Sri G.Harsha Vardhan

APVZ0C00042920191 Dt.27.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: SALUR.

Present: Sri G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Salur.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026.

C.C. No. 320 of 2019

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Pachipenta Police Station. .....Complainant.

And: Boyana Matyasu, S/o. Late Gunnayya, 41 years, C/St- Kondadora,

Buttaganivalasa village, Kothavalasa Panchyat, Salur mandal. ..... Accused.

This case is coming on 31.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri M.V.

Chandra Sekhar, Learned Defence counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pachipenta Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.128/2018 for the offence under section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of case of the Prosecution, as per the Charge Sheet is as follows:

On 20.11.2018 morning deceased by name Dola Sasivardhan went to school and has been studying, at about 14.45 hours three students ie., deceased, Gondela

Harshavardhan/LW.12 and Killada Akhil/ LW.13 went to urinals after granting permission from their class teacher by name Sandhya Rani/LW.14. They went to urinals at toilets school boundary wall and deceased put his hand on the toilet wall

APVZ0C00042920192 Dt.27.04.2026 and poured urinals, suddenly collapsed the wall on deceased. The other two boys informed the same to their class teacher/ LW.14. Immediately they rushed to the spot and observed that the toilet wall collapsed on deceased/ Sasivardhan and received grievous head injury and also crushed his head, his brain came out with bleeding and died on the spot. Later they informed the same to deceased parents /

LW.1 and LW.2. Basing on the report given by the complainant/ Accused to LW.19 /

Head Constable, Pachipenta P.S. registered the same as case in Cr.No.128/2018 under section 174 Cr.P.C. (Death due to collapsed by the wall).

On 20.11.2018 accused informed through phone to LW.3/Palli Joga Rao,

Education officer, Pachipenta mandal about the incident that flabby toilet wall collapsed on deceased, he crushed under the wall and died on the spot with bleeding head injury. The accused who is HM, MPP school, Pachipenta informed to

LW.3, then he went to place of incident and observed the same. LW.3 stated that accused ie., The Head Master of MPP School has not informed about the flabby toilets and not submitted any report to him about the flabby toilets, mess rooms or hostels. The accused did not take any precautionary measures and negligently behaved when the toilet wall was collapsed on deceased died on the spot. Basing on the report of LW.3, LW.20/ Sub Inspector, Pachipenta P.S. registered the same, altered the FIR in Cr.No.128/2018 from 174 Cr.P.C. to 304-A IPC and investigated the matter.

During investigation LW.19 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and drafted the scene observation, got photographed the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at CHC, Salur and viscera sent to the RFSL, Visakhapatnam and examined 5 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. As the prima facie was proved against the accused, then

LW.20 served 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused on 19.12.2018. LW.17/

Medical officer, CHC, Salur conducted autospy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM certificate, opined that the deceased was died due to elusion of brain due to head injury leading to loss of viral centres of the brain. After completion

APVZ0C00042920193 Dt.27.04.2026 of investigation basing on the statement of LW.3, as the accused showed negligence to taking action for dismantling the toilet which was in dilapidated condition which leads to sudden collapse of the toilet on the deceased causing death, charge sheet filed against the accused.

3.This court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC.

4.After appearance of accused case copies of documents was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence, and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.14 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P9. The rest of the witnesses were given up by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied.

8.The accused was examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused found guilty for the offence under section

304-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-- That

APVZ0C00042920194 Dt.27.04.2026 the accused acted negligent and did not take any precautionary measure regarding the flabby wall, as a result the said wall fall on the deceased and he sustained grievous head injury and died on spot.

12.PW.1 who is the father of the deceased, deposed that his son died due to collapse of the Bathroom at Adi Andhra School at Pachipenta at about four year back. His younger son by name Jeevan Kumar informed about the incident, when he was present at Garividi. On the same day he went to the CHC, Salur.

13.PW.2 who is MEO, Pachipenta mandal, deposed that on 20.11.2018 at MPP elementary school, Pachipenta the wall of the toilet collapsed and fell on a boy name Sesivardhan due to that he died at the spot, the same was informed to him by the accused. On that immediately PW.2 rushed to the spot. On questioning the accused, he replied that the responsibility is taken by the class teachers. One

Sandhya Rani informed about giving permission to urinals to the students by her, by the time the incident took place. The Head Master is having responsibility to look after the conditions of the school building. Permitting the children to attend nature calls is not a crime.

14.In cross examination PW.2 stated that he cannot say the age of the school building. Along with the accused one M. Seethamma, T. Vijaya Kumar, P.V. Nirmala

Kumar, Sandhyarani are also working as teachers in that school as on the date of the incident. One school management committee also formed to that school which is consisting of 15 members including Chairman and Vice- Chairman and the management having responsibility to maintain the school along with other functions.

The DEO, Vizianagaram also came to school on that day. The school committee chairman and Head Master were not issued any requisition to PW.2 for requirement of repairing the toilets in that school. No action was taken against committee members, not even their names in this case.

15.PW.3 deposed that at about 08 years back at about 10.30 a.m., Pachipenta

Police observed the Scene of Offence situated at SC Colony, Pachipenta Village toilets of MPP School, Pachipenta to that effect police prepared the Scene

APVZ0C00042920195 Dt.27.04.2026

Observation Report and photographed the Scene of Offence in his presence and one Yejjala Pydiraju, they both made their signatures on Ex.P2 Scene Observation

Report at the Scene of Offence Dt. 21.11.2018.

16.In his cross examination PW.3 stated that he visited the Scene of Offence in between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. the offence took place during the month of November, 2018. At about 06.30 a.m. due to fog it is not possible to write the any document in the open place and Ex.P2/ Scene Observation Report drafted by him at about 06.30 a.m. in early hours. There is two rooms are available at Scene of Offence and there is two toilets are available, but those are not working. The school had

School Committee and four members are in School committee, he know

P.V.Nirmala Kumari, T.Vijava Kumari and M.Seethamma and P.Sandyarani were worked as Second Grade Teacher of the School and the school was provided mid meal programme. The observation of Mid meal is doing by G.Kalyani who is cook of the school. The Chairman of School committee was G.Pydiraju and also has Vice

Chairman and members, he cannot say the Vice Chairman and Committee names.

PW.3 do not know whether the committee members passed any resolution with regard to this incident. There is no Gate of School premises and any one can go to the open toilets into the school and there is no watch man to the school.

17.PW.4 deposed that on 21.11.2018 at the request of the Pachipenta Police, he went to the MPP School and acted as mediator for Ex.P2/Scene Observation

Report which was prepared at MPP School, Pachipenta toilets area. The police prepared Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence and himself and PW.3 made their signatures on Ex.P2/ Scene Observation Report. In cross examination he stated that himself and PW.3 are belongs to YSRCP leaders and both are relating to same community. On oral request of Pachipenta Police, he went to the Scene of Offence, but not issued any written Summons to him to act as mediator in this case and the age of school at about 60 years.

18.PW.5 deposed that on 21.11.2018 himself, LW.9 to LW.11 were present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased by name Dola Seshivardhan,

APVZ0C00042920196 Dt.27.04.2026

S/o Raju at Mortuary room of CHC, Salur. He opined that the deceased died due to sustaining of injuries at MPP School due to fallen of the toilet wall of the School.

19.PW.6 and PW.7 who are victims deposed that on 20.11.2018, themselves and deceased asked the permission LW.14 to attend nature call at about 2.45 p.m.,, then went to the toilet wall. As the said toilet wall is in dilapidated condition and while they were attending the nature call at that time the said wall fell on the deceased and the deceased sustained severe injuries on head died on spot. Later

PW.6 and PW.7 informed the same to the school teacher and deceased was shifted to the hospital. In cross examination PW.6 and PW.7 stated that at the time of alleged incident nearly 10 staff members were present at school. Since from the beginning the said wall is in dilapidated condition. After the alleged incident the

DEO, MEO and committee members did not visited the case of scene of offence.

20.PW.8 deposed in her evidence that on 20.11.2018 at about 02.45 p.m., while she was present at the 3rd standard class room, some students came to her and informed that the Head Master (Accused) called her. By that time three children ie., deceased, PW.6 and PW.7 asked her that they intended to attended to the natural calls, on that she gave a permission and they left the class room and within two or three minutes she heard some sound and by that time PW.6 and PW.7 returned to the class by shouting blood and also stated that the wall fell down. On that PW.8 went to the place of Scene of Offence and noticed that the bathroom wall was fell down and she only noticed the hands of the deceased and she tried to removed all the cement wall pieces, but the deceased sustained crush injuries over the head.

21.In cross examination PW.8 stated that nearly seven staff members are present in the MPP School of Pachipenta. At present she do not remember whether the MEO was present on the date of incident or not and she do not know the names of the student who called her on the date of incident stating that the accused called her. She has not informed to the accused that she gave permission to the deceased and PW.6 and PW.7 to attended the natural calls. There is no separate toilets to the staff and teachers and they used to attend the Girls Toilets rooms, she gave a

APVZ0C00042920197 Dt.27.04.2026 complaint to the accused about the Toilets, but she do not remember that when she gave a complaint to the accused and further states that she orally informed to the accused about the toilet condition and never gave any written report. PW.8 do not know whether the accused gave any complaint on 11.11.2018 stating that the toilet condition are not in good condition in the school to the School Development committee and MEO of Pachipenta and etc,. P.Joga Rao(P.W.2) is the MEO at the time of the incident and One Dasu is the Cluster Resource Person, do not know the age of the School Toilets of the M.P.P School, Pachipenta. There is no compound to the School and also Toilets of the School and the outsiders also enter in to the school premises at any time as there is no compound wall to the School.

