accused that he is falsely implicated in this case and that nothing incriminating evidence against the accused is placed before this court to 10 CC No.21 of 2016 connect the accused with the case. It is the further case of the accused except the evidence of investigating officers no other independent witness is examined before this court. Further, the panch witnesses for alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama are also not examined before this court to prove the alleged seizure.

Further, the scientific officer who issued expert opinion is not examined before this court and the said opinion/ report is also not exhibited by the prosecution.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15. After meticulously scanning the entire material on record, the oral evidence of PW1 reveal that while he was working as Prl. Security Officer to the, the then

Minister, he received a threatening phone call made to the Minister and on the instructions of the Minister he lodged a police report. During the course of investigation, the PW3 basing on the reports of nodal officers and after analyzing the call data and tower locations apprehended the accused and recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seized the material objects alleged to be used in the commission of offence in the presence of panchas and also sent the same to FSL for analysis and opinion.

16. On further perusal of the record the panch witnesses for the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama are not examined before this court to prove 11 CC No.21 of 2016 the seizure. Further, no FSL report is marked before this court and the scientific officer is also not examined before this court.

17. After going through the entire record, this court is of the opinion that, in the case on hand there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution either orally or by way of documents to prove that the accused used the SIM

No.8341671252 through his mobile and called the Minister and threatened him.

Further, the alleged seizure is also not proved by the prosecution. More importantly, the scientific evidence is also not placed before this court to prove the fact that the alleged SIM was used in the mobile phone of the accused during the commission of offence.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case between Harbeer Singh

Vs Sheehspal and Others,reported in 2017(1) ALD (Crl) 5452(SC), wherein the

Hon’ble apex court held that “It is a cardinal principle of Criminal

jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another burden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced 12 CC No.21 of 2016 in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to accused be adopted. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of Jharkhand in a case between State of Bihar Vs Reyaz Ahmad wherein it was held that “ this follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to be benefit of every reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is , the benefit will go the accused.

19. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, and lack of documentary evidence, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offences charged against him beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

20. In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under

U/Sec.67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to 13 CC No.21 of 2016 the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. The MO-1 to MO-3 shall be handed over to its owner on proper proof of ownership and identification after expiry of appeal period.

Direct typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: B. Manya Naik, Complainant, - Nil - PW-2: B. Rajesh Patel, Witness, PW-3: G. Venkatesham, First Investigating Officer PW-4: P. Ravi Kiran, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1: Police report NIL Ex.P-2: Relevant portion of 161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P-3: FIR Ex.P-4: Admissible portion of confession- cum-seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO1: One mobile phone makes Forby along with SIM cards MO2: One ZTE mobile phone along with SIM cards MO3: One Idea SIM card 14 CC No.21 of 2016

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

// True Copy //

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

15 CC No.21 of 2016 ….............CC No.21 of 2016 .................

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

CC.No.21 of 2016

Date of report/complaint::03.08.2011 Date of apprehension of accused::04.08.2011 Date of commencement of trial::02.12.2024 Date of closure of trial::13.10.2025 Date of sentence/order::13.11.2025 Explanation for delay/remarks :: --- Complaint:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

Accused: Gopi Dhana Mohan Rao @ Mohan, S/o. G. Narsimha Rao, aged 49 years, Occ: Cutter in SRI Umiya Saw Mill, H.No.1-10-66/1, Auto Nagar, Medka, R/o. H.No.1-12-M/14, Jammikunta, Medak.

Offence:: 67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of IPC

Finding:: Found not guilty

Sentence/order:

In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.67(A) of IT Act, Sec.506 & 507 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. The MO-1 to MO- 3 shall be handed over to its owner on proper proof of ownership and identification after expiry of appeal period.

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 CC No.8891 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE : AT :: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SMT G. ANUSHA,

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 03 rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

C.C.No.8891 of 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad.

…. Complainant

AND

Gaddam Mounika, D/o. Late Gaddam Papaiah, aged 27 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o.H.No.21-7-600, Kokarwadi, Opp. High Court, Challapur, Charminar, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri G. Raghavendra, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri. CH. Thotaiah, Advocate, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The then Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad, has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.438 of 2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec.67A of

IT Act & Sec.504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short “IPC”) against the

Accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:- 2 CC No.8891 of 2023

(i) On 14.03.2022 at 15.45 hours the complainant/ LW1 – K. Shyamala

Devi lodged a police report stating that Miss. G. Mounika Yadav/ accused moves closely and friendly to the complainant and she took her phone number. Since last one year she has been sending some vulgar and inappropriate comments against her. She wants to defame her and her family and blackmail her. The complainant blocked her phone number, even though she repeated the same and has been sending inappropriate comments against her on different numbers. Hence police report.

(ii) Basing on the contents of above report LW5-B. Maruthi, SI of Police registered this case in Cr.No.438 of 2022 U/s.67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPC and handed over the case file to LW6-S. Sreenivasa Rao, Inspector of Police for further investigation. During the course of investigation LW6 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and collected the screenshots print outs where the accused sent abusive content to LW1 from her phone number and collected the

CDR’s of alleged mobile number 7702032279 which belongs to the accused.

During the course of his further investigation LW6 served notice U/s.41-A CrPC to the accused and on interrogation the accused confessed her guilt in the commission of offence. Accordingly, LW6 secured the presence of two mediators and seized mobile phone used in the commission of offence. Later, on his transfer

LW6 handed over the investigation to LW7-L. Bhaskar Reddy, Inspector of 3 CC No.8891 of 2023

Police, Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad for further investigation. During the course of his investigation LW7 obtained CAF particulars of alleged mobile number 7702032279 from Bharati Airtel Limited, in which the mobile number is registered on the name of accused i.e. Late G. Papaiah. After completion of investigation LW7 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.504 of IPC & Sec.67A of IT Act against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to the the Accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and she was examined U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C. for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences

U/Sec.67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPC. Hence charges for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular language.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW6 and the documents under Ex.P-1 to P-9 & MO1 are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating prosecution evidence 4 CC No.8891 of 2023 appearing against her, for which the Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on her behalf.

6.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offences punishable U/Sec.67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPC ?

8. POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that the PW1 and accused used to move closely and friendly and the accused took PW1’s phone number 9866726633. Later some personal and financial issues raised between them and then the accused started abusing PW1 and blackmailing her with abusive language to damage her personal life in the society.

9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offences U/s.67A of IT

Act & Sec.504 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients.

Section 504 of IPC:-

1. The accused has insulted the other person intentionally,

2. The intention of the person should be such that it is likely to provoke the person who has been insulted,

3. the accused has the knowledge that such provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or 5 CC No.8891 of 2023 under the influence of which, he can commit some other offence.

4. The provocation and the knowledge that the act of provoking another person may lead him to do something which can break the public peace are the secondary ingredients. A person is provoked only when he has insulted intentionally by some other person.

Section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 :-

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct

10. In order to prove all the above essential ingredients of offences, the prosecution initially relied upon the oral evidence of the PW1- Shyamala Devi who is the def-complainant and victim in this case, deposed that she knows the accused for last ten years as the accused used to meet frequently and used to visit her house. When PW1 refused the accused, she used to use vulgar and unparliamentary comments against her in social media platforms and used to defame her in front of relatives and fan’s. Further, the accused used to call PW1 to her phone number at midnight hours and threatened PW1 and messaged her by defaming her character and also used to call PW1 through various phone numbers when she blocked her mobile phone. Further, the accused also followed PW1 when she went to Thirumalu and Jathara. Due to unbearable torture of the accused, she lodged a police complaint before Cyber Crimes PS along with screen shots of alleged messages.

6 CC No.8891 of 2023

11. Coming to the evidence of PW2-Abdul Raoof & PW3-D. Mohan, panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama, deposed that they do not know anything about this case and in the year 2022 the police Cyber Crimes obtained their signatures on some empty papers. The PW-2 & 3 did not support the prosecution, accordingly, they were declared as hostile witnesses.

12. In order to prove the further case of the prosecution, the prosecution further relied upon the evidence of the nodal officer. The PW4-K. Geetha, Chief Nodal

Officer, Bharathi Airtel Ltd, deposed that in the month of September 2023, their office received a requisition from Cyber Crimes police requesting to provide customer application form for the mobile No.7702032279. Accordingly, their office furnished the same along with covering letter dated 29.09.2023 which was signed by her and they also furnished attested copy of CAF and its KYC.

13. Coming to the evidence of investigation officers i.e. PW5-S. Srinivas Rao & PW6-L. Bhaskar Reddy, deposed that on 14.03.2022 at 15.45 hours LW5-B.

Maruthi, SI of Police received police report from PW1, basing on that he registered this case in Cr.No.438/2022 U/s.67A IT Act, Sec.504 of IPC, issued FIR and handed over the CD file to PW5 for further investigation. During the course of his investigation PW5 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and collected 7 CC No.8891 of 2023 screen shots from PW1. During the course of his further investigation PW5 sent requisition for CDR and collected CDR from Airtel Service Provider pertaining to mobile number 7702032279. On 23.03.2022 served notice U/s.41A CrPC to the accused and on the same day the accused appeared before PW5 and accordingly, he secured two mediators PW2 & 3 and recorded the confession statement of accused and seized one mobile phone from her possession under cover of panchanama. Further, PW5 sent a requisition for obtaining customer application form of the above said mobile number. Later, on his transfer he handed over the

CD file to LW7 for further investigation. On 20.06.2023, PW6 received CD file from PW5 for further investigation and during the course of his investigation,

PW6 collected the CAF (Customer application form) of alleged mobile number from Bharati Airtel Ltd, which discloses it was registered in the name of Late

Gaddam Papaiah who was the father of accused. Thereafter, after depositing the case property and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14. The case of the accused is that she is falsely implicated in this case and she is no way concerned with these alleged offences and that there are no enclosures annexed to the Ex.P1/ police report by the PW1 and except the alleged messages there is no abusive language used by the accused allegedly. Further, the CAF collected by the PW6 stands in the name of late Gaddam Papaiah and not in the 8 CC No.8891 of 2023 name of accused. Further, said Papaiah is not examined before this court. Further, no evidence is placed before the court that the accused is using the mobile of her father. It is the further case of the accused that the language used by the accused was not made in public and the PW1 did not report to anybody about the filthy language used by the accused. Further, there is no evidence placed before this court to prove that messages were sent through the mobile numbers given by

PW1, further, there is a delay of 1 year in lodging Ex.P1 and admittedly Ex.P1 was not annexed with the screen-shots and the said screen-shots were given after 10 days of lodging police report. Further, Sec.65B certificate is given improperly.

It is the further case of the accused that the alleged seizure is not as per CRP and there is no signature on the MO1 and there are no panch chits affixed to MO1 and the Ex.P1 police report and the 161 CrPC statement of PW1 are very similar. It is the further specific case of the accused that there is no scientific evidence on record to prove that the said messages were sent by the accused to the PW1 using her mobile phone. Only due to financial disputes between PW1 & accused this case was registered. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal on account of benefit of doubt and lack of documentary evidence.

15. After meticulously scanning the entire material on record, the undisputed facts are that the accused and PW1 are known to each other and they have 9 CC No.8891 of 2023 acquaintance. Further, undisputed fact is that the alleged mobile number 7702032279 of which the CAF particulars are obtained by the IO during the course of investigation is not in the name of Accused and the said person is also not examined before this court. Further, the panch witnesses for alleged seizure panchanama did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Moreover, the MO1 is not forwarded to FSL to retrieve the alleged messages. It is further undisputed fact that no documentary evidence is produced before this court to establish the relationship between the accused and the said Papaiah. Even PW1’s testimony is also silent with regard to the said fact.

16. On perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, though the oral evidence of PW1 established that she received abusive messages through whatsapp and messages, the documentary evidence available on the record doesn’t establish the fact that the accused herself sent messages to the PW1 through the alleged mobile number mentioned above and also don’t prove the fact that the said messages are sexually explicit in nature and that those messages may provoke breach of public peace.

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case between Harbeer Singh

Vs Sheehspal and Others,reported in 2017(1) ALD (Crl) 5452(SC), wherein the 10 CC No.8891 of 2023

Hon’ble apex court held that “It is a cardinal principle of Criminal

jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another burden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to accused be adopted. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of Jharkhand in a case between State of Bihar Vs Reyaz Ahmad wherein it was held that “ this follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to be benefit of every reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is , the benefit will go the accused.

18. Therefore, in the absence of corroborative piece of evidence, and lack of documentary evidence, this court is of considered view that the testimonies of the 11 CC No.8891 of 2023

PW1 to PW6 are not cogent, convincing, credit-worthy and cannot be believed.

Therefore, on account of lack of evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPCand the accused is entitled for acquittal on account of benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

19. In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under

U/Sec.67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPCand she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. MO1 shall be handed over to its owner/ accused on proper identification and acknowledgment.

Direct typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: K. Shyamala Devi, victim, - Nil - PW-2: Abdul Raoof, panch witness for seizure report, PW-3: B. Mohan Naik, panch witness for seizure report, PW-4: Nodal Officer of Bharathi Airte, circumstantial witness, PW-5: S. Sreenivasa Rao, First Investigating Officer, PW-6: L. Bhaskar Reddy, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet, 12 CC No.8891 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1: Police complaintNIL Ex.P-2: Screen shots of alleged messaged Ex.P-3: Certificate U/s.,65-B of IE Act Ex.P-4: Signature of PW2 on confession- cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-5: Signature of PW3 on confession- cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-6: Covering letter Ex.P-7: Attested copy of Customer Application Form Ex.P-8: FIR Ex.P-9: Seizure report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

MO1- Samsung Mobile Phone NIL

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

// True Copy //

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

13 CC No.8891 of 2023 ….............CC No.8891 of 2023 .................

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

CC.No.8891 of 2023

Date of report/complaint::14.03.2022 Date of apprehension of accused::--- Date of commencement of trial::16.12.2024 Date of closure of trial::20.08.2025 Date of sentence/order::03.10.2025 Explanation for delay/remarks :: --- Complaint:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

Accused: Gaddam Mounika, D/o. Late Gaddam Papaiah, aged 27 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o.H.No.21-7-600, Kokarwadi, Opp. High Court, Challapur, Charminar, Hyderabad.

Offence:: 67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPC

Finding:: Found not guilty

Sentence/order:

In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.67A of IT Act & Sec.504 of IPCand she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. MO1 shall be handed over to its owner/ accused on proper identification and acknowledgment.

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 CC No.2273 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE : AT :: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SMT G. ANUSHA,

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 01 st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

C.C.No.2273 of 2024

BETWEEN: The Telangana State Disaster Response & Fire Services Department, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Telangana Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

AND

Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o. Suraj Karan Jaiswal, aged 53 years, R/o.H.No.11-4- 58/1, Bazarghat, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri G. Raghavendra, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri. D. Raji Reddy, Advocate, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant District Fire Officer, Telangana Legislative Assembly, has filed a complaint U/s.200 R/w 190(1)© of CrPC for the offences U/s.31 & 32 of

Telangana Fire Services Act 1999 against the Accused.

2. The brief allegations in the complaint are as follows:- 2 CC No.2273 of 2024

(i) The complainant herein is authorized by the Director, Telangana State

Fire Services & Civil Defence Training Institute, Ranga Reddy to file a complaint against the accused. On 13.11.2022 at about 07.00 hours a major fir accident took place in the premises of Balaji Residence, H.No.11-5-49/1, Bazarghat, Nampally,

Hyderabad and on receipt of information from the Fire Control Room at 09.35 hours, the Station Fire Officer, Assembly and crew of Fire Station Assembly rushed to the spot and on ascertaining the intensity of the Fire, immediately Water

Bowser was called from the Gowliguda Fire Station for assistance. As the building setbacks were stored mostly with Resin drums, the fire was rapidly spreading. As such, Multi-Purpose tender from Fire Station Jubilee Hills rushed to the spot and as the fire was spreading from all the directions of the building, to meet the water scarcity, water cum foam tender Salarjung Museum, Bronto Sky Lift,

Secunderabad Division, Water Cum Foam Tender from Fire Station Snorkel,

Water Tender from Fire Station Yakuthpura and Multi-Purpose Tender,

Secretariat were turned out to the Fire Spot. Further, it is found that due to the negligence and not following the Fire and Lift safety measures, it lead to the cause of death of 09 persons.

(ii) During the course of enquiry, it found statutory violations, as the owner of the builder/ Accused constructed a Residential Apartment (A-4) consisting stilt + 4 upper floors on the name of Balaji Residence, H.No.11-5-49/1, Bazarghat, 3 CC No.2273 of 2024

Hyderabad with the height of 17.60 mts and all the setbacks of the building was stored by Resin Drums by the owner of building without taking any fire preventive measures and also failed to install fire prevention and fire safety measures in the building. Due to which, fire spread rapidly towards all directions and due to the negligence of the owner and as to not following Fire and Life

Safety Measures, it lead to death of 9 persons. The owner of building failed to provide any fire safety equipment or installations in the building such as

Extinguishers, Hose Reel Hose, Down Comer, Teerace tank 25000 Ltrs capacity and Booster Pump 900 LPM capacity at Terrace Tank.

3. This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.31 & 32 of Telangana

Fire Service Act, 1999 & Rule 15 & 27 of the Telangana Fire and Emergency

Operations and Levi of Fee Rules 2006. The copies of the documents were furnished to accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences U/Sec.31 & 32 of Telangana Fire Service Act, 1999 & Rule 15 & 27 of the Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and Levi of Fee Rules 2006.

Hence charges for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language.

4 CC No.2273 of 2024 4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 & PW2 and the documents under Ex.P-1 to P-4 are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which the Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/Sec.31 & 32 of Telangana Fire Service Act, 1999 & Rule 15 & 27 of the Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and Levi of Fee Rules 2006?

8. POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that accused constructed a residential apartment (A-4) consisting stillt + 4 upper floors in the name of Balaji

Residence, H.No.11-5-49/1, Bazarghat, Nampally, Hyderabad with the height of 17.60 mts and all the setbacks of the building was stored by Resin drums without taking any fire preventive measures and also failed to install required fire prevention and fire safety measures in the said building, due to which fire spread 5 CC No.2273 of 2024 rapidly towards all the directions of building and due to the said negligence and as to not following the Fire and Life safety measures it lead to death of 9 persons.

9. In order to prove their case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1-

Dhanunjay Reddy, defacto-complainant & PW2-K. Madhusudhan Rao, District

Fire Officer, Secunderabad.

10. The PW1-Dhanunjay Reddy, who is the def-complainant, deposed that on 13.11.2023 they received an information from control room stating that a fire accident occurred in Bazarghat, Red Hills, Nampally, immediately the staff rushed to the spot and wherein, they found that there was fire accident in a residential apartment duty to the intensity of the fire. Intensity of the fire informed to the other fire station and in total 8 fire tenders came and made rescue operation. When the PW1’s staff reached, in total 26 members were inside of the building, out of them, they rescued 17 persons and rest of persons were died in the fire accident.

They found fiber reinforced polymer and resin drums which used to production of plastic materials i.e. flammable item which produces heavy smoke also and with the fire fighters they put off the flames. PW1 further deposed that generally the stilt area used for parking but, instead of it, the owner of the said building kept the flammable items and drums which caused the fire accident.

6 CC No.2273 of 2024

11. Coming to the evidence of PW2-K. Madhusudhan Rao, District Fire

Officer, deposed that on 13.11.2023 at 7.00 PM they received an information from control room stating that a fire accident occurred in Bazarghat, Red Hills,

Nampally, immediately, PW2 along with his staff rushed to the spot and found there was fire accident in a residential apartment duty to the intensity of the fire.

Intensity of the fire informed to the other fire station. When their staff reached, in total 26 members were inside of the building, out of them, they rescued 15-20 persons and rest of persons were died in the fire accident. It is Stilt + 4 floors building and surrounded with other residential buildings. They found fiber reinforced polymer and resin drums which are used for production of plastic materials i.e. flammable item which produces heavy smoke also and with the fire fighters they put off the flames. Accordingly, PW2 informed the entire operations to higher authorities. Generally the stilt area used for parking but, instead of it, the owner of the said building kept the flammable items and drums which caused to fire accident.

12. It is the case of the accused that he is falsely implicated in this case and that nothing incriminating evidence against the accused is placed before this court to connect the accused with the case. It is the further case of the accused except the oral evidence of PW1 & 2 there is no incriminating material against the accused 7 CC No.2273 of 2024 connecting him to this case. Further, admittedly, as per the evidence of PW1, his inspection does not disclose the cause of accident and till date he do not know the cause of accident. Further, Sec.32 of Fire Service Act 1999 is meant for companies to prosecute and in the case no company is made as an accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13. After meticulously scanning the entire material on record, the sole basis of registering this case against the accused is for the reason that the accused constructed a residential apartment (A-4) consisting stilt + 4 upper floors in the name of Balaji Residence, H.No.11-5-49/1, Bazarghat, Nampally, Hyderabad and that he stored all the setbacks of building with Resin drums without taking any fire preventive measures and also failed to install required fire prevention and fire safety measures in the said building, due to which fire spread rapidly towards all the directions of building and due to his negligence for not following the Fire and

Life safety measures it lead to death of 9 persons.

14. On further perusal of the record, during the course of cross-examination, the

PW1 surprisingly deposed that as per their inspection and as per their complaint, he couldn't come to the conclusion whether accused is the owner or occupier of the said premises. It is further elicited by the learned counsel during the course of 8 CC No.2273 of 2024 cross-examination that PW1 cannot say whether the accused is residing in the said premises or not and that their inspection notes does not disclose the cause of accident and till date he does not know the cause of accident. It is further elicited that nothing is sent to FSL to know the nature of product which he found. Further, the PW2 also deposed on the same lines and stated that he does not know the reasons for the accident occurred.

15. After going through the entire record, it is pertinent to note that the fire accident took place due to the presence of flammable substances at the scene of offence. But, basing on the cross-examination of PW1 & 2, this court is of the considered opinion that, in the case on hand there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution either orally or by way of documentary to prove that on the date of incident accused is the owner/ occupier of the above premises and that he stored flammable substances in the said premises without taking any precautionary steps and due to which fire accident occurred. Much less, the oral evidence of PW2 also suffers from serious contradictions which go to the root of the prosecution case.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case between Harbeer Singh

Vs Sheehspal and Others,reported in 2017(1) ALD (Crl) 5452(SC), wherein the 9 CC No.2273 of 2024

Hon’ble apex court held that “It is a cardinal principle of Criminal

jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another burden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to accused be adopted. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of Jharkhand in a case between State of Bihar Vs Reyaz Ahmad wherein it was held that “ this follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to be benefit of every reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is , the benefit will go the accused.

17. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, and lack of documentary evidence, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has 10 CC No.2273 of 2024 failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offences charged against him beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under

U/Sec.31 & 32 of Telangana Fire Service Act, 1999 & Rule 15 & 27 of the

Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and Levi of Fee Rules 2006 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Direct typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01st day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: Dhanunjaya Reddy, Complainant, - Nil - PW-2: K. Madhusudhan Rao, Witness,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1: Complaint NIL Ex.P-2: Proceedings dated 05.12.2023 authorizing PW1 to file complaint Ex.P-3: Attested copy of inspection report Ex.P-4: Attested copy of fire report (4 sheets) 11 CC No.2273 of 2024

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

NILNIL

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

// True Copy //

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

12 CC No.2273 of 2024 ….............CC No.2273 of 2024 .................

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

CC.No.2273 of 2024

Date of report/complaint::25.01.2024 Date of apprehension of accused::--- Date of commencement of trial::11.09.2025 Date of closure of trial::16.10.2025 Date of sentence/order::01.12.2025 Explanation for delay/remarks :: --- Complaint:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Telangana Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad.

Accused: Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o. Suraj Karan Jaiswal, aged 53 years, R/o.H.No.11-4- 58/1, Bazarghat, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

Offence:: U/Sec.31 & 32 of Telangana Fire Service Act, 1999 & Rule 15 & 27 of the Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and Levi of Fee Rules 2006

Finding:: Found not guilty

Sentence/order:

In the result, this court found the Accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.31 & 32 of Telangana Fire Service Act, 1999 & Rule 15 & 27 of the Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and Levi of Fee Rules 2006 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 CC No.362 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE : AT :: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SMT G. ANUSHA,

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 14 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

C.C.No.362 of 2017

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Technical Cell, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

AND

Syed Riyaz Ahmed, S/o. Syed Sultan Mohiuddin, aged 50 years, Occ: Cell Phone Business near KGN mobiles, Jagadeesh Market, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.17- 6-468, Harilal Bagh, Azampura, Hyderabad. ... A9

(Case against A1 to A8 ended as acquittal in CC.No.137 of 2013 on

21.02.2018)

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri G. Raghavendra, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri. Syed Imam Ali Shah, Advocate, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The then Inspector of Police, Technical Cell, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.46 of 2013 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short “IPC”) against the Accused.

2 CC No.362 of 2017

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

(i) On 04.04.2013 at 1540 hours the LW1-K. Murali Krishna, representing as Senior Investigating Officer for EPIR (India Ltd), Mumbai, lodged a police report stating that approximately 8 to 10 shops are selling Samsung Counterfeit

Mobile phones at their counter and causing huge losses to the company as well as tarnishing the image and reputation of their Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd, which amounts to cheating the public and as well and is a violation of Trade

Mark/ Copy Right Act for the product which the company holds. The LW1 is full trained by the company to identify the counterfeits from the originals and he is also authorized to carry out investigations in the A.P., Market and to file necessary complaints with the Law Enforcement Agencies on the behalf of the company.

Hence, police report.

(ii) Basing on the contents of above report LW10-M. Shankar, Inspector of

Police registered this case in Cr.No.46 of 2013 U/s.51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right

Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPC and handed over the CD file to LW11-V. Surya

Chander Rao, Inspector of Police for further investigation. During the course of investigation LW11 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 & LW2-Ajith

Singh Thomar and visited Jagadish Market and sent an informant to decoy to buy

Samsung mobile from the shop of A6 and he supplied the counterfeit Samsung mobile having only sticker of Samsung and entire apparatus and accessories were 3 CC No.362 of 2017 found to be counterfeit. Said mobile phones are not supported by warranty, user manual and packs and accessories do not show the branch name of genuine company. LW11 informed the same to superior officers and as per instructions of the superior officers three more Inspectors of Police from CCS, Hyderabad joined

LW12-M. Ravinder Reddy, Inspector of Police and they divided into four teams and conducted searches on desk and kiosk vendors and table/counter space vendors of the several shops and found that Al to A9 are indulging in sale of counterfeited Samsung Mobile phones and Nokia and I-Phones. A total number of 148 Phones have been seized and separate confessional statements of A.1 to A8 have been recorded before the Panchas LW4-A. Yoganand, LW5-K. Srinivas,

LW6-K. Sai Krishna & LW7-T. Rakesh. On 05-04-2013 the A9 was apprehended at Jagadeesh Market, Abids, Hyderabad. Immediately, the LW12 secured the presence of Panchas the LW5 & 6 and drafted the Confessional Statement of A9 and seized the 10 Duplicate Samsung Cell Phone Covers in the presence of LW5 & 6 under the cover of Confessional-Cum-Seizure Panchanama, later, effected the arrest of A9 took him into custody. Further, all the seized items were found to be imitation of genuine branded mobiles and containing manufacturing variations.

The LW3-Fabian D Silva furnished his opinion stating that the seized Duplicate

Samsung Mobile Handsets IMEI Numbers does not belong to any of the Model in

Samsung Mobiles. After completion of investigation LW12 filed charge-sheet 4 CC No.362 of 2017 against the A1 to A9 for the offences U/s.51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 &

Sec.420 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.51(b)(1), 63 of Copy

Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPC against the A1 to A9. In view of the Stay granted against the A9 by the Hon’ble High Court vide Crl.RP.No.12700 of 2013, the case against the A9 was split up from the main case (CC.No.137 of 2013) and registered as this case. The copies of the documents were furnished to A9 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences U/Sec.51(b) (1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPC. Hence charges for the above offences were framed, read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 & PW2 and the documents under Ex.P-1 to P-3 & MO-1 is marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused No.9 was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating prosecution evidence 5 CC No.362 of 2017 appearing against him, for which the Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/Sec.51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPC ?

8. POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.9 is indulged in selling of counterfeit mobile phones as genuine Samsung mobile phones by branding them with logos of Samsung at cheaper rates and cheating the general public and using other brands to violate the Copy Right Act.

9. In order to prove their case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1-

K. Murali Krishna, who is the def-complainant, deposed that he is the

Investigating Officer in DIPR (Enforces of Intellectual Property Tights) since 2008. On 04.04.2013 he received credible information about selling of duplicate mobile phones in the name of Samsung in mobile shops, Abids. Then he verified and lodged a police complaint.

6 CC No.362 of 2017

10. Coming to the evidence of PW2-M. Ravinder Reddy, Investigating

Officer, deposed that on 04.04.2013 LW11-V. Surya Chander Rao, Inspector of

Police received complaint from PW1, basing on that he registered this case in

Cr.No.46/2013 U/s.51B, 63 of Copy Right Act & Sec.420 of IPC and issued FIR and entrusted the CD file to PW2 for investigation. Accordingly, PW2 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and on the same day he informed to other inspectors and LW7 & LW8 and they all together proceeded to Jagadish Market and conducted raid on the A9 along with the A1 to A8 and during the raid they recovered 148 counterfeit mobile phones. PW2 recovered 10 Samsung duplicate cell phone covers from the possession of A9 under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. After completion of panchanama, PW2 took the A9 along with A1 to A8 to the police station and after completion of all legal formalities, effected the arrest of accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge- sheet.

11. In support of the case of accused, the learned counsel for the accused for memorandum of written arguments, submitting that during the course of cross- examination PW1 stated that he does not know the accused and he does not remember as to what was seized from the possession of accused. Further, the PW2 in his cross-examination stated that he neither used any device to verify the 7 CC No.362 of 2017 authenticity of the seized phone covers nor any technician was engaged on this count. The learned counsel further submitted that the PW1 has no locus-standi to file this case as his authorization was expired on 27.02.2013 and the present complaint was lodged on 04.04.2013, as such, he is not the authorized person nor has any locus-standi to file this case. Further, no Trade Mark certificate\ is filed

before this court to identify the differences between the original and duplicate

Samsung mobile phones. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. After meticulously scanning the entire material on record, the undisputed facts are that the present case is registered for the reason that the A1 to A9 are selling unbranded mobile phones as Samsung mobile phones by branding stickers and logos of Samsung and cheating the general public and violating the Trade

Marks Act. Admittedly, in the case on hand no mobile phones were recovered from the possession of A9. The only material alleged to be seized from the possession of A9 are that of mobile phone covers. Further, no Trade Mark

Certificate is placed before this court to identify the differences between the original and duplicate. Further, no panch witness is examined before this court to prove the alleged recovery.

8 CC No.362 of 2017

13. Further, no document is marked by the prosecution to show that the PW1 is the authorized person to lodge a complaint, in such case, wherein, the learned counsel claiming that the authorization of PW1 was expired on 27.02.2013 and the present complaint was lodged on 04.04.2013, as such, he is not the authorized person nor has any locus-standi to file this case. Further, except the oral testimony of PW2, there is no proof of seizure of property from the possession of A9.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case between Harbeer Singh

Vs Sheehspal and Others,reported in 2017(1) ALD (Crl) 5452(SC), wherein the

Hon’ble apex court held that “It is a cardinal principle of Criminal

jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another burden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to accused be adopted. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of Jharkhand in a case between State of Bihar Vs Reyaz Ahmad wherein it was held that “ this follows from the cardinal principle that the 9 CC No.362 of 2017 accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is , the benefit will go the accused.

15. Therefore, in the absence of corroborative piece of evidence, and lack of documentary evidence, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A9 for the offences charged against him beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16. In the result, this court found the Accused A9 is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec. 51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPCand he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

10 CC No.362 of 2017

Direct typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: K. Murali Krishna, Defacto-Complainant,- Nil - PW-2: M. Ravinder Reddy, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1: Police complaintNIL Ex.P-2: FIR Ex.P-3: Admissible portion of confession- cum-seizure panchanama of A9

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

MO1- 10 Samsung Mobile Phone Covers NIL

Sd/-

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

// True Copy //

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

11 CC No.362 of 2017 ….............CC No.362 of 2017 .................

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

CC.No.362 of 2017

Date of report/complaint::04.04.2013 Date of apprehension of accused::--- Date of commencement of trial::19.12.2024 Date of closure of trial::03.09.2025 Date of sentence/order::14.10.2025 Explanation for delay/remarks :: --- Complaint:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Technical Cell, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

Accused:

Syed Riyaz Ahmed, S/o. Syed Sultan Mohiuddin, aged 50 years, Occ: Cell Phone Business near KGN mobiles, Jagadeesh Market, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.17- 6-468, Harilal Bagh, Azampura, Hyderabad.

Offence:: 51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPC

Finding:: Found not guilty

Sentence/order:

In the result, this court found the Accused A9 is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.51(b)(1), 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 & Sec.420 of IPCand he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subject to the Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD