Smt.G.Bhanumathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. G. BHANUMATHI, IV Metropolitan Magistrate court, -Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam.

DATED: THIS THE 20 th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C.No. 454 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police POLICE STATION:IBRAHIMPATNAM. … COMPLAINANT

A N D

A1: Kommagoni Swamy S/o. Jangaiah, Aged 32 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Hotel Business, R/o. H. No. 7-16-19, MBR Nagar colony, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, R. R. District, N/o. Chandrayanapally village, Charakonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

A2 :Kaithi Bixapathi S/o. Kaithi Yellaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, Caste: Goud, R/o. H. No. 2-174/25, Chinna Kondur village, Chowtuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. … ACCUSED

This case is coming on 20th day of April, 2018 for hearing before me in the presence of learned public prosecutor for the state, and Sri D. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station at Ibrahimpatnam laid charge sheet against the accused person in Crime No. 51 of 2017 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 26.01.2017 at about 1730 hrs the LW-10/K. Lingaswamy Sub-

Inspector of Police at Ibrahimpatnam received a credible information 2 about selling liquor bottles without license. As such LW10 along with available staff went to the accused no.1/ Kommagoni Swamy S/o.

Jangaiah’s house, H. No. 7-16-19, opposite RTC Depot, MBR Nagar,

Ibrahimpatnam and found the accused no.1 was possession of illicit liquor bottle. Further he stated that he was running mess on the name of title of “Swathwic Mess” at Ibrahimpatnam. As per the instruction of Hi-Tech Wines owner on 25-01-5017 he purchased the liquor bottles from Hi-Tech wines, Ibrahimpatnam to sell the same on the day of

Republic day on 26-01-2017. Further he stated that the owner of the

Hi-Tech wines instructed to sell the liquor on the day of Republic day for hike rates to normal public and they would share the amount equally. As such he purchased the liquor bottles from Hi-Tech wines on 25-01-2017 and kept in his house. LW10 taken the accused into custody and seized the illicit liquor i.e. 1) Kingfisher Beer (350 ml)-35,

2) MC Dowells No.1 (180 ml)-63, 3) Royal Stage (375 ml)-03, Total (101) Liquor bottles under cover of seizure of seizure panchanama and brought the accused along with seized property to police station for necessary action.

3.Basing on the above panchanama on 26.01.2017 at 1830 hrs

LW9 registered a sue-moto case vide in Cr. No. 51/2016 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and investigation entrusted to LW11/G.

Eroji.

4.During the course of investigation of LW11 recorded the statement of another witness LW1/Kondapuram Yadagiri and

LW2/Jelpally Yadagiri as per the panchanama. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed about his guilty of offence. As such 3

LW11 informed the grounds of his arrest under the provisions of 41-A

Cr.P.C. and issued arrest memo duly explained him about his aground of arrest affected at 1830 hrs and intimated to his relatives and sent him for judicial remand. LW5/Syed Yaseen Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise passed confiscation orders, in destroyed order, in which the LW7 passed compounding orders. The LW12/N. Shankar destroyed the seized property in the presence of LW6/Abdulla Anjaiah and LW7/Gadasu Pentaiah under cover of destroyed panchanama.

Collected FSL report, in which LW8/V. R. Gunasheela who furnished FSL report and opinion.

5.Investigation revealed that the accused no.1 was running the

Swathika Mess at Ibrahimpatnam and accused no.2 was running Hi-

Tech wines at Ibrahimpatnam. The accused no.2 instructed the accused no.1 to sell the illicitly liquor on republic day i.e. on 26-07- 2017 with hike rates and they will share the money equally. As per the instructions of accused no.2, on 25-01-2017 the accused no.1 purchased liquor bottles from accused no.2 wines shop and kept in his house and on 26-01-2017 at 1730 hrs the accused no.1 selling the illicitly liquor to normal public for hike rates and gaining money. As such LW10 raided the house of accused no.1 and seized the illicitly liquor bottles i.e. 1) Kingfisher Beer (350 ml)-35, 2) MC Dowells No.1 (180 ml)-63, 3) Royal Stage (375 ml)-03, Total (101) liquor bottles in the presence of LW3 and 4 under cover of panchanama. Thus, the accused have committed on offence punishable under section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act. Hence, the charge.

4

6. This case was taken on file for the offenses under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused persons.

7.On the appearance of the accused person the copies of the relevant papers and documents were furnished under section 207

Criminal Procedure Code The accused were examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for which they denied the commission of offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.Heard. Charges framed. Posted for Trial.

9.During trial, the prosecution examined Pw-1/B. Pruthvi Raj, PW- 2/K. Yadagiri, Pw-3/N. Shankar and Pw4/K. Lingaswamy Sub-Inspector of Police. On behalf of the prosecution Ex.P1 to P5 got marked. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW-1 on seizure cum confessional panchanama,

Ex.P2 is the seizure cum confessional panchanama, Ex. P3 First

Information Report, Ex. P4 is the FSL report and Ex.P5 is the seized property of destroyed panchanama.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, they denied the prosecution evidence and reported no evidence.

11.Heard the learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the entire documentary and oral evidence.

12.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond reasonable

doubts?

5

a).In this case the prosecution shown the Lw1 to 12 as prosecution witnesses to prove the offence against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. LW4 who is the panch witness examined as PW-1 and he did not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. He deposed that the police

Ibrahimpatnam staff did not drafted any confessional panchanama of accused and did not seized any property from the accused and they obtained their signature on white papers. LW3 who is panch witness evidence closed as police report stated that LW3 where abouts not known and not residing in given address. LW1 examined as PW2 and he deposed on 26.1.2017 he along with Lw2/J.Yadagiri Reddy HG and

Lw10/K.Linga Swamy sub inspector of police were on patrolling duty at

Ibrahimpatnam. Then Lw10 received some credible information that some persons selling the Beer bottles at their house at MBR nagar

Ibrahimpatnam. Immediately they rushed to their accused no.1 present there and Lw10 interrogated him. During the interrogation accused no.1 revealed that he purchased the Beer bottles from accused no.2 shop and selling the same to the purchasers for higher prices. They secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw3 and searched the house of accused no.1. They seized the 101 liquor bottles from the house of the accused no.1. Lw10 drafted panchanama, in the presence of the panch witnesses. They returned to the police station along with the accused no.1 and seized property and produced before Lw11/G.Eroji for further investigation and Police examined him and recorded my statement 6

b)LW12 examined PW3 and he deposed that on 26.1.2017 at about 17.30 hrs while Lw10 along with Pw2 and Lw2 was on patrolling duty at

Ibrahimpatnam. On credible information that some persons selling the beer bottles at their house at MBR Nagar they went there. At the house of the accused no.1 they interrogated the accused no.1. During the interrogation he revealed that he purchased the beer bottles from accused no.2 shop and selling the same to the purchasers for higher price. He secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw3 and drafted scene cum seizer cum confession panchanama. Ex.P2 is the panchanama.

He returned to the police station along with panchanama and accused no.1 and produced before Lw9/K.Shankar sub inspector of police.

Basing on panchanama Lw9 registered a case in crime no. 51/17 under section 34 (a) of Excise act, and issued FIR. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Later the file entrusted to the Lw11. He recorded the statements of Pw2 and

Lw2 and he effected the arrested of the accused no.1 and remanded to judicial custody. Lw11 complied section 41 A Cr.P.C notice against the accused no.2. He collected the samples of seized property to the FSL for chemical examination and report. Later on transfer of Lw11 the file entrusted to me for further investigation. During the course of my investigation he have collected the FSL report. Ex.P4 is the FSL report.

He had obtained permission from the Dy. Commissioner of Excise for destruction of seized property and he destroy the seized property under destruction panchanama in the presence of Lw6 and 7. Ex. P5 is the destruction panchanama. After collected all the documents he filed charge against the accused 7

c)LW10 examined as PW4 he deposed that On 26.1.2017 at 17.30 hrs on credible information he along with the Pw2 and Lw2 went to the

Ibrahimpatnam RTC depot, MBR Nagar, and found one person namely

K.Swamy who is accused no.1 was having possession of illicitly liquor bottles. He confessed that he was running the Sathwik Mess at

Ibrahimpatnam. He further stated that the accused no.2 was HI Tech wines at Ibrahimpatnam and on 25.1.2017 he purchased the liquor bottles from his wine shop and as per his instructions accused no.1 selling the same for higher rates on 26.1.2017. Them, he secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw3 and drafted the confessional cum seizer cum and scene panchanama in their presence. Ex.P2 is panchanama. He returned to the police along with the seized property and accused no.1 and produced before Lw9. Later Lw11 recorded his statement. Lw11 complied section 41 A Cr.P.C notice against the accused no.2

d).Hence, in this case there is no evidence except the investigation officer evidence, the independent witnesses are turned hostile and did not supporting the prosecution case and the prosecution did not examined any of the purchasers. In those circumstances, it is not just and reasonable to believe the evidence of the police staff and convict the accused on the basis of sole testimony of the evidence of police.

As the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused, he is liable to be acquitted.

13). From the above discussions the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused persons for the offense punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

8 14). In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubts and there is no material on record for the conviction of the accused.

In the result, the accused persons found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, and they acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months and thereafter they shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly, typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of March, 2018.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

Pw-1 : B. Pruthvi Raj. -Nil- Pw-2 : K. Yadagiri. Pw-3 : N. Shankar Kumar. Pw-4 : K. Lingaswamy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW-1 seizure cum confessional panchanama. Ex.P2 : Scene of seizure cum confessional panchanama. Ex.P3 : First Information Report. Ex.P4 : FSL report.

9

Ex.P5 : Destroyed panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Both side nil.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Smt. G. BHANUMATHI, IV Metropolitan Magistrate court, -Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam.

Dated this the 23 rd day of April, 2018

C.C.No. 73 of 2015

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police POLICE STATION: IBRAHIMPATNAM. … Complainant

A N D

Dr. Adapa Srinivas Rao S/o. Sri Raja Rao, Aged 66 years, Caste: Telaga, Occ: Principal of Suprabhath college of Engineering, Sheriguda village, R/o. H. No. 9-81/1, street no. 4, HMT Nagar, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case is coming on 23rd day of April, 2018 for hearing

before me in the presence of learned public prosecutor for the

state, and Sri T. Ravikiran, Advocate for accused appeared and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station laid Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 125/2014, for the offence punishable under section 420, 409 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. The brief facts of the facts of the case are as follows:

2

On 26.03.2014 at 1100 hrs complainant of LW1/B. Krishna

Reddy, Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Hayathnagar division, R. R.

District, in which stated that the accused person/ Dr. Adapa

Srinivas Rao S/o. Sri Raja Rao, Aged 66 years, Caste: Telaga, Occ:

Principal of Suprabhath college of Engineering, Sheriguda village

was fraudulent claimed the PMS & RTF in respect of LW2/Sri B.

Gopal. All the records of the college pertaining to scholarships have verified by the ABCWO and DBCWO and himself for all four years from 2009-10 to 2012-13, and found satisfactory expect in the case of LW2. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of above complaint, LW4/Md. Ghouse registered a case in crime. No. 125/2014 under section 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation.

4.During the investigation, LW4 examined and recorded the detailed statement of the LW1 and LW3/M. Ravinder Reddy. As per the instructions of LW4, the LW3 went to Siripur of Nizamabad and examined the LW2 and recorded his detailed statement.

Verified the all relevant documents from Suprabhath college of

Engineering and technology, Sheriguda village, Ibrahimpatnam

Mandal i.e. 1) Student admitted list issued by Government of

Andhrapradesh, 2) Scholarships sanctioned details, 3) copy of students register, 4) Student admission register and also collected the certified copies of the relevant documents from 3 office of the Dy. Director (BCW) Rangareddy district i.e. 1)

Application for post-metric scholarship (frees) for the year 2009- 10, 2) Intermediate Marks Memo, 3) SSC Marks Memo, 4) T.C.

Issued by Shaakary Jr. college, Pangara village, Hyderabad, 5)

Bonafide/dated of Birth certificate, 6) Community Native ad date of Birth certificate, 7) Income certificate of Residence, 8)

Certificate of residence, 9) Distance certificate, 10) Ration Card,

11) Local candidate certificate, 12) Bonafide certificate issued by

Suprabath Engineering & Technology, college Ibrahimpatnam.

Thereafter collected the application status report (fee reimbursement) as of 200902405047 from BC welfare office,

Hayath Nagar, Ibrahimpatnam, R. R. district for the academic year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13. Total fee reimbursement Rs. 1,32, 800/- claimed by the accused. As per the collection of evidence the prima facia prove against the accused. A such LW4 served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C.

against the accused.

5.The investigation done so far is well established that the accused who is the Principal of Suprabhath college of Engineering and Technology, Sheriguda village. The LW2 is the victim by name Boddu Gopal and he is the presently as per the filing of date he studying MPCS Degree final year in Nishitha Degree college at Nizamabad. In the year 2009 he applied for entrance of EAMSET through online. At that time he uploaded his all 4 relevant education documents like Intermediate marks memo,

SSC Marks memo, Transfer Certificate, Bonafide, Caste certificate, Income certificate, Residential certificate, Distance certificate, Ration card and local candidate certificate etc., taking advantage the accused downloaded all the certificates of victim

LW2 through online and created fake admission in their college vide admission no. 20090196 dated 05-10-2009 for the academic year 2009-10 for Rs. 34,700/- 2010-11 for Rs. 32,700/-, 2011-12 for Rs. 32,700/- and 2012-13 for Rs. 32,700/- claimed the PMS &

RTF scholarships total amount Rs. 1,32,800/- in respect of victim

LW2 by affixing another photo instead of victim cheated the government and also fraud intention to misappropriation and cheated the government and also victim LW2 for wrong full gain.

Thus, the accused persons found to have committed an offence punishable under section 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the charge against the accused.

6.This case was taken on file for the offenses under section 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

7.On the appearance of the accused the copies of the relevant papers and documents were furnished under section 207

Criminal Procedure Code. The accused persons were examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code for which he denied 5 the prosecution case and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The matter posted for trial.

8.During trial, the prosecution examined PW1/B. Krishna

Reddy, PW-2/Md. Gouse are examined. On behalf of the prosecution Ex.P1 to P5 marked. Ex. P1 is the application given by the college authorities for fees reimbursement, Ex. P2 is the application of post-metric scholarship of the victim, Ex. P3 is the complaint of PW1, Ex. P4 is the First Information Report and Ex.P5 is the letter dated Nov 2014 addressed Dy. Director, BC welfare committee to SHO PS Ibrahimpatnam.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused examined U/Sec 313 Criminal Procedure Code, he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no evidence.

10.Heard both sides. Perused oral documentary evidence.

11.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 420,

409 of Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt?

a) The main case of the prosecution is that the accused who is the Principal of Suprabhath college of Engineering and

Technology, Sheriguda village. The LW2 is the victim by name

Boddu Gopal who is LW2 was applied for entrance of EAMSET through online in the year 2009 through online counseling. LW2 6 uploaded his all relevant education documents like Intermediate marks memo, SSC Marks memo, Transfer Certificate, Bonafide,

Caste certificate, Income certificate, Residential certificate,

Distance certificate, Ration card and local candidate certificate etc., taking advantage the accused who is the Principal of

Suprabhath college at Sheriguda downloaded all the certificates of victim LW2 through online and created fake admission in their college vide admission no. 20090196 dated 05-10-2009 for the academic year 2009-10 for Rs. 34,700/- 2010-11 for Rs. 32,700/-, 2011-12 for Rs. 32,700/- and 2012-13 for Rs. 32,700/- claimed the

PMS & RTF scholarships total amount Rs. 1,32,800/- in respect of victim LW2 by affixing another photo instead of victim cheated the government and also fraud intention to misappropriation and cheated the government and also victim LW2 for wrong full gain.

In order to establish the case of the prosecution examined PW1/B.

Krishna Reddy Assistant Secretary of Residential schools and PW2 is the Investigation Officer. PW1 in his chief examination deposed that as per the records the LW2 had joined in B.Tech Ist year in

Suprabath Engineering College at Sheriguda in the year 2009-10.

LW2 joined in the said college through EAMCET counseling. In the counseling list his name shown in serial no.9. Ex. P1 is the

Attested Copy of the counseling list. On 20-11-2009 the college authorities applied for fees reimbursement in respect of LW2. Ex.

P2 is the application given by the college authorities for fees reimbursement. On physical verification found that LW2 who 7 joined in the college after Appling for scholarship reimbursement left the college by taking the transfer certificate from the college authorities. Meanwhile the department sanctioned the amount of Rs. 1,32,800/- for three academic years and credited in the account of the college Principal. And Rs. 18,700 for maintenance credited in the account of the LW2. After that the college authorities re-deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,32,800 and also Rs. 18,700 into the Government account under two different challans. He lodged the complaint against the college

Principal by alleging that actually LW2 not joined the said college

and the accused falsely submitted Ex. P2. Ex. P3 is Police complaint.

b)The evidence of PW1 shows that when the LW2 applied for admission in the college, the accused applied for reimbursement and when the LW2 left the college by taking the transfer he re- deposited the amount. The cross examination of the PW1 also shows that the college students used to submit their applications directly to the department for reimbursement facility. It is also admitted fact that the LW2 was the student of Suprabhath

Engineering college as per the records. The evidence shows that there is no fraudulent intention on the part of the accused. When the LW2 joined in the college by way of admission, the accused applied for fees reimbursement through student only. When the

LW2 student himself made application there is no question of 8 playing fraud on LW2 by the accused. After taking the Transfer

Certificate by LW2 he re-deposited the amount, as such there is no question of misappropriation of funds of the Government by the accused. As such the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offense punishable under section 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly the accused acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer directly, typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

the 23 rd day of April, 2018.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD:IBRAHIMPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1 : B. Krishna Reddy. -None- PW-2 : Md. Ghouse.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

9

Ex. P1 : Application given by the college authorities for fees reimbursement. Ex. P2 : Application of post-metric scholarship of the victim. Ex. P3 : complaint of PW1. Ex. P4 : First Information Report. Ex. P5 : Letter dated Nov 2014 addressed Dy. Director, BC welfare committee to SHO PS Ibrahimpatnam.

DEFENCE: -None-

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: SMT. G.BHANUMATHI,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2018

Original Suit No. 06 of 2017.

Between :

Valluri Beerappa S/o. Late Balaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nomula village, Manchal Mandal, R. R. District.

... Plaintiff.

A N D

Valluri Muthaiah S/o. Late. Durgaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nomula village, Manchal Mandal, R. R. District.

...Defendant

This suit coming before me on 23-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for plaintif and Defendant remained ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :

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

1.The suit is filed by the plaintif dividing the suit schedule property lands into two equal shares with meets and bounds and for allotment and separate possession of one such share to the plaintif and defendant.

2.The main contents of the plaint are as follows:

The father of the plaintif and defendant herein are the real brothers and the father of the plaintif, defendant and one 2

Dhanaiah are the sons of Late. Valluri Durgaiah who died long back leaving behind him, father of the plaintif, Dhanaiah and defendant herein as his legal heirs and successors. The father of the plaintif namely Balaiah also died leaving behind him the plaintif herein as his legal heir and successor and similarly another son of Durgaiah namely Dhanaiah died issue less, thus, the plaintif and the defendant herein are the legal heirs of common ancestor namely V. Durgaiah. The plaintif and defendant herein constitute the Hindu Undivided Joint Family.

That the family pedigree is tabulated here under:

Valluri Durgaiah (died)

Valluri Balaiah V. Dhanaiah V. Muthaiah (died) (died issueless) (defendant)

V. Beerappa (plaintif)

3.The plaintif and defendant herein are the joint owners and possessors of the residential house no.1-2 and 1-3, admeasuring 800 sq. yards, situated at Nomula village, Manchal Mandal, R. R.

District. The suit schedule property is ancestral property of family of the plaintif and defendant herein. The plaintif and defendant herein are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule house. That originally the grandfather of the plaintif and father of the defendant namely V. Durgaiah was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule house having acquired 3 the same from his ancestor and the said V. Durgaiah as the legal heirs and successors and out of the sons of V. Durgaiah, the father of the plaintif namely Balaiah also died about 12 years back and after that another son of V. Durgaiah namely Dhanaiah died issue less and on the death of V. Durgaiah, the family members of the plaintif and defendant herein have succeeded the suit schedule property being the legal heirs and successors and are in joint possession and enjoyment in and over the suit schedule property. The death of father of the plaintif, the defendant and the another brother of father of the plaintif namely Dhanaiah got mutated their names nominally in the gram panchayath records, but the family members of the plaintif and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment in and over the suit schedule property. The death of father of the plaintif, the plaintif herein demanding the defendant and his brother

Dhanaiah to efect partition of the suit schedule property in three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintif, but he dragged on the matter with one or other pretext and while the matter stood thus, after the demise of Danaiah who died issue less, leaving behind him, the plaintif and defendant herein, the plaintif demanding the defendant for partition of the suit schedule property with meets and bounds, but the defendant dragged on the matter with one or other pretext on false promises. The plaintif demanded the defendant on 23-11-2016 to efect partition of the suit house and for allotment of his 4 separate share, but the defendant refused for the same. Seeing the persistent demands made by the plaintif for partition of the suit schedule house with meets and bounds, the defendant herein is trying to transfer the suit schedule house in favour of some third parties with a malafide intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintif in and over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances there is no other alternative left open the plaintif, except to redress this Hon’ble court by way of filing present suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, this suit.

4.The summons served on defendant, the defendant appeared

before the court. The defendant fail to file the written statement

disputing the claim of the plaintif. In spite of the completion of statutory period filing of the written statement the forfeited.

5.The matter posted for plaintif exparte evidence. On behalf of the plaintif PW1/V. Beerappa who is the plaintif examined and

Ex. A1 to A6 got marked. On behalf of the Ex. A1 is the Original declaration certificate issued by Grampanchayath, Nomula village

dated 26-10-2016, Ex. A2 valuation certificate, Ex.A3 is the

certified copy of Pahani for the year 1989-90, Ex.A4 and A5 are the death certificates of V. Balaiah and V. Danaiah and Ex. A6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed doc. no. 1066/1991.

5

6.Heard the plaintif perused the entire documentary and oral evidence.

7.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the

suit schedule property in to two equal shares with

meets and bounds allotment and separate possession

of one such share to the plaintiff and one such share

to the defendants, as prayed for?

8.The main contention of the plaintif is that the father of the plaintif namely V. Balaiah and the defendant V. Muthaiah and another person V. Danaiah are the sons of V. Durgaiah. The grandfather of the plaintif and father of the defendant V.

Durgaiah died leaving behind his three sons namely V. Balaiah (father of the plaintif), V. Danaiah and V. Muthaiah, he also left the house bearing no. 1-2 and 1-3 admeasuring 800 sq. yards situated at Nomula village which is suit schedule property. The further contention of the plaintif is that the plaint suit schedule property belongs to his grandfather namely V. Durgaiah. The defendant who is the son of V. Durgaiah even though having the knowledge of the filing of the suit did not raised any objection with regard to the contention of the plaintif about the ancestral property and partition of the suit schedule property. Ex. A4 shows that the father of the plaintif namely V. Balaiah who is the another son of Durgaiah died on 09-04-2003. Ex. A5 the death certificate of Danaiah who is the another son of Durgaiah show that Danaiah died on 18-07-2007. As per the contentions of the 6 plaintif the defendant and he himself are the only successors for the suit schedule property. Though the defendant having the knowledge of the suit he did not raised any objection with regard to the other legal heirs who are also entitled for the partition of suit schedule properties. Ex. A1 certificate shows that the suit schedule property belongs to the V. Muthaiah who is the defendant and V. Danaiah who is the brother defendant and who is died. As per the contentions of the plaintifs the plaintif and defendants are the legal heirs of the V. Durgaiah and they are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties in the absence of plaintif father and also V. Danaiah. The unchallenged evidence of plaintif established the claim of the plaintif and the plaintif is entitled for the share in suit schedule property as a joint owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. From the above discussions it is held that the plaintif is entitled for the relief of partition of suit schedule property into two equal shares with meets and bounds and for allotment and separate possession of one such share each to the plaintif and defendant.

9.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed without costs by dividing the suit schedule lands into two shares with meets and bounds and one such share allotted to the plaintif and one such share allotted to the defendant with separate possession.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

7

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT:-

PW.1 : V. Beerappa.Ex- parte.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A.1:Original declaration certificate issued by Grampanchayath, Nomula village dated 26-10-2016. Ex.A.2: Valuation certificate. Ex.A.3: Certified Copy of Pahani for year 1989-90. Ex.A.4: Death certificate of V. Balaiah. Ex.A.5: Death certificate of V. Danaiah. Ex.A.6: Certified copy of sale deed doc. no. 1066/1991.

DEFENDANT:

Ex- parte.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Ibrahimpatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. G.BHANUMATHI,

IV Metropolitan Magistrate court, -Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam.

DATED: THIS THE 26 th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C.No. 26 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police EXCISE POLICE STATION: IBRAHIMPATNAM … COMPLAINANT

A N D

Origanti Mahesh S/o. Ayyanna, Aged 27 years, R/o. H. No. 2-101, Japal village, Manchal Mandal, R. R. District.

…

ACCUSED

This case is coming on 26th day of April, 2018 for hearing

before me in the presence of learned public prosecutor for the

state, and Sri B. Madanna, Advocate for accused and having stood over consideration till this day, the court made the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise Ibrahimpatnam laid charge sheet against the accused person in crime No. 474 of 2013-14 under section 7 (A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2

On 12.11.2013 on reliable information about illegal sales of illicitly distilled Liquor at open place in front of H. No. 2-101, Japal,

LW-3/N. Sreenivasulu and staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses of LW-1/Manthani Mallesh and

LW2/Karla Mallaiah at about 0645 hrs found 3 to 4 persons are sitting in front of the house and on seeing the officer, all the persons ran away leaving one steel can. On verification of can found about 4 liters colourless liquid and on smelling, it is confirmed that the liquid is ID liquor.

3.Upon which LW-3 drawn the samples, each about 350 ml., seized and remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and 2. The samples and seized property were brought to the station and handed over to LW4/Jaganmohan

Reddy for further action. Basing on the panchanama he registered a case in crime No. 474 of 2013-14 under section 7A

R/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 1995 and investigated into the case and produced the accused persons

before the court for judicial remand. One sample is sent for

chemical examination through Excise Station, Ibrahimpatnam.

Second sample is deposited before the court. The remaining seized property was deposited the Deputy Commissioner of

Excise, Ranga Reddy District for confiscation.

3

4.The Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample issued CE report No. 748/2014/14, dated 04.02.2014 opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human portable purpose.

5.The investigation and evidence collected therein established that the accused was found in possession of 4 liters illicitly distilled liquor in front of the H. No. 2-101, Japal village, purchased the same for sale purpose after imposition of prohibition on liquor possession or sale. As such accused contravened the provisions of section 7A of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997 and liable for punishment under section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Hence, the charge.

6.On the appearance of the accused person the copies of the relevant papers and documents was furnished under section 207

Criminal Procedure Code The accused was examined Under

Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for which he denied the commission of offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Heard. Charges framed. Posted for Trial.

8.During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1/Jagan Mohan

Reddy Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-2/N. Srinivasulu and PW3/M.

Mallesh. On behalf of the prosecution Ex.P1 to P4 got marked. Ex.

4

P1 is the seized cum seizure cum confessional panchanama,

Ex.P2 is the First Information Report and, Ex. P3 is the FSL report and Ex. P4 is the signature of PW3 on confessional panchanama.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no evidence.

10.Heard the learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the entire documentary and oral evidence.

11.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused persons for the offence punishable

under section 7(A) R/w.8 (e) of AP Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997 beyond reasonable

doubts?

a)In this case the prosecution shown the Lw1 to 4 as prosecution witnesses to prove the offence against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. LW-1 who is panch witness evidence closed as police filed report stated that LW1 where about not known and not residing given address. LW2 panch witness evidence closed as police filed report stated that LW2 where abouts not known and not residing given address. LW-3 is examined as PW-1 and he deposed that On 12-11-2013 on reliable information about the illegal sale of ID liquor at open place at 5

Japal village, LW3/N. Srinivasulu went to the above place along with LW1 and 2. at about 0645 AM near about 3, 4 persons sat in front of the house on by seeing the LW3 fled away. They have seen one plastic camp containing 4 liquor which is smelling of ID liquor. On local enquiry he came to know that the house belongs to the accused. LW3 drafted panchanama in the presence of LW1 and 2. Ex. P1 is the panchanama. He drawn the two samples of seized property. He returned to the police along with seized property and panchanama and samples of property and produced

before me. Basing on Ex. P1 I registered a case in crime no.

474/2013-14 under section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, and issued FIR. Ex. P2 is FIR. Later he send the samples of seized property to the FSL for the examination. Ex. P3 is the FSL report.

In spite of several efforts the accused not apprehended hence the charge sheet filed for issuing NBW. He filed charge sheet against the accused.

b)LW4 examined as PW2 and he deposed that on 12-11-2013 on reliable information about the illegal sale of ID liquor at open place at Japal village, he went to the above place along with LW1 and 2 and his staff. At about 0110 hrs near about 3, 4 persons sat in front of the house, by seeing them fled they away. He had seen one Steel can containing 4 liters ID liquor which is smelling of ID liquor. On local enquiry he came to know that the house 6 belongs to the accused. He drafted panchanama in the presence of LW1 and 2. Ex. P1 is the panchanama. He drawn the two samples of seized property. He returned to the police station along with seized property and panchanama and samples of property and produced before PW1.

c)Hence, in this case there is no evidence except the investigation officer evidence, the independent witnesses evidence are closed and where abouts not known and not given address. In those circumstances, it is not just and reasonable to believe the evidence of the police staff and convict the accused on the basis of sole testimony of the evidence of police. As the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused, they are liable to be acquitted.

12) From the above discussions the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused persons for the offense punishable under section 7A R/w.8 (e) of AP

Prohibition Amendment Act. 1997.

13) In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and there is no material on record for the conviction of the accused.

7

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7A R/w.8 (e) of AP Prohibition

Amendment Act. 1997, and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months and thereafter he shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly, typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW-1 : Jagan Mohan Reddy. –None-

PW-2 : N. Sreenivasulu.

PW-3 : M. Mallesh.

DOCUMENTS M ARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Seizure cum confessional panchanama. Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : FSL report. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on confessional panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: -None- 8

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: IBRAHIMPATNAM.

1 O.S. 177/17

IN THE COURT OF THE PRLJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATAN, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

Present: -G. Bhanumathi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Ibrahimpatnam.

Dated: This The 23rd Day of April, 2018

Original Suit No. 177 of 2017.

Between :

1.Jada Pramilla W/o. Late. David, Aged 43 years, Occ: Household.

2.Jada Rajesh S/o. Late David, Aged 25 years, Occ: Business.

3.Jada Nelson S/o. Late David, Aged 26 years, Occ: business.

All R/o. Plot no. 90, back side Sai baba temple, Venkateshwara Nagar colony, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4.Jayanth W/o. Nagaraj, (D/o. Late. David), Aged 25 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o. No. 21, Sudhandhira Nagar, 4th street, Lloyds road, Triplicane, Tamilnadu.

... Plaintiff.

A N D

All are concerned.

...Defendant

This suit coming before me on 23-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of T. Ravikiran, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :

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

1.This is a suit is filed by the plaintiff no.1 to 4 for declaration to declare them as the legal heirs and successors of late. Jadda

David who died on 09-08-2010.

2.The main contents of the plaint are as follows:

2 O.S. 177/17

The plaintiff no.1’s husband and father of the plaintiffs no.2 to 4 herein namely Jadda David S/o. Jakaraiah was permanent resident of plot no. 90, Back side Sai baba temple,

Venkateshwara Nagar colony, Saroor Nagar Mandal, R. R. District.

The said Jadda David died on 09-08-2010 due to ill-health, he died leaving the plaintiffs are as his legal heirs and successors and except the above plaintiffs there is no other legal heirs and successors to late Jadda David. The plaintiffs are herewith filing the genealogical tree to explain the relationship between the plaintiffs for kind perusal of the Hon’ble court.

Jadda David S/o. Jakaraiah (died on 09-08-2010)

Jada Pramila (wife) (Plaintiff No.1)

Jada Rajesh Jada Nelson Jayanth (plaintiff no.2) (Plaintiff no.3) (plaintiff no.4)

3.During the life time of Jadda David, had acquired the open plot bearing no. 1148 western part, admeasuring area 300 sq.

yards, sy. no. 208, situated at Adinarsimha Nagar, Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R. R. District. The plaintiffs no.1 to 4 when they badly need of money and the family necessities intended to alienate the above said property and offered to the 3 O.S. 177/17 third parties agreed for the purchase the said property and the sub-register Ibrahimpatnam demanded to produce a legal heir certificate from competent authority to proceed in the above said sale transaction of above said property. The plaintiffs have no other alternative except to approach this Hon’ble court for declaration that the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Late.

Sri Jadda who was died on 09-08-2010. Hence, this suit.

4.Publication filed against the defendant all concerned.

Nobody appeared for raising objection to declare the plaintiff as a legal heirs of deceased J. David hence, they are set ex parte.

5.The Plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and Ex. A1 is the certified copy of sale deed doc. no. 17898/2006 dated 19-12-2006, Ex.

A2 is the Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff no.1, Ex. A3 is the

Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff no.2, Ex. A4 is the Original Aadhar

Card of Plaintiff no.3, Ex. A5 is the Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff no.5, Ex. A6 is the Original death certificate.

6.Heard the counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the oral and documentary evidence.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for pass judgment

and

decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for?

4 O.S. 177/17

8.The main contention of the plaintiff is that the deceased J.

David is the husband of Plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiff no.2 to

4. The said David died on 09-08-2010 and during the life time of the deceased he purchased the plot bearing no. 1148 western part, admeasuring area 300 sq. yards, sy. no. 208, situated at

Adinarsimha Nagar, Mangalpally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,

R. R. District. The Aadhar cards filed by the plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 shows that the plaintiff no.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 to 4 are the children of deceased David. The death certificate of deceased shows that he died on 09-08-2010. Ex. A1 the certified copy of sale deed shows that the deceased purchased the property. The chief examination affidavit of PW1 shows that the

Mother and Father of the deceased already died and except the plaintiffs there are no other legal heirs for the deceased of Jadda

David. The oral and documentary evidence proves that the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 of the legal heirs and successors of deceased

David. The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased David and they are entitled for the relief claimed by them. From the above discussions this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by declaration the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Jadda

David who died on 09-08-2010.

5 O.S. 177/17

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT:-

PW.1 : J. Pramila.-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered sale deed doc. no. 17898/20016 dated 19-12-2016. Ex.A2 : Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff no.1.

Ex.A3 : Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff no.2.

Ex.A4 : Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff no.3.

Ex.A5 : Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff no.4.

Ex.A6 : Original death certificate.

DEFENDANT:

-Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.