22.PW.9 and PW.10 deposed that on 20.11.2018 as usual they prepared food and went to their home, later they came know that one student fell down and on that they went to the place of Scene of Offence and noticed that one wall fell down on the deceased and deceased sustained severe injuries on the head and died on the spot. In cross examination they stated that when they joined at School at that time the toilets were constructed by the School Committee and One Yejjala

Ramaswamy acted as a Chairman to the School Committee.

23.PW.11 who is one of the investigation officer in this case deposed that on 20.11.2018 the Head Master/ Accused came to the police station and informed them that one wall fell down in the school and gave Written Report, on that he registered the case in Cr.No.128/2018 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. and issued the

FIR. Later he visited the place of Scene of Offence and Observed the place of

Scene of Offence and prepared the Rough Sketch of Scene of Offence, later photographed the place of Scene of Offence. Then he forwarded the dead body of the deceased to CHC Salur and on the next day he conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to LW.17 for conducting the autopsy. He examined the Head Master/Accused and recorded his statement. In cross examination he stated that the accused did not give any confessional statement on the date of incident and at about 05.30 p.m. he received

APVZ0C00042920198 Dt.27.04.2026 the report from the Accused. As per the report the accused already informed about the incident to PW.1 and LW.2 prior to came to the Police Station, later he gave a report to the Police Station.

24.PW.12 who is medical officer deposed that on 21.11.2018 at about 10.35 a.m., he received requisition from SHO, Pachipenta Police Station to conduct the postmortem over the dead body of Dola Seshivardhan aged about 08 years and following the injuries ie., external injuries on fore head damage, Frontal Lobe

Evulsed and both parital bones fractured. The time of death 18 to 24 hours prior to his postmortem examination. PW.12 opined on Dt.08.05.2019 was given that death is due to evaluation brain due to head injury leading to loss of vital centres of the brain.

25. PW.13 deposed that he was present at CHC, Salur while conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased by name Dola Sashivardha. The deceased body seems to have died due to fall of the wall.

26.PW.14 who is the Investigation Officer deposed that on 27.11.2018 he addressed a letter to Mandal Educational Officer/ PW.2, after issuing notice he examined and he reported the negligence of School HM who is the accused.

Basing on statement of PW.2 they altered the section of law in to 304-A IPC and recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. On the same he issued 41(A) Cr.P.C.

notice to the Accused. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

27.In cross examination PW.14 stated that he do not know whether MEO was present in the school premises on the date of alleged incident. Denied the suggestions that for dilapidated infrastructure the Committee and MEO are responsible, but not HM and MEO gave false statement to evade his liability, PW.14 filed the charge sheet against the accused without proper investigation.

28.The accused examined himself as DW.1 and he deposed that the since 04.08.2017 to 03.08.2023, he worked as Head Master in MPP School, Harijana

APVZ0C00042920199 Dt.27.04.2026

Veedhi, Pachipenta. The date of incident is 20.11.2018. On 27.10.2018, the then incharge Head Master by name P.V.Nirmala Kumari, SGT Assistant, addressed her correspondence to MPDO stating “KAVUNA IPPATIKAINA PATHA BADINA

BHAVANALU, MARUGUDODLU, ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER TOLAGINCHA

VALASINADIGA MARIYU PRAHARI GOODA NIRMICHA VALASINADIGA

PRARDINCHI KORUCHUNNAMU”. On the date of said letter/ Ex.D1 the compound wall and the entire infrastructure of the school was in dilapidated state.

The School Administration also constitutes School Management Committee with 15 members including Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and other members. The

Committee having responsibility to look after the constructions, standards and structural defects. Committee members, MEO and DEO are monitoring authorities of the school. The Committee members and his higher officials are responsible and liable for the incident and there is no negligence or reckless ness on his part. In cross he denied the suggestion he is the solely liable and respondent for the incident and due to his negligence of not placing caution board the death of student occurred.

29.Sri M.V.Ch. for accused filed written statement of accused along with publication of news paper Dt.30.07.2021 and paper cutting of parents committee resolution duly singed by the members in said committee the higher authorities paid

Rs.2,25,000/- to the victims family. The arguments of Sri M.V.Ch. it was the accused who proposed and put forth said proceedings for compensation of the victim and said actions of accused shows bonafide intention but not malafide intention and the endeavor of accused is to protect the children and family but not to cause any harm or loss to the children and family, on considering the written statement of accused, the Head Master / accused actions subsequent to the death of the child and injury to children shows his intentions are bonafide and beneficial to victims and families.

30.From the facts placed by prosecution and defence, the head master/ accused had taken place towards beneficiary of victim families but Mandal Education Officer

APVZ0C000429201910 Dt.27.04.2026 did not played any role to the extent of this case towards betterment of lives of victim families, said Mandal Education Officer neither respondent to the letter addressed by previous Head Master nor taken any steps subsequent to the incident towards children. It shows it is not the Head Master/ Accused who is negligent, it was the Mandal Education Officer and his higher authorities are at fault resulting death of child and injuries.

31.The counsel for accused filed decision they relied on ie., Kanaiyala Arjandas

Vs Tribhovandas Devsibhai Pandit and another in Criminal Revn. Application No.

113 of 1968, Dt.08.05.1987 in the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat-

Para No.7:- Another circumstance taken into consideration by the learned

Magistrate in holding the respondent No.1 guilty was the evidence of

P.W. Babubhai Manabhai, the police constable on duty at Kubernagar police chowky. Now, the said witness had deposed that the present appellant had come to the said chowky and had informed him about the accident in question and thereupon he had given intimation to Sardarnagar police station and then he had handed over the respondent No. 1 to the police Sub inspector Shri Mali. It is very pertinent to note that the evidence also does not show that the accused had given intimation to the said police constable Babubhai Manabhai that he was driving the truck at the time of the incident. Merely because he happened to give an intimation of the accident, it could not be said that he must be the driver of the truck. Even if he had given an intimation that he was driving the truck at the time of the accident in question to the said police constable. Said part of his information is hit by the provision of Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act as it would amount to an inculpatry statement of an accused. Therefore, merely because he happened to give information of the accident, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate that he was the driver of said truck was not justified as has been held by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge.

32.To prove the negligence or recklessness of Headmaster, the prosecution need to prove that he is solely responsible for the construction and demolition of the wall. To look after the infrastructure of the school, there is a committee to the school. The Headmaster supervises the infrastructure and reports for construction or demolition of any part of the school building to his superior officers.

APVZ0C000429201911 Dt.27.04.2026

33.To attract negligence, the prosecution needed to prove the failure to take due care by the Headmaster. Whereas in this case, The previous Headmaster addressed a letter to Mandal Education Officer regarding the wall and other constructions of the school, stating that they are in dilapidated state.

34.The word negligence refers to failure to act with the care that a responsible person would exercise in similar circumstances, whereas recklessness involves a conscious disregard for the safety of others, where a person knowingly engages in dangerous behavior that could cause injury. Here in this case there is no allegation regarding commission of offence. It is regarding omission to do duty with due care.

Hence only the discretion to be made in this case is regarding negligence of

Headmaster. What is the duty that Headmaster shall take regarding the condition of a wall? The Headmaster of the school is not the sanctioning authority or granting authority regarding the demolition or construction of a wall. He acts as an informant to the higher officials who had the signing or sanctioning authority for construction or demolition of the wall of a school building. Here in this case along with

Headmaster, the school committee is also equally having responsibility to look after the condition of the wall and report the same to the sanctioning authority. The previous Headmaster addressed letter to Mandal Education Officer, just 23 days

before the incident, and there is no response from the MEO or DEO regarding the

condition of the wall.

35.As a prudent man, the Headmaster did his duty to the extent of reporting about the construction of the wall to the higher officials. When it comes to permitting the students for urination at the wall is a completely different circumstance. One cannot refrain a student to attend the nature calls. It is their basic right and it is the necessity to have nature calls to every person. However, whether the instructors or the school teachers or the class in-charges instructed the students, to urinate at the wall or at the washrooms available at the school have to be discussed in detail. The condition of the school washrooms are, there is only one washroom available to the entire school students and staff. The boys, the girls of the school have to use only

APVZ0C000429201912 Dt.27.04.2026 one toilet room. The school teacher working on that day, being in charge of the students of Class- 3, permitted the students to have attended the nature calls, but did not instruct the students to attend the nature calls at the wall which is in dilapidated state.

36.It was unfortunate that the wall fell on the children and one of the children was died and other two children sustained injuries. The working HM, prior to the accused in the school, reported about the wall. But no action was taken by the officials who had the authority to sanction or permit for demolition of the wall. They did not respond in time. It is the bounded duty of the Headmaster of the school to report regarding the condition of the infrastructure of the school, which was made 23 days prior to the incident. But the authorities need to act in these incidents, in these kinds of circumstances, immediately. Even the school committee did not respond with this condition of the wall. There is no averment or evidence to show that the school committee had actually Acted in due care regarding the wall. It is the

Head Master only who acted and responded regarding the condition of the wall. It is apparent that if the authorities had responded regarding the demolition and construction of wall, the incident would not have happened.

37.At present, the prosecution and Mandal Education Officer are pointing their fingers at the Headmaster only. However, the Headmaster addressed letter to

Mandal Education Officer vide Ex.D1 letter regarding the condition of the wall. It is the Mandal Education Officer who did not forward it to the sanctioning authority, and he did not respond to the letter even till the date of incident or even after the date of incident. This shows the Mandal Education Officer and the committee are at negligence, but not the accused headmaster of the school.

38.This Court has reason to believe that accused did not act in recklessness nor acted negligently. However, it is admitted fact that two children were injured and a child was died. Hence, this is a case where accused is not proved guilty. However, the victims are entitled for compensation. Awarding compensation under 357 CrPC may not be adequate in this case. Hence, this Court is of the opinion to refer this

APVZ0C000429201913 Dt.27.04.2026 matter for adequate compensation scheme regarding the died child and the injured children under section 357 – A Cr.P.C. The court is the of the opinion that the investigation should have made against committee of the school and MEO in the interest of justice. The investigation agency is at fault for not investigation against the committee of school and MEO.

39.In the result, the accused not found guilty for the offence Under sections 304-A of

IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months

U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1 – D. Akula Raju. DW.1 : Boina Matyasu

PW.2 – P. Jogarao.

PW.3 – Dola Babji .

PW.4 – Y. Pydiraju.

PW.5 – Kutchula Gangaraju.

PW.6 – G. Harshavardan.

PW.7 – Kilada Akhil.

PW.8 – Putta Sandhya Rani.

PW.9 – Gollapalli Kalayani.

PW.10 – S. Usharani

PW.11 – D. Ratna Kumar

APVZ0C000429201914 Dt.27.04.2026

PW.12 – Dr. S.V. Ramanamurthy

PW.13 – Gondela Ramarao

PW.14 – A. Sanyasi Naidu.

Court Witnesses : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 / PW.2 – Statement of PW.2.

Ex.P2 / PW.3 – Scene observation report, Dt.21.11.2018.

Ex.P3 / PW.11 – Rough Sketch of scene of offence

Ex.P4 / PW.11 – Photos and CD.

Ex.P5 / PW.12 – Postmortem report

Ex.P6 / PW.12 – Final opinion after receiving the RFSL report.

Ex.P7 / PW.14 – Altered First Information Report in Cr.No.128/2018.

Ex.P8 / PW.14 – RFSL Report.

Ex.P9 / PW.14 – Inquest report.

For Defence:

Ex.D1/ DW.1 – Letter Dt.27.10.2018.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C000429201915 Dt.27.04.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

* * *

Date of offence: 20.11.2018

Date of report or complaint: 20.11.2018

Date of apprehension of accused: 41(1) (a) Cr.P.C notice.

Date of release, if any on bail: Does not arise

Date of commencement of trial: 05.01.2022

Date of close of trial: 24.11.2025

Date of sentence or order: 27.04.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 320 / 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Salur.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pachipenta Police

Station in Crime No.128/2018.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Accused, Father’s Name, Age, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Boyana Matyasu, S/o. Late Gunnayya, 41 years, C/St- Kondadora, Buttaganivalasa village, Kothavalasa Panchyat, Salur mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Section 304-A IPC : Causing Death by Negligence.

Finding : Found not guilty.

APVZ0C000429201916 Dt.27.04.2026

Sentence : In the result, the accused not found guilty for the offence Under sections 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The accused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C00018320201Dt.14.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: SALUR.

Present: Sri G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Salur.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 137 of 2020

Between: Grandhi Eswara Rao, S/o. Late Appalanarasimham, aged 45 years, Kota veedhi, Near Yuvarajugari House, Salur town and municipality,

Vizianagaram District. .....Complainant.

And: Sutapalli Swathi, W/o. Gunneswara Rao, aged 36 years, Sri Lakshmi Homes Needs, Golla veedhi Junction,

Salur town and municipality, Vizianagaram District. ..... Accused.

This case has come before on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri P. Jagannadham and Y. Nagabhusana Rao, Advocates for the complainant and Sri G. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivers the following:

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

1.The complainant filed complaint against the accused under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

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

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) from the complainant on 10.01.2020 and agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% to the complainant or his order. Towards discharge of said debt accused issued a cheque bearing No.000469 for Rs.3,50,000/- Dt.10.01.2020 in favour of the complainant. In need of money, the complainant demanded the accused for discharge of said debt and accused admitting her liability for postponing the payment on one pretext or other. The complainant presented the said cheque on 24.01.2020 in HDFC Bank, Salur branch in his account and on 27.01.2020 the said cheque was returned unpaid stating reasons that “funds

APVZ0C00018320202Dt.14.05.2026 insufficient” and issued a dishonour memo to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant got issued registered notice Dt.08.02.2020 to the accused demanded her to repay the debt borrowed by her and said notice was received by the accused on 10.02.2020. The complainant waited for a statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the accused. But the accused did not make arrangement of deposit of sufficient funds in her account and did not pay the said debt in cash to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

3.The case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of

N.I. Act. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to her, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and she was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and read over and explained the contents of the accusation framed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in

Telugu to the Accused and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial, to substantiate his case, the complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material stood against her from the evidence of prosecution, for which she denied the same.

6.No defense evidence on behalf of accused.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under section

138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubts?

Point :

9.Section 138 NI Act speaks as : “Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.” - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement

APVZ0C00018320203Dt.14.05.2026 made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

10.The complainant filed decisions that relied on:

i.2002 0 Supreme (AP) 465, 2002 2 ALD(Cri) 546, 2002 2 ALT (Cri) 195 in between J. Subba Rao vs T. Bucha Reddy, decided on 04.01.2002.

Para No.7:- I have gone through the entire evidence available on record and the judgments of both the courts below. The evidence on record shows that the 1 st respondent-accused took a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the appellant- complainant by executing a Promissory Note on 8-2-1989 for which he gave Ex.P-1 cheque dated 31-1-1993 for Rs.20,000/- in part payment of the debt. After executing the promissory note the 1 st respondent -accused paid Rs.1,000/- and got endorsed on the reverse of the promissory note before expiring the 3 years period and later the 1 st respondent-accused issued Ex.P-1 cheque in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-accused that the promissory note is

dated 8-2-1989 and Ex.P-1 is dated 31-1-1993 and therefore, the debt

is time-barred cannot be sustained. The debt is within the time for the above reasons. Para No.8:- In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindranath Banerjee ((2001) 6 SCC 16) wherein it was held that it is obligatory on the court to presume the liability of the drawer for the

APVZ0C00018320204Dt.14.05.2026 amount of the cheque in every case where the factualbasis for such presumption established and such a presumption can be rebutted by the drawer by proving on evidence that the holder of the cheque had not received the same towards the discharge of any legally enforceable liability and such rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established - The court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable. But mere explanation given by the drawer, although plausible would not be sufficient.

ii. In C.R.R.969 of 2015 in between Kausik Barui Vs Kartick Chandra Basu &

Anr, decided on 28.01.2026.

Para No.20:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad v. Indian 2026:CHC-AS:113 Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd. 1, observed that the object of introducing section 138 was to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and enhance the credibility of business transactions conducted through negotiable instruments. Section 138 intends to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of a negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account maintained by him in a bank and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it.

Para No. 21:-The Hon'ble Supreme Court again, in the case Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza2, while dealing with the objects and ingredients of Sections 138 and 139 of the Act, observed as under: -- "The object and the ingredients under the provisions, in particular, Sections 138 and 139 of the Act cannot be ignored. Proper and smooth functioning of all business transactions, particularly, of cheques as instruments, primarily depends upon the integrity and

honesty of the parties. In our country, in a large number of

commercial transactions, it was noted that the cheques were issued even merely as a device not only to stall but even to defraud the creditors. The sanctity and credibility of issuance of cheques in commercial transactions was eroded to a large extent. Undoubtedly, dishonour of a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and the entire credibility of the (1996) 2 SCC 739 2 (2004) 2 SCC 235 2026:CHC-AS:113 business transactions within and outside the country suffers a serious setback. Parliament, in order to restore the credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment enacted the aforesaid provisions. The remedy available in a civil court is a long-drawn matter and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee."

APVZ0C00018320205Dt.14.05.2026

Para No.22:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (UOI) also observed the following:- “Sections 138 to 142 of the Act were found to be deficient in dealing with the dishonoured cheques. The legislature inserted new Sections 143 to 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and earlier to this the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 whereby a new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument."

Para No.28:- Accordingly, this Court, in the present case, cannot reassess or re-appreciate the entire evidence as if sitting in appeal over the Trial Court's findings. Its interference would be warranted only if the petitioners succeed in demonstrating that the impugned judgment suffers from a jurisdictional error, a violation of due process of law, or a patently perverse conclusion unsupported by the record or wholly an abuse of process of law. Para No. 29:- . Even though the Petitioner contends that the complaint was not maintainable in the absence of a written agreement, the complainant has established its claim and the liability of the Petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner has issued a cheque of the Rs.6,00,000/- to discharge his liability. Therefore, the complaint is well maintainable unless it is rebuttable.

11.The accused filed decision that relied on:

2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 416 (T.S. & A.P.) between M/s. Sri Sai Karuna Finanace &

Enterprises though its Managing Partner G. Gangadhar Nizamabad v. Smt.

N. Sandhyarani and another in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2006, decided on 24.10.2018.

11. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is held affirmatively, it has now to be seen whether the accused could dispel the presumption. In Rangappa’s case (1 supra), while observing that Section 139 of N.I Act casts a reverse onus on the accused, the Apex Court has narrated as to how the said reverse burden can be discharged. It was observed thus:

Para 14: x x x x .... While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the

APVZ0C00018320206Dt.14.05.2026 rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. (Emphasis supplied). As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own." Similarly, in M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and another, the Apex Court observed that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act can be discharged by raising preponderance of probabilities and the burden of proof on accused is not heavy and he need not disprove the prosecution case on its entirety, rather, he can discharge his burden through direct or circumstantial evidence, for which, he can also rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.

12.The written arguments filed on behalf of accused contending that PW.1 admitted that “It is true that I did not file any documentary evidence to show that accused have legal debt to me. The accused took loan from me for her family expenses. On 10.01.2020 I gave amount to the accused. It is true that in my complaint I did not mention where I issued the amount to the accused”. In cross examination PW.1 sated that “accused gave me cheque/ Ex.P1 on 10.01.2020. It is true that in my complaint I mentioned that when I demanded the accused to discharge her debt, she issued Ex.P1/

Cheque”.

13.Accused further contends that in the entire case of the complainant he presented the said cheque in HDFC Bank, Salur Branch for collection of the proceeds of the

APVZ0C00018320207Dt.14.05.2026 cheque. But for the reasons best known to the complainant he did not file the cheque return memo issued by the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Salur Branch. But surprisingly the complainant filed a cheque return memo issued by the HDFC Bank, Parvathipuram

Branch. It is not the case of the complainant that he presented EX.P1 cheque before the

HDFC Bank, Parvathipuram Branch. The complainant failed to examine neither the

Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Salur Branch nor the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank,

Parvathipuram Branch. The complainant did not file even a scrap of paper to show that he presented Ex-P-1 cheque before the HDFC Bank, Salur Branch. The complainant mentioned in his case that the accused agreed to pay the amount together with interest at 24% per annum on demand or order. But for the reasons best known to the complainant he did not claim any interest and he presented the alleged cheque for

Rs.3,50,000/-which creates any amount of doubt on the part of the complainant.

14.The complainant himself appeared as PW.1 filed chief examination affidavit on par with pleadings of the complaint and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is the original cheque bearing No.000469 for Rs.3,50,000/- in his favour issued by the accused

Dt.10.01.2020, Ex.P2 is office copy of legal notice Dt.08.02.2020, Ex.P3 is postal acknowledgment Dt.10.02.2020 and Ex.P4 is original cheque dishonour memo

Dt.27.01.2020 issued by the HDFC Bank, Parvathipuram.

15.In cross examination PW.1 stated that he is doing Kirana Business, he know the accused as she is the wife of his friend, he lent money to the accused for Rs.3,50,000/- at the house of the accused on 10.01.2020 in the presence of himself and her husband.

PW.1 did not file any documentary evidence to show that accused have legal debt to him and Accused took loan from him for her family expenses. On 10.01.2020 he gave amount to the accused and in his complaint PW.1 did not mention where issued amounts to the Accused. The Accused gave him Cheque/Ex.P1 on 10.01.2020. PW.1 admitted that in his complaint he mentioned that when he demanded the accused to discharge her debt, she issued Ex.P1 cheque and Accused drafted the Ex.P1 cheque.

16.PW.1 further stated that there is no written document for alleged debt of

Rs.3,50,000/- Dt.10.01.2020. On 10.01.2020 itself accused issued Ex.P1 cheque. Ex.P1 cheque is issued for discharge of her debt, but not as security. PW.1 admitted that he

APVZ0C00018320208Dt.14.05.2026 filed a cheque bounce case C.C.No.138/2020 against the husband of the accused on the file of this court and in C.C.No.138/2020 he did not file any documentary evidence to show he lent amount to the husband of the Accused. Except himself, Accused and her husband there are no other witnesses to the transaction.

17.The accused had to prove the preponderance of probabilities, however the accused can disprove the case of the complainant by way of direct witnesses or by way of circumstantial evidence whereas in this case the accused did not adduce any evidence at all to disprove the case of the complainant. Moreover the 24% interest was claimed in the complaint however the cheque was issued on 10.01.2020 it was presented on 24.01.2020 in HDFC Bank, said cheque was returned on 27.01.2020. The period to calculate of interest is less than one month. From the deposition of PW.1 it is clear that the date of cheque is the date of transaction hence the contractual interest 24% per annum was started and ended on the same day of cheque. However the complainant is entitled for subsequent interest, hence no suspicion about interest in this case.

18.According to Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act holder of a cheque shall be presumed to have received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge whole or in part, or in part or in liability unless the contrary is proved. Here in this case complainant is claiming debt and it is the burden on the accused to prove there is no debt. Further accused did not make any attempts to prove the contrary.

19.According to Section 140 of Negotiable Instruments Act it shall not be the defence for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the drawer has no reason to believe that when he issued the cheque that the cheque may be dishonoured so accused cannot take the defence that in standard of proof. However accused did not try to produce direct or circumstantial evidence.

20.Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act speaks about shall presumptions regarding consideration, date, time of acceptance, time of transfer, order or indorsement, stamp and holder is the holder in due course provided that the custody of said instrument by means of a offence or fraud or for unlawful consideration the burden of proving that the holder is the holder in due court lies upon him Such a exception is not applicable to

APVZ0C00018320209Dt.14.05.2026 this case for the reason that the complainant himself is the holder and holder in due course and himself is the payee so Section 120 of Negotiable Instruments Act ie.,

Estoppel against denying original validity of instrument enforces, makes accused liable to discharge her debt to the complainant.

21.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly she is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:24:47 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

Quantum of sentence :

Heard the accused regarding quantum of sentence which can be imposed against her and the accused stated that :-

Convict stated she did not issue said cheque for discharge of any enforceable debt and it was given as security.

Accused is directed to pay fine of 1.5 times on the cheque amount as compensation and cheque discharging amount with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of judgment, in case of default to pay the cheque amount with interest and compensation the accused shall be liable for punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:25:44 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C000183202010Dt.14.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

PW.1 – Grandhi Eswara Rao. - Nil -

Court Witnesses : Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.P1 – Original cheque bearing No.000469 Dt.10.01.2020 for Rs.3,50,000/-.

Ex.P2 – Office copy of legal notice Dt.08.02.2020 .

Ex.P3 – Postal acknowledgment Dt.10.02.2020

Ex.P4 – Original cheque dishonour memo Dt.27.01.2020 issued by the HDFC Bank,

Parvathipuram.

For Defence : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:26:33 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C000183202011Dt.14.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

* * *

Date of offence: 10.01.2020

Date of report or complaint: 18.03.2020

Date of apprehension of accused: ---

Date of release, if any on bail: ---

Date of commencement of trial: 09.03.2022

Date of close of trial: 17.02.2026

Date of sentence or order: 14.05.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 137 / 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Salur.

Complainant:- Grandhi Eswara Rao, S/o. Late Appalanarasimham, aged 45 years,

Kota veedhi, Near Yuvarajugari House, Salur town and municipality, Vizianagaram

District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Accused, Father’s Name, Age, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Sutapalli Swathi, W/o. Gunneswara Rao, aged 36 years, Sri Lakshmi Homes

Needs, Golla veedhi Junction, Salur town and municipality, Vizianagaram District.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCE: - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the account is punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

APVZ0C000183202012Dt.14.05.2026

FINDING:- Accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

SENTENCE:- In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly she is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is directed to pay fine of 1.5 times on the cheque amount as compensation and cheque discharging amount with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of judgment, in case of default to pay the cheque amount with interest and compensation the accused shall be liable for punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:28:12 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C00018320201Dt.14.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: SALUR.

Present: Sri G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Salur.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 138 of 2020

Between: Grandhi Eswara Rao, S/o. Late Appalanarasimham, aged 45 years, Kota veedhi, Near Yuvarajugari House, Salur town and municipality,

Vizianagaram District. .....Complainant.

And: Sutapalli Gunneswara Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 40 years, Sri Lakshmi Homes Needs, Golla veedhi Junction,

Salur town and municipality, Vizianagaram District. ..... Accused.

This case has come before on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri P. Jagannadham and Y. Nagabhusana Rao, Advocates for the complainant and Sri S. Srinivasa Rao and T. Tirupathi Rao, Advocates for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivers the following:

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

1.The complainant filed complaint against the accused under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

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

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) from the complainant on 08.01.2020 and agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% to the complainant or his order. Towards discharge of said debt accused issued a cheque bearing No.657700 for Rs.3,00,000/- Dt.08.01.2020 in favour of the complainant. Again the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- second time from the complainant on 10.01.2020 and agreed

APVZ0C00018320202Dt.14.05.2026 to repay the same with interest 24% to the complainant or to his order and towards discharge of the said debt the accused issued a cheque bearing No.657699 for

Rs.3,00,000/- Dt.10.01.2020 in favour of the complainant. In need of money, the complainant demanded the accused for discharge of said debts and accused admitting his liability for postponing the payment on one pretext or other. The complainant presented the said two cheques on 24.01.2020 in HDFC Bank, Salur branch in his account and on 27.01.2020 the said cheques were returned unpaid stating reasons that “funds insufficient” and issued a dishonour memo to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant got issued registered notice Dt.08.02.2020 to the accused demanded him to repay the debt borrowed by him and said notice was received by the accused on 10.02.2020. The complainant waited for a statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the accused. But the accused did not make arrangement of deposit of sufficient funds in his account and did not pay the said debt in cash to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

3.The case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of

N.I. Act. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and read over and explained the contents of the accusation framed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in

Telugu to the Accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial, to substantiate his case, the complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material stood against him from the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the same.

6.No defense evidence on behalf of accused.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under section

138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubts?

APVZ0C00018320203Dt.14.05.2026

Point :

9.The complainant filed decisions that relied on:

i.2002 0 Supreme (AP) 465, 2002 2 ALD(Cri) 546, 2002 2 ALT (Cri) 195 in between J. Subba Rao vs T. Bucha Reddy, decided on 04.01.2002.

Para No.7:- I have gone through the entire evidence available on record and the judgments of both the courts below. The evidence on record shows that the 1 st respondent-accused took a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the appellant- complainant by executing a Promissory Note on 8-2-1989 for which he gave Ex.P-1 cheque dated 31-1-1993 for Rs.20,000/- in part payment of the debt. After executing the promissory note the 1 st respondent -accused paid Rs.1,000/- and got endorsed on the reverse of the promissory note before expiring the 3 years period and later the 1 st respondent-accused issued Ex.P-1 cheque in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-accused that the promissory note is

dated 8-2-1989 and Ex.P-1 is dated 31-1-1993 and therefore, the debt

is time-barred cannot be sustained. The debt is within the time for the above reasons. Para No.8:- In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindranath Banerjee ((2001) 6 SCC 16) wherein it was held that it is obligatory on the court to presume the liability of the drawer for the amount of the cheque in every case where the factualbasis for such presumption established and such a presumption can be rebutted by the drawer by proving on evidence that the holder of the cheque had not received the same towards the discharge of any legally enforceable liability and such rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established - The court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable. But mere explanation given by the drawer, although plausible would not be sufficient. ii. In C.R.R.969 of 2015 in between Kausik Barui Vs Kartick Chandra Basu &

Anr, decided on 28.01.2026.

Para No.20:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad v. Indian 2026:CHC-AS:113 Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd. 1, observed that the object of introducing section 138 was to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and enhance the credibility of business transactions conducted

APVZ0C00018320204Dt.14.05.2026 through negotiable instruments. Section 138 intends to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of a negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account maintained by him in a bank and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it.

Para No. 21:-The Hon'ble Supreme Court again, in the case Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza2, while dealing with the objects and ingredients of Sections 138 and 139 of the Act, observed as under: -- "The object and the ingredients under the provisions, in particular, Sections 138 and 139 of the Act cannot be ignored. Proper and smooth functioning of all business transactions, particularly, of cheques as instruments, primarily depends upon the integrity and

honesty of the parties. In our country, in a large number of

commercial transactions, it was noted that the cheques were issued even merely as a device not only to stall but even to defraud the creditors. The sanctity and credibility of issuance of cheques in commercial transactions was eroded to a large extent. Undoubtedly, dishonour of a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and the entire credibility of the (1996) 2 SCC 739 2 (2004) 2 SCC 235 2026:CHC-AS:113 business transactions within and outside the country suffers a serious setback. Parliament, in order to restore the credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment enacted the aforesaid provisions. The remedy available in a civil court is a long-drawn matter and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee."

Para No.22:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (UOI) also observed the following:- “Sections 138 to 142 of the Act were found to be deficient in dealing with the dishonoured cheques. The legislature inserted new Sections 143 to 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and earlier to this the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 whereby a new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument."

Para No.28:- Accordingly, this Court, in the present case, cannot reassess or re-appreciate the entire evidence as if sitting in appeal over the Trial Court's findings. Its interference would be warranted only if the petitioners succeed in demonstrating that the impugned judgment suffers from a jurisdictional error, a violation of due process of law, or a

APVZ0C00018320205Dt.14.05.2026 patently perverse conclusion unsupported by the record or wholly an abuse of process of law.

Para No. 29:- . Even though the Petitioner contends that the complaint was not maintainable in the absence of a written agreement, the complainant has established its claim and the liability of the Petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner has issued a cheque of the Rs.6,00,000/- to discharge his liability. Therefore, the complaint is well maintainable unless it is rebuttable.

10.The complainant himself appeared as PW.1 filed chief examination affidavit on par with pleadings of the complaint and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Ex.P1 is the original 1st cheque bearing No.657700 Dt.08.01.2020 for Rs.3,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is the Original 1st cheque dishonour memo Dt.27.01.2020, Ex.P3 is the original 2nd cheque bearing

No.657699 Dt.10.01.2020 for Rs.3,00,000/-, Ex.P4 is the original 2nd cheque dishnour memo Dt.27.01.2020, Ex.P5 is office copy of registered notice Dt.08.02.2020, Ex.P6 is postal receipt Dt.08.02.2020, Ex.P7 is postal acknowledgment Dt.10.02.2020 and Ex.P8 is postal track consignment record of registered lawyer notice.

11.In cross examination PW.1 stated that he did not file any documentary evidence to show that accused have legal debt to him and the Accused took loan from him for his family expenses. On 08.01.2020 he gave amount to the accused and in his complaint he did not mention where issued amounts to the Accused. The Accused gave him

Cheque/Ex.P1 on 08.01.2020 and in his complaint he mentioned that when he demanded the accused to discharge his debt, he issued Ex.P1/ cheque, the accused drafted the Ex.P1/ cheque. PW.1 do not know the education qualification of the accused.

The counsel confronted the Ex.P1/ cheque, witness / PW.1 stated accused himself filled the said cheque. PW.1 admitted that there is difference of sizes of alphabets, signature and numbers in Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P3 cheque. Accused gave Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 cheques at his house in two different dates and the date of first cheque is 08.01.2020. In PW.1 complaint as well as Ex.P5 legal notice, he have mentioned the reason for cheques Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 as family expenses.

12.PW.1 further stated that he gave Rs.6,00,000/- to Accused without any

Promissory Note or any other document. At the time of transaction under Ex.P1 and

Ex.P3, himself and Accused alone are present. He did not mention that a Promissory

APVZ0C00018320206Dt.14.05.2026

Note was drafted in view of debt of Rs.6,00,000/- neither in his complaint nor in his Ex.P5 legal notice. The transactions happened on the dates of Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 and he deposited said cheques in Banks within 10 or 15 days. PW.1 admitted that in his complaint and Ex.P5 legal notice he have mentioned that loan was given on the same day of issuance of cheques Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. The Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 are SBI

Cheques, he submitted in his Bank Account at Salur. In his Ex.P5 legal notice he have mentioned that he submitted those cheques in my HDFC Bank Account,

Salur. PW.1 is an Income Tax Assessee, he did not show the Rs.6,00,000/- in his

Income Tax filings and Kirana Shop is his source of Income, he earn yearly less than

Rs.1,00,000/- profit and that the accused is financially capable person.

13.PW.1 further stated that he deposed two cheques for Rs.3,00,000/- each in Bank issued by the Accused. The Bank Authorities issued endorsement for Two cheques. He know Bank officials gave endorsement for three cheques which was filed in this court.

The name of the accused wife is Suthapalli Swathi. PW.1 admitted that he filed a case against Suthapalli Swathi for Rs.3,50,000/-. The bank officials gave separate endorsement for cheque issued by Suthapalli Swathi. On the request of

Gunneswara Rao (Accused) and his wife he issued amounts to Gunneswara Rao and his wife on 01.01.2020. Neither in this Complaint nor in Complaint against Swathi he stated the accused herein and Swathi together came to him and received the amounts. He further admitted that there is no other document to support the debt under

Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 Cheques. The said cheques are issued the span of two days. As

Accused took amount in two installments and two cheques were issued by him. On 10.01.2020 accused and his wife gave two cheques separately. The entire amount of

Rs.9,50,000/- was given by way of cash. He gave amounts through his Kirana Business and other sundries and he did not show the transactions in my Income Tax returns.

14.The accused had to prove the preponderance of probabilities, however the accused can disprove the case of the complainant by way of direct witnesses or by way of circumstantial evidence whereas in this case the accused did not adduce any evidence at all to disprove the case of the complainant. Moreover the 24% interest was claimed in the complaint however the cheques were issued on 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 they were presented on 24.01.2020 in HDFC Bank, said cheques were

APVZ0C00018320207Dt.14.05.2026 returned on 27.01.2020. The period to calculate of interest is less than one month. From the deposition of PW.1 it is clear that the date of cheques is the date of transactions hence the contractual interest 24% per annum was started and ended on the same day of cheque. However the complainant is entitled for subsequent interest, hence no suspicion about interest in this case.

15.According to Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act holder of a cheque shall be presumed to have received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge whole or in part, or in part or in liability unless the contrary is proved. Here in this case complainant is claiming debt and it is the burden on the accused to prove there is no debt. Further accused did not make any attempts to prove the contrary.

16.According to Section 140 of Negotiable Instruments Act it shall not be the defence for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the drawer has no reason to believe that when he issued the cheque that the cheque may be dishonoured so accused cannot take the defence that in standard of proof. However accused did not try to produce direct or circumstantial evidence.

17.Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act speaks about shall presumptions regarding consideration, date, time of acceptance, time of transfer, order or indorsement, stamp and holder is the holder in due course provided that the custody of said instrument by means of a offence or fraud or for unlawful consideration the burden of proving that the holder is the holder in due court lies upon him Such a exception is not applicable to this case for the reason that the complainant himself is the holder and holder in due course and himself is the payee so Section 120 of Negotiable Instruments Act ie.,

Estoppel against denying original validity of instrument enforces, makes accused liable to discharge his debt to the complainant.

18.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:29:53 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C00018320208Dt.14.05.2026

Quantum of sentence :

Heard the accused regarding quantum of sentence which can be imposed against him and the accused stated that :-

Convict stated he did not issue said cheque for discharge of any enforceable debt and it was given as security.

Accused is directed to pay fine of 1.5 times on the two cheque amounts as compensation and cheques discharging amount with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of judgment, in case of default to pay the two cheque amounts with interest and compensation the accused shall be liable for punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:30:28 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

PW.1 – Grandhi Eswara Rao. - Nil -

Court Witnesses : Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.P1 – Original 1st cheque bearing No.657700 Dt.08.01.2020 for Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.P2 – Original 1st cheque dishonour memo Dt.27.01.2020.

Ex.P3 – Original 2nd cheque bearing No.657699 Dt.10.01.2020 for Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.P4 – Original 2nd cheque dishnour memo Dt.27.01.2020.

Ex.P5 - Office copy of registered notice Dt.08.02.2020.

Ex.P6 – Postal receipt Dt.08.02.2020.

APVZ0C00018320209Dt.14.05.2026

Ex.P7 - Postal acknowledgment Dt.10.02.2020.

Ex.P8 - Postal track consignment record of registered lawyer notice.

For Defence : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:31:10 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C000183202010Dt.14.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

* * *

Date of offence: 08.01.2020, 10.01.2020

Date of report or complaint: 18.03.2020

Date of apprehension of accused: ---

Date of release, if any on bail: ---

Date of commencement of trial: 28.10.2022

Date of close of trial: 17.02.2026

Date of sentence or order: 14.05.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 138 / 2020on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Salur.

Complainant:- Grandhi Eswara Rao, S/o. Late Appalanarasimham, aged 45 years,

Kota veedhi, Near Yuvarajugari House, Salur town and municipality, Vizianagaram

District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Accused, Father’s Name, Age, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Sutapalli Gunneswara Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 40 years, Sri Lakshmi Homes Needs, Golla veedhi Junction, Salur town and municipality, Vizianagaram District.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCE: - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the account is punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

……………………………………. FINDING:- Accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

APVZ0C000183202011Dt.14.05.2026

SENTENCE:- In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is directed to pay fine of 1.5 times on the two cheque amounts as compensation and cheques discharging amount with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of judgment, in case of default to pay the two cheque amounts with interest and compensation the accused shall be liable for punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Digitally Signed by

GUDURIGUDURI HARSHA VARDHAN

Date: 2026.05.14 17:32:26 +0530

HARSHA Reason: True Copy

VARDHAN

Location: Salur

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C00087320161 Dt.12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: SALUR.

Present: Sri G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Salur.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 583 of 2016

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Salur Town Police Station. .....Complainant.

And: Vikram Chandra Sanyasiraju, S/o. Late LN Sanyasiraju, age 59 years,

Fort, Kota veedhi, Salur town, Vizianagaram District. ..... Accused.

This case is coming on 15.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri

Tirupathi Panigrahi and S. Srinivasa Rao, Learned Defence counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.52/2015 for the offence under section 12 of AP (SC,

ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act.

2.The brief facts of case of the Prosecution, as per the Charge Sheet is as follows:

LW.1/ Tahsildar, Salur mandal, Vizianagaram district reported that the accused has filed a complaint before the Collector, Vizianagaram that the case of his father’s social status (ST) was pending before the Government of A.P. Social

Welfare Department and the government after careful examination of the matter has directed to take action as per rules issued in GO.MS.No.58 Dt.12.05.1997 with

APVZ0C00087320162 Dt.12.05.2026 reference to ST Social Status of his blood relatives. Aggrieved by these orders, the accused has preferred Writ Petition in Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad requesting to suspend the orders issued by the Government and Hon’ble High

Court has been pleased and passed interim suspension of the orders of the

Government and ordered to issue notices. On the request of the President, Akhila

Bharata Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Salur was impleaded as Respondent and the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad passed orders vacating the suspension

orders issued earlier and directed that the Collector, Vizianagaram is at liberty shall issue notice to accused with law. On that the accused has filed Writ Appeal against the orders of the High Court of AP, Hyderabad that under the Act 1993 it is the committee that can hold enquiry, but not the collector. The High Court in its WA passed orders that the Collector is at liberty that he comes to conclusion of the doubtful nature of the community certificate issued to refer the matter to the committee for opinion as envisaged GOs and with the observations WA has been disposed. Moreover the accused again filed WP requesting to stay for all proceedings in the pursuant of the notices issued regarding enquiries of his claim about his caste. But the court has passed order that will not preclude the District

Level Scrutiny Committee to proceed with the material in accordance with Law.

As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of AP Hyderabad, the District

Collector issued proceedings on observations of the DLS committee that the accused does not belongs to any ST community notified under as per the

Annexure-I of AP SC, ST, BC Regulation of issue certificate Rules 1997. Again the accused has filed WP in the Hon’ble High Court of AP Hyderabad against the orders of the Collector requesting to be stayed. But the Hon’ble High Court has ordered that the WVMP has dismissed and the order made absolute. Thereupon the District Collector, Vizianagaram has directed launch Criminal action against the accused and the officers who held responsible in this case. Based on the directions of the Collector, Vizianagaram a detailed report has already has been sent to you vide this office RC.No.437/2012 Dt.01.11.2012 for launching criminal action.

Basing on the complaint of LW.1, LW.4/ SI of Police, Salur Town P.S.

registered a case in Cr.No.52/2015 under section 12 of AP (SC, ST & BC)

APVZ0C00087320163 Dt.12.05.2026

Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act. During investigation LW.4 examined LWs. 1 to 3 and recorded their detail statements, LW.5/ SI of Police,

Salur Town P.S. obtained the attested enquiry report copies from LW.1 for further investigation. During investigation on 02.11.2016 LW.5 served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice against accused. As per the enquiry and the investigation it is proved that the accused has obtained caste certificate as ST though he belongs to Kshathriya forwarded community. Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 12 of AP (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of

Community Certificates Act.

4.After appearance of accused case copies of documents was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet for the offence U/s. 12 of AP (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of

Community Certificates Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence, and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The Prosecution field the death certificate of LW.2, hence his evidence is closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No exhibits were marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence U/sec.12 of AP (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of

Community Certificates Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

APVZ0C00087320164 Dt.12.05.2026

Point :

10.The case is based on report by Tahsildar, the report was issued by Tahsildar based on proceedings of the Collector on what grounds the Collector directed to initiate prosecution was not on record. There are four witnesses in this case and they are Estate Officer, GVMC, VRO and two S.I. of Police.

11.The Estate Officer, GVMC who served as Tahsildar at Salur from June 2015 to March 2016 he deposed that he was given direction to take appropriate steps for launching criminal proceedings against the accused through DRO, Parvathipuram, on that he gave Ex.P1 report. The District Collector issued proceedings on observations of District Levels Scrutiny committee stating that the accused does not belongs to Schedule Tribe community as such shall not be treated as number belongs to any ST community notified and directed them to launch criminal action against the accused.

12.Ex.P2 is copy of letter addressed to SHO, Salur Town, Ex.P3 is copy of letter addressed to Tahsildar, Salur from RDO, Parvathipuram. Ex.P4 is copy of letter addressed to RDO, Parvathipuram from DRO, Vizianagaram. The original documents of Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are with the custody of Tahsildar officer and only uncertified photostat copies are filed in this Court. PW.1 admitted that no caste certificate of accused is filed before this Court. As per Section 5 of AP (SC, ST &

BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, if any caste certificate is cancelled gazette notification shall be issued and no such gazette notification was filed in this case. The Honourable High Court gave direction in Writ Petition

No.4868 of 2004 to dispose of enquiry with regard to the caste certificate of father of accused. PW.1 admitted according to Section 21 of said act if caste certificate was issued was prior to the Act 16 of 1993 the caste certificate will be in force until it cancelled by the authority. PW.1 further admitted that as per proceedings issued by the Collector some third party was involved for not issuing the caste certificate to the family of the accused.

13.PW.2 who is VRO, Salur Town from 2008 deposed that on 01.05.2015 the accused fraudulently received Caste Certificate as he belongs to ST/Konda Dora

APVZ0C00087320165 Dt.12.05.2026 from the Tahsildar of Salur and some cases are pending against the Accused with regard to caste certificate of the Accused. The Accused filed Writ Petition at the

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to cancel the cases pending

against him. Then the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad gave directions to the District Collector to verify the caste certificate of the accused and conduct enquiry in District Scrutiny committee, Vizianagaram. The Scrutiny committee declared that it was false certificate. On that The District Collector was directed the Tahsildar, Salur to file a criminal case against the Accused. PW.2 and

LW.2 assist the PW.1 during the course of the enquiry conducted against the

Accused.

14.In cross examination PW.2 stated that he do not know when the caste certificate of Accused was issued and never seen the caste certificate of Accused.

The father of accused elected as MLA in Salur constituency through ST quota. The

ST certificate of father of accused was never cancelled. Basing on the caste certificate of father of accused, the family of accused got ST certificate. PW.2 do not know whether the Gazette notification was issued by the District Collector to cancel the ST Certificate of Accused and his father, he never seen the direction was given by the District collector to the Tahsildar to cancellation of the ST Certificate of accused and launching the criminal proceedings. PW.2 giving evidence as per instructions given by PW.1.

15.PW.3 who worked as SI of Police, Salur Town P.S. from 2013 to 2015 deposed that on 01.05.2015 he received the report from PW.1, basing on that he registered the Case in Cr.No.52/2015 under section 12 of AP SC, ST and BC regulation of Issuing community certificate act and issued the Ex.P5/FIR to the

Honourable JFCM Salur and all concerned officials. Later he examined PW.1,

PW.2, LW.2 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements. In cross examination PW.3 stated that he have not recorded statement of DLS Committee, Vizianagaram, not examined any officials with regard to the caste certificate is not belongs to accused and not obtained any prosecution validity certificate from the prosecution so also he did not take any legal opinion from the Public Prosector.

APVZ0C00087320166 Dt.12.05.2026

16.PW.4 deposed that on 02.12.2016 he took up the CD file and other documents from PW.3 and conducted the further investigation. On the same he issued 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused and during investigation, he obtained the

Attested copies of Ex.P6/Proceedings of the District Collector Dt.30.07.2007 in

R.Dis.No. 1937/2003 C5, Ex.P7/Enquiry Report of District Level Scrutiny

Committee, Dt.18.09.2009., Ex.P8/Brief Note on Social Status of Sri PBSSLN

Murthy Raju, Salur Dt.20.09.2009, Ex.P9/Notification issued by the District Collector

Dt.27.10.2009, Ex.P10/Proceedings of the District Collector, Vizianagaram

Dt.27.10.2009 in R.Dis.No.1934/2003 C5. After the Completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against Accused.

17.PW.4 in cross stated that the Vigilance Cell of District Collectorate,

Vizianagaram did not cause any enquiry through local police and he did not file the

Caste Certificate of the Accused. He have no knowledge regarding the signature of the authority in the certificate of Accused. The Tahsildar is the Competent person to speak about the detail proceedings of the Collector, he did not receive any Gazette

Notification canceling the the Caste Certificate of Accused. During his investigation they did not trace any benefits availed by Accused using the Caste Certificate.

PW.4 admitted that until a new Caste Certificate was issued, the existing one will be in force. He have no material to show the District Collector issued the notice to the accused under section 5, he did not file any copies of Caste Certificates of ancestors of the Accused into this court. Basing on School Certificates and registered Documents the Revenue officials and enquiry officers confirmed the father of Accused belongs to Kshatriya Community, but not Konda Dora. PW.4 have no material regarding customs, rites and practices of accused, neither in his investigation nor in the proceedings of the Collector.

18.The basis of this case is false certificate of accused and in the material there was no such certificate was filed by the prosecution and there is no Gazette notification from the Collector cancelling the caste certificate of accused. Ex.P9 is notification of District Collector cancelling the caste certificate of P.B.S.S.L.N.

Murthy Raju, the name of the accused is Vikram Chandra Sanyasiraju, the name of the father of accused is LN Sanyasiraju. Ex.P10 is proceedings of District Collector

APVZ0C00087320167 Dt.12.05.2026 is also regarding P.B.S.S.L.N.Murthy Raju, where as Ex.P7 enquiry report of District

Level Scrutiny Committee consisting the name of LN Sanyasi Raju and Vikram

Chandra Sanyasiraju. Ex.P8 is also discussing about Writ petition of P.B.S.S.L.N.

Murthy Raju in said Ex.P8 the P.B.S.S.L.N.Murthy Raju stated Vikram Chandra

Sanyasi Raju and Viswambhara Chandra Sanyasiraju, S/o. L.N. Sanyasi Raju are his paternal cousins and they were given Konda Dora certificates and he was also blood relation of the above family. Mere mentioning of accused and his father by

P.B.S.S.L.N. Murthy Raju in Writ Petition 11633/2009 does not satisfy the necessary ground to convict the accused here in. The notification by the District

Collector for cancelling the ST certificate should be the certificate of accused here in but not P.B.S.S.L.N. Murthy Raju to convict the accused here in.

19.From mere instructions of the District Collector the accused cannot be held guilty without any material or circumstance or evidence establish the crime of the accused. To obtain a certificate one person must apply to the concerned authority, on application said authority enquires the matter, basing on the enquiry report the caste certificate was issued to said person. If the certificate issued to the accused is false, the accused here in is the only applicant and the issuing authority who made the enquiry regarding the caste of the accused shall be held accountable is accomplish and departmental enquiry is necessary against such officials by the

District Collector before proceeding against accused here in, no such departmental enquiry report was placed before the court, the District Level Scrutiny Committee report shall be established to be genuine and valid and it shall reflect the intention of acts of the accused for obtaining the false ST certificate.

20.Without establishing the prima facie case against the accused and without producing valid documentary evidence of commission of offence by the accused, the departmental proceedings of revenue authorities shall not form sole basis to convict the accused. This case is devoid of merits even though there was a procedure for issuance of certificate and cancellation of certificate neither of them were proved in this Court regarding this case have followed certain authorities.

Hence this case remains not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence against the accused.

APVZ0C00087320168 Dt.12.05.2026

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under section 12 of AP (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months

U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-III, transcribed by her, corrected, pronounced and signed

by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1 – K. Anandarao. Nil

PW.2 – Patnaikuni Srinivasa Rao.

PW.3 – Shaik Abdul Maroof.

PW.4 – P. Vari.

Court Witnesses : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 / PW.1 – Report Dt.01.05.2015

Ex.P2 / PW.1 – Copy of letter addressed to the SHO, Salur Town P.S. by Sri D.S.

Sastry, Tahsildar of PW.2.

Ex.P3 / PW.1 – Letter address to Tahsildar, Salur from Sri J. Venkata Rao, RDO,

Parvathipuram.

Ex.P4 / PW.1 – Letter addressed to Sri J. Venkata Rao, RDO, Parvathipuram from

DRO, Vizianagaram.

Ex.P5 / PW.3 – First Information Report in Crime No.52/2015.

APVZ0C00087320169 Dt.12.05.2026

Ex.P6 / PW.4 – Proceedings of the District Collector Dt.30.07.2007 in R.Dis.No.

1937 /2003 C5.

Ex.P7 / PW.4 – Enquiry Report of District Level Scrutiny Committee, Dt.18.09.2009.

Ex.P8 / PW.4 – Brief Note on Social Status of Sri PBSSLN Murthy Raju, Salur

Dt.20.09.2009.

Ex.P9 / PW.4 – Notification issued by the District Collector Dt.27.10.2009.

Ex.P10 / PW.4 – Proceedings of the District Collector, Vizianagaram Dt.27.10.2009 in R.Dis.No.1934/2003 C5.

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C000873201610 Dt.12.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

* * *

Date of offence: Prior to 01.05.2015

Date of report or complaint: 01.05.2015

Date of apprehension of accused: 41(1) Cr.P.C notice.

Date of release, if any on bail: Does not arise

Date of commencement of trial: 05.07.2023

Date of close of trial: 05.03.2026

Date of sentence or order: 12.05.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 583 / 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Salur.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police

Station in Crime No.52/2015.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Accused, Father’s Name, Age, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Vikram Chandra Sanyasiraju, S/o. Late LN Sanyasiraju, age 59 years, Fort,

Kotaveedhi, Salur town, Vizianagaram District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Penalties for obtaining a false community certificate to secure election to any public office under section 12 of AP (SC, ST & BC)

Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act.

Finding : Found not guilty.

APVZ0C000873201611 Dt.12.05.2026

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under section 12 of AP (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C00048120151 Dt.15.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: SALUR.

Present: Sri G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Salur.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 310 of 2015

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Salur Town Police Station. .....Complainant.

And: Gottapu Mahesh, S/o. Krishna, 25 years, K. Velama, Chinaborabanda village, Salur mandal,

Driver of Auto bearing No.AP35X1705. ..... Accused.

This case is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri T.

Tirupathi Rao, Learned Defence counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.77/2015 for the offence under sections 338, 337 IPC and 181 of MV Act.

2.The brief facts of case of the Prosecution, as per the Charge Sheet is as follows:

On 17.06.2015 at about 20.00 hours LW.1/ Alajangi Chanti with his brother-in- law LW.2/ Chinthada Prabhakar Rao were proceeded by LW.1 motor cycle bearing

No. AP35Q7695 from Baguvalasa towards Salur for domestic work and when they reached near Kamma Prasad trashing floor of Gumadam village at about 20.15 hours at the juncture one driver of auto bearing No. AP35X1705 came opposite direction and drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed LW.1 motor

APVZ0C00048120152 Dt.15.05.2026 cycle. As a result LW.1 and pillion rider LW.2 fell down on the road, LW.1 received severe bleeding injuries on back side of the head and LW.2 sustained grievous bleeding injury on right leg. In the mean time LW.3/ Chinthada Murali came behind

LW.1 motor cycle also dashed on LW.1 laid down motor cycle and he sustained injuries on right leg thumb and knee. Later LWs. 1 to 3 were shifted to CHC, Salur, medical officer rendered first aid and advised to go for better treatment. Accordingly

LWs. 1 to 3 joined in Sai Super Specialty hospital, Vizianagaram.

Basing on the statement of LW.1, LW.11/ASI, Salur Town PS. registered a case in Cr.No.77/2015 under section 338, 337 IPC and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, secured presence of mediators and recorded their statements and observed the scene of offence. LW.11 send requisition to LW.9 for inspection of the crime vehicle and injured motor cycle to get the MVI report. On 08.07.2015 served notice to the accused under section 41 Cr.P.C. LW.12/ Sub

Inspector, Salur Town P.S. verified the records and found that the accused driver did not have any driving license. LW.12 verified the investigation made by LW.11, obtained the wound certificate from LW.10, MVI report from LW.9 and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 338, 337 IPC.

4.After appearance of accused case copies of documents was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet for the offence U/s. 338, 337 IPC was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence, and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution

APVZ0C00048120153 Dt.15.05.2026 evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No exhibits were marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence U/sec. 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point :

10.PW.1 deposed that on 17.06.2015 at 08.00 p.m. himself along with his brother-in-law LW.2 while proceeding on a motorcycle from Bogavalasa to Salur, when they reached near Chandrampeta, one auto which was coming in an opposite direction drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their bike due to which they fell on the road sustained severe bleeding injuries on the back side of the head and LW.2 sustained injuries on his right leg. In cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that on that day of accident, it was night and in dark. At the time of occurrence of accident, PW.1 is driving the crime vehicle. He did not know the particulars of the boundaries of the scene of offence. LW.3 Chintada Murali dashed the LW.1 vehicle.

Himself and LW.2 fell down beside their vehicle. LW.2 and LW.3 are relatives. He do not know the crime vehicle auto's number. They do not know whether anybody came out to the scene of offence to save them. They do not know who shifted LW.2,

LW.3 and himself to the hospital.

11.PW.1 admitted that there is a small curve at the scene of offence and police enquired him at Vizianagaram Hospital only. He cannot say for how many days they went under treatment in hospital. He denied the suggestion that on the date of accident they are driving three members in one vehicle and got self-accident.

12.One Cinthada Murali appeared as PW.2 and deposed that on 17.06.2015 at about 08.15 p.m. while he was coming on his motorcycle from Bhogavalasa village to Salur. PW.1 and LW.2 coming on bike bearing No.AP35Q7695 from Bhogavalasa to Salur. The bike of PW.1 and LW.2 belongs to PW.1. At that time, one auto coming from Salur's side in a rash and negligent manner dashed PW.1 and LW.2.

Immediately, PW.1 and LW.2 fell on the road, LW.2 received severe injuries on his

APVZ0C00048120154 Dt.15.05.2026 right leg and PW.1 received bleeding injuries on back side of his head. At that time,

PW.2 tried to control his bike and he also fell from the bike and received injuries to his left toe. Some unknown members called 108 Ambulance, who shifted them to

Government Hospital, Salur and later they went to Sri Rammurthy Hospital,

Vizianagaram for better treatment. The accused left the place of offence on the date of incident and due to that reason PW.2 unable to identify the accused who is present before the court.

13.In cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he did not control his bike due to which he fell on the bike of PW.1 and LW.2 and he dashed them. He received bleeding injury on the left leg toe finger. At the time of accident, no one was present at the scene of offence and he cannot say the driver of auto and its registration number. He had no license at the time of accident to drive the two wheeler and also

C book or insurance for his bike. PW.2 stated the boundaries as eastern side of scene of offence there is a house, southern side one shed is situated, western side also one shed is situated, northern side a vacant site situated to the scene of offence. Except himself, PW1 and LW1, no one is present at the scene of offence.

One unknown person coming from Bhogavalasa to Salur observed them and called the ambulance. They did not request anyone to call the ambulance because they are in unconscious state. At the scene of offence, there is a curve situated towards

Salur side. He stated at the time of accident he is not in a tranquil state. He fell on the left side of the road into the bushes. PW.1 and LW.2 fell on the left side of the road. And the same was stated to police at Government Hospital, Vizianagaram.

PW2 did not take any treatment at Government Hospital, Salur. They referred him to Sri Ram Murthy Hospital, Vizianagaram. Police examined him at Government

Hospital, Salur only. He did not apply any motor vehicle original petition for insurance so also PW.1 and PW.2.

14. PW.3 and PW.4 turned hostile and they did not impose anything in favour of prosecution. PW.5 is mediator of scene observation report on rough sketch. In cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that he cannot say who scribed scene observation report. He signed on Ex.P4 scene observation report at the police station. At the scene of offence, he observed one auto. He cannot say the

APVZ0C00048120155 Dt.15.05.2026 boundaries and survey number of the scene of offence. PW.6 did not depose in favour of prosecution and turned hostile.

15.PW.7 is Motor Vehicle Inspector, who stated the following damage to motorcycle 1) front headlight assemble damaged, 2) front safety guard damaged.

He conducted road test and found the vehicle was in good and even in action. He of the opinion that accident was not due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. In cross-examination, PW.7 admitted that police made requisition to inspect two vehicles for road test. He conducted road test for two vehicles. He admitted there is no damage to auto rickshaw. PW.8 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

16.PW.9 deposed that on 17.06.2015 he received Medical Intimation from CHC,

Salur, he went to the Sai Super Specialty Hospital, Vizianagaram and recorded the

Ex.P.1/ statement of PW.1, basing on the statement he registered the case in

Cr.No.77/2015 under section 337, 338 of IPC. On 18.06.2015 he have examined

PW.1 to PW.4, PW.8 and LW.2 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements. He visited the Scene of Offence situated at Kamma Prasad, trashing floor of

Gumadam and observed the same in the presence of PW.5 and PW.6 and prepared the Ex.P4/Scene Observation Report and also prepared Ex.P9/ Rough

Sketch. On 20.06.2015 PW.9 have issued 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused and verified crime vehicle records and driving license of the accused. He received MVI report/Ex.P6 from PW.7 and wound certificate of PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 from LW.10/

Dr. T. Venkateswarlu, Medical Officer, Sai Super Specialty Hospital, Vizianagaram.

Later LW.12/ Shaik Abdul Maharoof, SI of Police verified the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused,

17.PW.9 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not show the other side motor vehicle in rough sketch and he did not show auto bearing No.AB35X1705 in rough sketch. He did not show the skid marks in the rough sketch. The accused resident of Borabanda Village of Salur mandal. The accused used to travel in his auto as he is the driver of the auto.

18.PW.10 stated he verified the investigation of PW.9 and filed charge sheet . In cross examination PW.10 stated that he had no idea regarding how many vehicles

APVZ0C00048120156 Dt.15.05.2026 are present at the scene of offence at the time of incident. He cannot say the exact period from the date of offence to identification of crime vehicle. Based on scientific evidence they identified the crime vehicle and also based on circumstances they identified the number of the crime vehicle. Then he stated, as per the investigation, one vehicle is on the road, another vehicle hit the said vehicle.

19.From the deposition of witnesses, it is clear that the accused was not identified or the circumstantial evidence does not show any rash or negligence driving by the accused in his auto. PW.1 and LW.2 motorcycle was hit by motorcycle of PW.2 at the scene of offence, the auto was also present. Nowhere from the deposition, it was established that the auto driver drove his auto in a rash and negligent manner and hit PW.1 and PW.2. At the scene of offence, not just

PW.1 and LW.2 and auto driver, but also PW.2 is also present. PW.2 did not identify the driver of the auto or the number of the auto. There are no direct witnesses to the scene of offence from the deposition. More particularly, no damage was caused to the auto rickshaw and it was established through motor vehicle inspector.

20.When there is no damage to the auto rickshaw, there gives rise to presumption that the auto rickshaw was present at the scene of offence, but it cannot bind the auto rickshaw for the offence. The motor cycle of PW.1 was inspected, but the motor cycle of PW.2 was not inspected. There was a suggestion from the defence counsel that PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 are driving on a same motorcycle. Without inspecting the motor vehicle of PW.2 and its presence at the scene of offence in the deposition, gives rise and standards to the suggestion by the defense counsel regarding triple riding. The scene observation report was drafted at police station. Actually, the scene observation report shall be drafted at the scene of offence, but not at the police station, for the reason that there might be some omissions and exaggerations possible. The scene observation report is not wholly reliable in this particular case when it was signed by the mediators at police station but not at the scene of offence. There was no valid driving licence to the driver of the motorcycle. There are no damages or skid marks to the auto rickshaw.

The motorcycle and PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 fell on the left side of the road. They sustained injuries to their right legs. When the motorcycle fell on the left side, the

APVZ0C00048120157 Dt.15.05.2026 persons on the motorcycle shall sustain injuries on the left side, but not on the right side. If PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 dashed the auto rickshaw there will be a chance of damage to the auto rickshaw for the reason that dashing means collusion of two vehicles.

21.Moreover, it was a curve at the scene of offence. At the place of curve, one must move slowly in a controlled manner. PW.2 stated he lost control and fell on the road and he hit the motorcycle of PW.1 and LW.2. The presence of PW.2 at the scene of offence is an intervention and interference into the scene of offence. When there is an interference in the scene of offence or in the series of crossing of vehicles at curve in a circumstantial evidence case, such interference resulted in the injuries to PW,1, PW.2 and LW2. Hence this court finds it proper not to convict the driver of the auto. For the reason that the presence of driver of the auto was not established and the recklessness or failure to take due care by the auto driver was not established. Moreover PW.2 dashed PW.1 and LW.2 motor cycle at scene.

Hence, this Court finds it proper to acquit the accused.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under sections 337, 338 of IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The accused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1 – A. Chanti. Nil

PW.2 – Chintada Murali.

PW.3 – Allu Ashok.

APVZ0C00048120158 Dt.15.05.2026

PW.4 – V. Gowrinaidu.

PW.5 – Nimmadi Thirupathirao.

PW.6 – Balaga Pydiraju.

PW.7 – V.V. Koteswararao.

PW.8 – Gorja Lakshmunaidu.

PW.9 – Ch. Sankara Rao.

PW.10 – Shaik Abdul Maroof.

Court Witnesses : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 / PW.1 – Statement of PW.1, Dt.18.06.2015.

Ex.P2 / PW.3 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P3 / PW.4 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Ex.P4 / PW.5 – Scene observation report..

Ex.P5 / PW.6 – Signature of PW.6 on Ex.P4.

Ex.P6 / PW.7 – MVI Report.

Ex.P7 / PW.8 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8.

Ex.P8 / PW.9 – First Information Report in Crime No.77/2015.

Ex.P9 / PW.9 – Rough Sketch.

Ex.P10 / PW.10 – Wound Certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P11 / PW.10 – Wound Certificate of LW.2/ Chintada Prabhakara Rao.

Ex.P12 / PW.10 – Wound certificate of PW.2.

For Defence:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.

APVZ0C00048120159 Dt.15.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

* * *

Date of offence: 17.06.2015

Date of report or complaint: 18.06.2015

Date of apprehension of accused: 41 Cr.P.C notice.

Date of release, if any on bail: Does not arise

Date of commencement of trial: 28.02.2023

Date of close of trial: 27.10.2025

Date of sentence or order: 15.05.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 310 / 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Salur.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police

Station in Crime No. 77 / 2015.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Accused, Father’s Name, Age, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Gottapu Mahesh, S/o. Krishna, 25 years, K. Velama, Chinaborabanda village, Salur mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP35X1705. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Section 337 IPC : Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

Section 338 IPC : Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

Finding : Found not guilty.

APVZ0C000481201510 Dt.15.05.2026

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under sections 337, 338 of IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The accused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Sd/- G. Harsha Vardhan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur.