Sri.G.Prabhakar

1

 THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS­CUM­XIII ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA.

Present: Sri G. Prabhakar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of I class­

cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 21st day of December, 2018. 

C.C. No.85/2017

Between:

The State Inspector of Police, SHO, Nandigama Police Station. …Complainant

And

1. Pothana Srinivasa Rao, s/o. Rosaiah, 48 years, Kamma, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal.

2. Chintha Anjaneuyilu, s/o. Hanumatha Rao, 47 years, Near sivalayam, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal. 

3. Velagapudi Ramakrishna, s/o. Satyanarayana, 43 years, Kamma, 501­D, Swarna Apartments, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal.

4. Adusumilli Sri krishna Sudhakar, s/o. Sacidanandam, 54 years, Brahmin, 23­12­10/B, Ogiralavari Street, Satyanarayanpuram, Vijayawada.

5. Atluri Ravindra Kumar, s/o. Atchaiah, 59 years, Kamma, Poranki village, Penamluru Mandal.

.... Accused 

This case is coming before me on 20.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri E.Ranga Rao, Advocate for accused no.1 to 4, and of Sri Ch.Srinivas, Advocate for 5th accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The S.I of police, Nandigama police station filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable u/s.224 IPC in Cr.No.255/2012

2.Allegations in charge sheet, in brief are that :

(a)On 22.06.2012, the Inspector of police, Nandigama circle along with staff raided Uma Holiday Inns near Paritala village, arrested 42 persons for the offence u/s. 3 of A.P. Gaming Act vide Cr.No.112/2012 2 of Kanchikacherla Police station. The said 42 accused persons were handed over to escort men/PW6, LW4/SriK.Srinivasa Rao, LW5/T.Bala

Swami, LW6/S. Venkateswara Rao, PW5, PW7, directing them, to produce them, before Hon’ble II class Magistrate, Nandigama. PW1/HC936 and other staff also accompanied escort team. The escorting team produced the said 42 persons at the residence of Magistrate in Adaviravulapadu village, Nandigama Mandal at 20­00 hours, since the Magistrate was at his residence.

(b) There was power failure. Later, at 09­30 PM, when power supply was restored, escort police men have produced the said 42 accused

before Magistrate. The Magistrate entertained suspicion on the identity of

some of the accused. Hence, he returned the remand report with instructions to produce accused along with identity proofs. But when the escort team was about to take back the accused to police station, they pushed the staff, 14 out of 42 accused managed to escape from lawful custody of escort police constables, they retained remaining 28 persons, took them back to Kanchikacherla Police station.

(c)PW1/HC396/P.Yesu Ratnam, presented a report to the police,

Nandigama. Basing on the same, SI of police, Nandigama, registered a case in Cr.No.255/2012, u/s. 224 IPC and took up investigation.

(d)During the course of investigation, SI of police, examined and recorded statements of 12 witnesses; as per orders of SI of police, Krishna vide C.No.28/SP­Camp/KI/2012, dt. 11.09.2012, the then Inspector of police, SHO, Nandigama/LW14, took up further investigation in this case; arrested A.3, A.4, A.2 and A.1 on 16.09.2012, 20.11.2012, 11.09.2013 and 30.10.2013 respectively and sent them for judicial custody.On 27.03.15, 3

A.14 was arrested by Inspector of police, Nandigama in Cr.No.112/2012, served notice u/s., 41A (1) Cr.P.C.

(e)Subsequently, with the orders of Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Nandigama vide C.No.80/A­Del/SDO.NDG/2015, dt.23.11.2015, the remaining absconding accused by names Movva Uma Maheswara Rao,ie.,

A.5, Narala Ramireddy ie., A.6, Pinnamraju Venkataraju ie., A.7, Burri

Srikumar ie., A.8, Kummareddy Anantha Mohan ie., A.9, Jaladi Rama

Krishna ie, A.10, Mekapothula Pothuraju ie., A.11, Parvathaneni Ravindra ie., A.12, Chalasani Rama Krishna ie., A.13, were deleted from this case as accused, as their whereabouts are not known, since they are not residing in the villages, in the given address. The arrested accused A1 to A4, A14 are charge sheeted as A.1 to A.5 in this case and the name of remaining accused were deleted from charge.

3.Initially, the case was taken on file as C.C. No.1036/2015 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class, Nandigama. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them in compliance with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C, accusation for the offence punishable u/s.224 IPC, was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

4.Subsequently, as per the orders of Hon’ble District Court, Krishna

Machilipatnam in Dis.No. 5887, dated 11­07­2017, the case is transferred to this Court for further trial in accordance with Law and re­numbered as

C.C.No.85/2017

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8, and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 on its behalf. 

4 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C; incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied. They did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

7.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is, whether prosecution established guilt of accused for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT :

The investigating officer is examined as PW8. The case of prosecution is that, when 42 accused were produced before the II Class

Magistrate at his residence in Adaviravulapadu village of Nandigama

Mandal in connection with Cr.No.112/2012, in the darkness, 14 persons out of 42 accused escaped from the lawful custody of the escorted police, but the charge sheet was filed only against five persons who are accused herein. The reason assigned by the investigating officer for deleting the name of other 9 persons from charge is that, they are not residing in the given address and that, their whereabouts are not known.

‘Lawful’ means, that which in its substance is sanctioned are justified by law and in simple, it means not ‘contrary to law’. ‘Custody’ means, ‘care, keeping , charge, judicial or safe keeping (as custody of prisoner).

10.In the present case on hand, the contention of prosecution is that, these accused were given to the lawful custody of escorting team consisting of PW6, LW4/K.Srinivasa Rao, LW5/T.Bala Swami,

LW6/S. Venkateswara Rao, PW5, PW7.

5

11.Police manual contains certain rules and procedure while giving a person to lawful custody of a police man, to escort the prisoner or accused of an offence, for judicial custody such as arrest card, remand report,

Case Diary, Part­I, fitness certificate, so on and so forth, and in addition to that, the escorting team will also be entrusted with a ‘duty passport’ authorizing them, to take accused into lawful custody, before the offenders are sent to judicial custody. All these documents are very crucial and helpful to make out the identity of the offender. Unless, the identity of an offender is made out, no such procedure is possible to apprehend the person, effect his arrest, produce him in the court for judicial custody.

12.But it is found from the admissions of Pws 5 to 7 and also from the admission of PW8/I.O, that they have not produced any material concerned with Crime No.112/2012, in which case, 42 offenders were allegedly produced before the Magistrate and out of them, in the process of judicial custody, 14 persons have escaped from lawful custody. Hence, the charge. So, if as the record pertaining to Cr.No.112/12 is produced for perusal of court, it would be possible for the court and the prosecution to make out identity of persons, who are absconding from lawful custody but the prosecution for its unknown reason, did not chose to file any such document, which is bad for launching prosecution in this case. The basic allegation being production of accused before judicial custody in

Cr.No.112/12 and absconding of these accused and others in total 14 persons, the non production of any material concerning Crime

No.112/12 is an embargo on deciding as to whether these accused were among those 14 absconders out of 42 accused, produced before the

Magistrate. It is highly difficult with the available material to find out the

above aspect. Therefore, a serious doubt arise in the case of prosecution 6 as to whether these 5 accused were among the 14 absconding accused, out of 42 accused that were said to be produced before the court, is a serious doubt arises in the case of prosecution which remained unanswered and for that reason, not attended by the prosecution. 

13.PW5 to PW7 are members among the escorted team as per the case of prosecution. Their evidence reveals that they have escorted 42 accused persons in Cr.No.112/12 to the court and that in the night hours, 14 members escaped from their custody during power failure. As regards the identity of the absconding 14 persons, what PW5 stated is that, he cannot say the names of said three persons who are said to be among 14 absconders.

14.PW6 stated that A.1 to A.5 are among the said 14 escaped accused and that he can identify them but at the same time, in his cross examination, Pw6 stated that he had no prior acquaintance with any of those 42 persons prior to this offence. It is in the evidence of PW8 that he has not conducted Test identification parade of accused. When that is so, it is not known how PW6 is able to identify the accused herein as among those who escaped from lawful custody after a period of 6 years is a doubtful circumstance.

15.PW6 admitted that the remand case diary in Cr.No.112/12 was not handed over to SI of police during the examination. When that is so, it is not known how PW6, could identify the accused is not explained. Even if the identity of accused 1 to 5 is believable for instance, in the absence of basic record of Cr.No.112/12, to show that, these accused were also among those 42 persons concerned to Cr.No.112/12, the accused cannot be found fault as argued by learned counsel for accused, more 7 particularly, when prosecution, has failed to produce the remaining 9 absconders.

16.PW1 stated that he can identify Pothana Srinivasa Rao and Chinta

Anjaneyulu, who after seeing the accused, stated that the said two persons are not among the accused 1 to 5. So, Pw1 is unable to identify any of the accused. The complainant who reported the matter to police, also unable to identify the accused. Pw2 to PW4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 

17.Pw8 is the investigating officer who registered the crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, deposed about the investigation conducted by him. In his cross examination, it is elicited that the scene of offence is at the house of II Class magistrate but the same is not depicted in the rough sketch and he admitted that he has not examined the said Magistrate as witness. He further admitted that he has not collected any records such as remand report pertaining to Cr.No.112/12, nor obtained certified copies from the court. He also admitted that he has not examined any body from

Police station, Kanchikacherla to collect information and detailed address of all 42 accused in Cr.No.112/12. Further and lastly PW8 admitted that he has not collected duty passport of Pw2 and others nor filed it in the court. This admissions on the part of PW8, goes to show that, there is no prima facie evidence against accused to say that, they were among 42 accused in Cr.No.112/12, that they are among 14 absconders out of the said 42 persons. When the duty passport is not produced, it becomes doubtful circumstance, whether PW5 to PW7 were on duty or not. When the basic document to show that PW5 to 7 were on duty and that they were in lawful custody of accused, the allegation that accused escaped from lawful custody cannot be believed. The case of prosecution also 8 cannot be believed for another reason that, they failed to produced any material concerning Cr.No.112/12 to show that these accused were also there among 42 accused in that crime.

18.It was also elicited during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, that the inspector of Police and SI of police of Kanchikacherla

Rural circle were suspended on the ground of illegalities committed in

Cr.No.112/2012. With this admission, the contention of counsel for accused is that, in order to escape from departmental action, the said police officials have falsely implicated accused in this case. In the absence of production of any material concerning Cr.No.112/12, this argument of learned counsel gains any amount of strength. For all these reasons, it is concluded that accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

19.In the result, accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 224 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of next six months, as contemplated u/s. 437 of IPC. 

Dictated to Stenographer­Gr.III, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of December, 2018. sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum 

Judl. Magistrate of I class­cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

ProsecutionDefence

PW1P. YesuratnamNONE PW2Akula Venkat Ra PW3Sura Kondala Rao PW4Guntupalli Hanumantha Rao PW5S. Naresh 9

PW6G.Venkatarao PW7D.Krishna PW8N.Venakata Narayana

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defense : NIL. 

Ex.P1Report Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5FIR Ex.P6Rough sketch of scene

MOs marked:­ NIL ­ sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum 

Judl. Magistrate of I class­cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 85/2017 on the file Of Principal Junior Civil Judge­Cum­Judicial Magistrate

Of First Class­Cum­XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

Date ofReport ApprehensionDate ofCommencemeClose of trialJudgment offence andof therelease onnt of trial accused bail place 22.06.1223.06.12A.1 :30.10.13A1: 30.10.1309.11.1819.12.1821.12.18 A2 :11.09.13A2 : 13.09.13 A3 :16.09.12A3 : 24.09.12 A4 : 20.11.12A4:20.11.12 A5 : 27.03.15A5 27.03.15 Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 09­03­2012. After receipt of summons accused appeared and on 10­04­2017, copies of documents were furnished to them and examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. From 05­06­2017 to 09­11­2018, the case was adjourned time to time as witnesses not produced. On 09­11­2018, PW1, examined. On 15.11.2018, PW2 to PW4 examined and got marked Ex.P.2 to P.4. On 06.12.18, PW5 examined. On 10.12.18, PW6 and PW7 examined. On 14.12.18, PW8 examined and got marked Ex.P.5 and P.6. Learned A.P.P given up Lws.4,5,9,10,14,15 Prosecution evidence closed. On 19­12­2018 accused examinedu/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 20­12­2018, arguments heard and Judgment pronounced on 21­12­2018. Hence, the delay.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No: 85/2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge­Cum­Judicial

Magistrate Of First Class­Cum­XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

Between:

The State Inspector of Police, SHO, Nandigama Police Station. …Complainant

And

1.Pothana Srinivasa Rao, s/o. Rosaiah, 48 years, Kamma, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal.

2.Chintha Anjaneuyilu, s/o. Hanumatha Rao, 47 years, Near sivalayam, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal. 

3.Velagapudi Ramakrishna, s/o. Satyanarayana, 43 years, Kamma, 501­D, Swarna Apartments, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal.

4.Adusumilli Sri krishna Sudhakar, s/o. Sacidanandam, 54 years, Brahmin, 23­12­10/B, Ogiralavari Street, Satyanarayanpuram, Vijayawada.

5.Atluri Ravindra Kumar, s/o. Atchaiah, 59 years, Kamma, Poranki village, Penamluru Mandal.

.... Accused

Offence :  u/s. 224 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty. Result : In the result, accused 1 to 5 found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 224 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of next six months, as contemplated u/s. 437 of IPC. Sd/­

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl. Magistrate of I class­cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

Copy submitted to:

The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copy to: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Nandigama.

1 C.C.17 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: G. Prabhakar,

FAC/ I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Wednesday, the 26th day of December, 2018.

C.C.No. 17/2018

Between:

Bitra Prasada Rao, S/o Late Sriramulu, Hindu, Age: 63 years, Retired Teacher R/o. Dr.No.8-159/3, Near Kakatiya High school, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Complainant.

and

Avula Nageswar Rao, S/o Lakshmaiah, Hindu, 48 years, Business, R.K.Heights, Bhanu Homeo Hospital road, (Old Krishi college road, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Accused

This case is coming on 24-12-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for complainant and of Sri P.Prakasa Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed U/sec.138 read with 142 of of Negotiable

Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as “N.I. Act” / “the Act”).

2.The allegations in complaint in brief are as under:

[a] That accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 16.07.2016 for business purpose, by executing a pronote, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum.

[b]After several demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.

054683 dated 31.8.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, drawn on State Bank of India, Nandigama in discharge of part payment; the said cheque was presented for collection on 11.09.2017 in account number 2 C.C.17 of 2018 501387920 but the same was returned with an endorsement “drawer’s signature differs” through a bank memo dated 18.09.2017. Complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 03.10.2017 informing about dishonour of cheque and demanding payment of Rs.4,00,000/-; accused received the notice on 04.10.2017 but the postal acknowledgment of the same is not received, so online copy of the acknowledgment filed; but the accused failed to pay the same. Hence the complaint.

3. This Court took cognizance of case for an offence punishable u/s.138 of

N.I. Act against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C.; accusation leveled against him, for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. PW1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked on behalf of complainant. After closure of evidence for complainant, the accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating circumstances, found against him in the evidence of PW.1, were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied. Accused examined himself as DW.1 in his defence.

5.Heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as accused.

6.Now the point that arise for determination is ‘whether the complainant established guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I Act, beyond all reasonable doubt’?

3 C.C.17 of 2018

Point :-

8.The allegations made by complainant as per his complaint as well as evidence as PW.1 is that on 16.07.2016 accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- for business purpose by executing Ex.P1 in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 and another person by name Subba Rao, agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% per annum and on demand, accused issued Ex.P2/cheque but when presented for collection, it was returned under Ex.P3 with reason that “drawer’s signature differs”, hence he issued a notice under original of Ex.P4 but the accused failed to make the payment, hence the complaint.

9. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant made out a case that the cheque under Ex.P2 was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt covered by Ex.P1. Hence prayed to convict the accused.

10. Per contra it is the contention of accused as DW.1 and also by way of suggestions put to PW.1 in the cross examination, that by using the cheque and pronote, given by him to one Boddu Sriram Murthy in connection with a financial transaction between him and said Boddu Sriram Murthy, the complainant filed this complaint by forging his signature, as such, it was rightly pointed by the bank with the signature of drawer differs, hence the complaint is not maintainable. The further contention of accused is that the complainant failed to issue a statutory notice prior to filing of the complaint. Hence the same is hit by Sec. 138(b) of the Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On that score it is argued that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Since the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 is very much available on record and the same being the replica of their respective stand in the main case, the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition of facts.

4 C.C.17 of 2018

11. Sec. 138(b) reads as follows:

“The prayee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, shall make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid”

12. The contention of complainant is that Ex.P5, issued by postal authorities, reveals that the notice was served upon the accused on 04.10.2017, from that date onwards within 30 days Ex.P4 notice was issued.

The office copy of legal notice is dated 3.10.2017 and it is said to be delivered on 04.10.2017 and that from that date onwards the complaint is to be filed within 45 days i.e. on or before 19.11.2017 and accordingly the complaint was filed on 13.11.2017. According to the complainant the complaint is filed within the limitation. It is the contention of accused that the notice was not at all served upon him. It is argued that Ex.P5 do not reveal any address to whom it was sent or where it was delivered. The same is admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination, that ‘Ex.P5 do not contain the signature of accused or signature of any person who received it’. What is available on Ex.P5 is the consignment number as “RN699487962IN”. The said consignment do not reveal the name of addressee to whom said cover was addressed or delivered. It is enlightened by the learned counsel for complainant that the address will be available on postal receipt. The postal receipt also contains the consignment number. So with the help of consignment number available on postal receipt and from the consignment (Ex.P5) it can be understood that the notice was sent to the address of the accused and it was delivered and accordingly the notice is to be presumed to be served to the accused. But unfortunately the complainant has not chosen to file the postal receipt which allegedly contains the address of the 5 C.C.17 of 2018 accused, in the absence of which it is highly impossible, to understand or believed, to whom the notice was sent. Even if, as per Ex.P5 it is believed that the letter with said consignment number made delivery in the given address, since the complainant failed to produce the postal receipt containing the address of the accused, it cannot be believed that the complainant sent a notice to the accused and Ex.P5 pertains to the said notice. Therefore, service of notice is not established by the complainant with cogent evidence. Hence the complainant failed to comply with a mandatory requirement of service of a statutory notice to the accused prior to launching the prosecution. Hence it is a case which has to fail at this ground alone, as held in “AIR 2010 LOC 724 (KAR) in which it is held that:

“…. on account of the inaction on the part of the complainant in not issuing the notice of demand within 15 days (now it is 30 days) from the date of the receipt of the information from her banker about the return of the check she has lost her right to file complaint for an offence u/s. 138 of N.I.Act, as there is no demand in writing made by her to the drawer of the cheque as required by Law.

Unless such a demand had been made and unless an opportunity had been appointed to the drawer of the cheque, the offence was not complete”.

13. In the present case on hand also the complainant failed to place reliable material on record to show that he served notice upon the accused prior to filing the complaint. There is evidence of issuance of notice as per

Ex.P3 but there is no material to say that it was served upon the accused.

Hence by following the observations made in the above decisions cited by the accused, it can be construed that the complainant herein also lost his right to file a complaint for an offence u/s. 138 of the Act.

6 C.C.17 of 2018

14. It is argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant is a stranger to him and that there is no scope for the complainant to lend such a huge amount, hence it is to be believed that the complainant has not at all lent any money to the accused. In the cited decision relied by accused, reported in 2017 (2) ALD Crl.115 it was observed in para-12 that the complainant therein failed to file the promissory note to prove the contention of lending money. Hence it was held that “mere issuance of a cheque is not an offence u/s. 138 ofM N.I.Act and accordingly the complaint was dismissed.” But in the case on hand the complainant produced Ex.P1 promissory note. So the findings in the said decisions are not helpful to the accused nor applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. In regard to aspect of consideration is concerned, the complainant has produced Ex.P1 and also examined Pws.2 and 3 who are scribe and one of the attesters to Ex.P1. In his cross examination PW.2 the alleged scribe admitted that in his chief affidavit it is written as if he lent money to the accused. Further he admitted that the complainant is his son-in-law. For these two reasons the evidence of Pw.2 becomes unbelievable. One of the attestors examined as

PW.3, though deposed in his chief examination that transaction took place in his presence, as it was admitted by him in the cross examination that on the request of complainant he is giving the evidence in the Court, his evidence pales into insignificance. With this there is no material in proof of execution of

Ex.A1 by the accused. For instance, for argument seek, even if it is believed that Ex.A1 is genuine document, that itself is not sufficient. The complainant has to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, but the evidence reveals that the signature of drawer’s differs on the cheque, as contemplated under Ex.P3/memo issued by the banker. When it is also the contention of accused that his signature was 7 C.C.17 of 2018 forged on Ex.P2 and this case is filed , the difference in the signature of the drawer on Ex.P2 which also goes to the root of the case and create a doubtful circumstance whether it was actual signed and delivered by the accused to the complainant. Even if it is believed that Ex.P2/cheque was issued by the accused, since the mandatory requirement of service of a statutory notice by the complainant is not proved as discussed supra, the complainant naturally will loose the opportunity of launching prosecution, as held in cited decision discussed supra, against the accused. It is argued that complainant had no capacity to pay the amount but no such question was put to PW.1 in his cross examination. So this contention of accused is untenable.

16. For all these reasons, it is concluded that the complainant failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 26th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 : Bitra Prasada RaoDW.1: A.Nageswar Rao PW.2 : Tammisetti Krishna Rao PW.3 : Y. Bhupathi Rao 8 C.C.17 of 2018

Documents marked

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P1 Origila Promissory Note dt. 16.7.2016-NIL- Ex.P2 Cheque bearing No. 054683 dt. 31.8.2017 Ex.P3 Cheque return memo dt. 18.09.2017 Ex.P4 Office copy of legal notice dt. 3.10.2017 Ex.P5 Report of Postal notice dt. 04.10.2017

Sd/- G. Prabhakar

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nandigama 9 C.C.17 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Calendar Case No. 17 /201 8

Nature of Offence: U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

Apprehen-Date of Report ofReleasedCommence-Closure ofSentence or Offencesion ofremand complainanton bailment of trialtrialorder accused Accused appeared on 31.08.201713.11.2017receipt of summons--30.04.201809.10.201826.12.2018

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time.

Judgment in Calender Case No. 17/2018 On the file of the Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Nandigama.

Between:

Bitra Prasada Rao, S/o Late Sriramulu, Hindu, Age: 63 years, Retired Teacher R/o. Dr.No.8-159/3, Near Kakatiya High school, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Complainant.

and

Avula Nageswar Rao, S/o Lakshmaiah, Hindu, 48 years, Business, R.K.Heights, Bhanu Homeo Hospital road, (Old Krishi college road, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Accused

Offence : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Finding : Not Guilty.

Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

FAC/ IAdditional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- IAdditional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nandigama Copy submitted to:

The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1 C.C.17 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: G. Prabhakar,

FAC/ I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Wednesday, the 26th day of December, 2018.

C.C.No. 17/2018

Between:

Bitra Prasada Rao, S/o Late Sriramulu, Hindu, Age: 63 years, Retired Teacher R/o. Dr.No.8-159/3, Near Kakatiya High school, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Complainant.

and

Avula Nageswar Rao, S/o Lakshmaiah, Hindu, 48 years, Business, R.K.Heights, Bhanu Homeo Hospital road, (Old Krishi college road, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Accused

This case is coming on 24-12-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for complainant and of Sri P.Prakasa Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed U/sec.138 read with 142 of of Negotiable

Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as “N.I. Act” / “the Act”).

2.The allegations in complaint in brief are as under:

[a] That accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 16.07.2016 for business purpose, by executing a pronote, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum.

[b]After several demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.

054683 dated 31.8.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, drawn on State Bank of India, Nandigama in discharge of part payment; the said cheque was presented for collection on 11.09.2017 in account number 2 C.C.17 of 2018 501387920 but the same was returned with an endorsement “drawer’s signature differs” through a bank memo dated 18.09.2017. Complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 03.10.2017 informing about dishonour of cheque and demanding payment of Rs.4,00,000/-; accused received the notice on 04.10.2017 but the postal acknowledgment of the same is not received, so online copy of the acknowledgment filed; but the accused failed to pay the same. Hence the complaint.

3. This Court took cognizance of case for an offence punishable u/s.138 of

N.I. Act against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C.; accusation leveled against him, for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. PW1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked on behalf of complainant. After closure of evidence for complainant, the accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating circumstances, found against him in the evidence of PW.1, were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied. Accused examined himself as DW.1 in his defence.

5.Heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as accused.

6.Now the point that arise for determination is ‘whether the complainant established guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I Act, beyond all reasonable doubt’?

3 C.C.17 of 2018

Point :-

8.The allegations made by complainant as per his complaint as well as evidence as PW.1 is that on 16.07.2016 accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- for business purpose by executing Ex.P1 in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 and another person by name Subba Rao, agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% per annum and on demand, accused issued Ex.P2/cheque but when presented for collection, it was returned under Ex.P3 with reason that “drawer’s signature differs”, hence he issued a notice under original of Ex.P4 but the accused failed to make the payment, hence the complaint.

9. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant made out a case that the cheque under Ex.P2 was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt covered by Ex.P1. Hence prayed to convict the accused.

10. Per contra it is the contention of accused as DW.1 and also by way of suggestions put to PW.1 in the cross examination, that by using the cheque and pronote, given by him to one Boddu Sriram Murthy in connection with a financial transaction between him and said Boddu Sriram Murthy, the complainant filed this complaint by forging his signature, as such, it was rightly pointed by the bank with the signature of drawer differs, hence the complaint is not maintainable. The further contention of accused is that the complainant failed to issue a statutory notice prior to filing of the complaint. Hence the same is hit by Sec. 138(b) of the Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On that score it is argued that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Since the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 is very much available on record and the same being the replica of their respective stand in the main case, the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition of facts.

4 C.C.17 of 2018

11. Sec. 138(b) reads as follows:

“The prayee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, shall make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid”

12. The contention of complainant is that Ex.P5, issued by postal authorities, reveals that the notice was served upon the accused on 04.10.2017, from that date onwards within 30 days Ex.P4 notice was issued.

The office copy of legal notice is dated 3.10.2017 and it is said to be delivered on 04.10.2017 and that from that date onwards the complaint is to be filed within 45 days i.e. on or before 19.11.2017 and accordingly the complaint was filed on 13.11.2017. According to the complainant the complaint is filed within the limitation. It is the contention of accused that the notice was not at all served upon him. It is argued that Ex.P5 do not reveal any address to whom it was sent or where it was delivered. The same is admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination, that ‘Ex.P5 do not contain the signature of accused or signature of any person who received it’. What is available on Ex.P5 is the consignment number as “RN699487962IN”. The said consignment do not reveal the name of addressee to whom said cover was addressed or delivered. It is enlightened by the learned counsel for complainant that the address will be available on postal receipt. The postal receipt also contains the consignment number. So with the help of consignment number available on postal receipt and from the consignment (Ex.P5) it can be understood that the notice was sent to the address of the accused and it was delivered and accordingly the notice is to be presumed to be served to the accused. But unfortunately the complainant has not chosen to file the postal receipt which allegedly contains the address of the 5 C.C.17 of 2018 accused, in the absence of which it is highly impossible, to understand or believed, to whom the notice was sent. Even if, as per Ex.P5 it is believed that the letter with said consignment number made delivery in the given address, since the complainant failed to produce the postal receipt containing the address of the accused, it cannot be believed that the complainant sent a notice to the accused and Ex.P5 pertains to the said notice. Therefore, service of notice is not established by the complainant with cogent evidence. Hence the complainant failed to comply with a mandatory requirement of service of a statutory notice to the accused prior to launching the prosecution. Hence it is a case which has to fail at this ground alone, as held in “AIR 2010 LOC 724 (KAR) in which it is held that:

“…. on account of the inaction on the part of the complainant in not issuing the notice of demand within 15 days (now it is 30 days) from the date of the receipt of the information from her banker about the return of the check she has lost her right to file complaint for an offence u/s. 138 of N.I.Act, as there is no demand in writing made by her to the drawer of the cheque as required by Law.

Unless such a demand had been made and unless an opportunity had been appointed to the drawer of the cheque, the offence was not complete”.

13. In the present case on hand also the complainant failed to place reliable material on record to show that he served notice upon the accused prior to filing the complaint. There is evidence of issuance of notice as per

Ex.P3 but there is no material to say that it was served upon the accused.

Hence by following the observations made in the above decisions cited by the accused, it can be construed that the complainant herein also lost his right to file a complaint for an offence u/s. 138 of the Act.

6 C.C.17 of 2018

14. It is argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant is a stranger to him and that there is no scope for the complainant to lend such a huge amount, hence it is to be believed that the complainant has not at all lent any money to the accused. In the cited decision relied by accused, reported in 2017 (2) ALD Crl.115 it was observed in para-12 that the complainant therein failed to file the promissory note to prove the contention of lending money. Hence it was held that “mere issuance of a cheque is not an offence u/s. 138 ofM N.I.Act and accordingly the complaint was dismissed.” But in the case on hand the complainant produced Ex.P1 promissory note. So the findings in the said decisions are not helpful to the accused nor applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. In regard to aspect of consideration is concerned, the complainant has produced Ex.P1 and also examined Pws.2 and 3 who are scribe and one of the attesters to Ex.P1. In his cross examination PW.2 the alleged scribe admitted that in his chief affidavit it is written as if he lent money to the accused. Further he admitted that the complainant is his son-in-law. For these two reasons the evidence of Pw.2 becomes unbelievable. One of the attestors examined as

PW.3, though deposed in his chief examination that transaction took place in his presence, as it was admitted by him in the cross examination that on the request of complainant he is giving the evidence in the Court, his evidence pales into insignificance. With this there is no material in proof of execution of

Ex.A1 by the accused. For instance, for argument seek, even if it is believed that Ex.A1 is genuine document, that itself is not sufficient. The complainant has to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, but the evidence reveals that the signature of drawer’s differs on the cheque, as contemplated under Ex.P3/memo issued by the banker. When it is also the contention of accused that his signature was 7 C.C.17 of 2018 forged on Ex.P2 and this case is filed , the difference in the signature of the drawer on Ex.P2 which also goes to the root of the case and create a doubtful circumstance whether it was actual signed and delivered by the accused to the complainant. Even if it is believed that Ex.P2/cheque was issued by the accused, since the mandatory requirement of service of a statutory notice by the complainant is not proved as discussed supra, the complainant naturally will loose the opportunity of launching prosecution, as held in cited decision discussed supra, against the accused. It is argued that complainant had no capacity to pay the amount but no such question was put to PW.1 in his cross examination. So this contention of accused is untenable.

16. For all these reasons, it is concluded that the complainant failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 26th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 : Bitra Prasada RaoDW.1: A.Nageswar Rao PW.2 : Tammisetti Krishna Rao PW.3 : Y. Bhupathi Rao 8 C.C.17 of 2018

Documents marked

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P1 Origila Promissory Note dt. 16.7.2016-NIL- Ex.P2 Cheque bearing No. 054683 dt. 31.8.2017 Ex.P3 Cheque return memo dt. 18.09.2017 Ex.P4 Office copy of legal notice dt. 3.10.2017 Ex.P5 Report of Postal notice dt. 04.10.2017

Sd/- G. Prabhakar

FAC/ I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nandigama 9 C.C.17 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Calendar Case No. 17 /201 8

Nature of Offence: U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.

Apprehen-Date of Report ofReleasedCommence-Closure ofSentence or Offencesion ofremand complainanton bailment of trialtrialorder accused Accused appeared on 31.08.201713.11.2017receipt of summons--30.04.201809.10.201826.12.2018

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time.

Judgment in Calender Case No. 17/2018 On the file of the Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Nandigama.

Between:

Bitra Prasada Rao, S/o Late Sriramulu, Hindu, Age: 63 years, Retired Teacher R/o. Dr.No.8-159/3, Near Kakatiya High school, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Complainant.

and

Avula Nageswar Rao, S/o Lakshmaiah, Hindu, 48 years, Business, R.K.Heights, Bhanu Homeo Hospital road, (Old Krishi college road, Raithupeta, Nandigama Town and Mandal, Krishna District. … Accused

Offence : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Finding : Not Guilty.

Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

FAC/ IAdditional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- IAdditional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nandigama Copy submitted to:

The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS­CUM­XIII ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA.

Present: Sri G. Prabhakar, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I Additional Judl. Magistrate of I class­ cum­ XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of I class­ cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

Monday, this the 22nd day of October, 2018.

C.C.No. 43 of 2017

Between:

The State – Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station …Complainant

And

1.Vemula Ankama Rao, s/o. Lakshmana Rao @ Lakshmaiah,35 years, Vaddera, Ithavaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Driver of lorry Bearing No.AP TC 9266.

2.Chundu RamBabu, s/o. Venkateswara Rao, Ithavaram village, Nandigama Mandal, Owner of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TC 9266.

.... Accused 

This case came before me on 19.10.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri Sk.Dada Hussain, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub­inspector of police, Kanchikacherla Police station, filed

Charge Sheet against accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under section 420, 465, 379 and 109 of I.P.C in Cr.No. 321/2014 of

Kanchikacherla Police station.

2) Allegations in charge sheet, in brief, are that :

(a) A.1 is driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 9266, (herein after referred as crime vehicle). A.2 is its owner.

(b)On reliable information about transportation of sand illegally, on 25­08­2014 at about 06­00 AM, Sub Inspector of police, along with staff and mediators, went to the outskirts of Paritala village on NH 65 road, 2 stopped the crime vehicle, which was proceeding from Nandigama towards

Vijayawada. The 1st accused, driver of the lorry, confessed that he has committed theft of sand illegally from Munneru river bed at Ithavaram village on the instructions of A.2 and was proceeding to Rayanapadu,

Vijayawada for sale. A.1 has produced the transit bills given to him by A.2, which reveals as if sand was loaded at Seethanagaram of East Godavari

District. A.1 confessed that he was asked by A.2 to reach Rayanapadu,

Vijayawada for further instructions.

(c.) The S.I. of police arrested A.1 on the ground of illegal transportation of sand by committing theft from Krishna River, prepared a mediators report.

(d) Basing on the mediators report, S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No. 321/2014 u/s. 379 IPC; issued FIR; examined and recorded statements of witnesses. On verification of records of crime vehicle, it is noticed that A.1 purchased crime vehicle from A.2 but the registration was not transferred in his name and running vehicle basing on the agreement only, as such, A.2 was added as owner of crime vehicle. On 03­09­2014,

Tahsildar, Kanchikacherla issued proceedings in R.C.No.B/82/2014,

dt. 03­09­2014 to release the crime vehicle holding that the owner of crime

vehicle remitted compounding amount of Rs.25,000/­ vide Ch.No.4076,

dt. 03­09­2014 as per G.O.Ms.No.186, I & C M­I dept, dt.17­12­2013. On

03­09­2014, notice u/s. 41 A Cr.P.C was served on 2nd accused.

(e) On receipt of reply from Assistant Director, Mines and Geology,

Rajahmundry vide Lr. No.6309/Genuineity/2014, dt. 28­08­2014 that the transit bills produced by A.1 are false documents, section 420, 465 I.P.C are added on the ground that accused have prepared fake documents and cheated the government for illegal gains. Hence the charge.

3.Initially, the case was taken on file, on the file of Learned Additional 3

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nandigama for the offences punishable u/s. 420,465,379 r/w 34 I.P.C against accused 1 & 2 as

C.C.No.374/2015. 

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them in compliance with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. They were examined u/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against them was read over and explained to them, for which they denied. Charges u/s. 420, 379 r/w 34 I.P.C were framed against A.1 and A.2 and u/s. 465 of I.P.C against A.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Subsequently, as per the orders of Hon’ble Principal District Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.5887, dt. 11­07­2017, case is transferred to this court for trial and disposal in accordance with law, whereupon the same was renumbered as C.C.No.43/2017 and accordingly trial was taken up.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW. 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 on its behalf.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, incriminating circumstances, found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied. Accused did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned defence counsel for accused.

9. Now the point for determination is whether prosecution established guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s. 420, 379 r/w 34 I.P.C against A.1 and A.2 and u/s. 465 of I.P.C against A.2, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4

Point:­

10.The evidence of prosecution witnesses in brief is extracted as under :

PW 1/ G.Venkata Rao deposed that on 25­08­2014, morning hours, he along with other police officials proceeded to outskirts of Paritala village for vehicle checking. They found one lorry bearing no. AP 16 TC 9266 covered with tarpaulin and going towards Vijayawada from

Kanchikacherla. They stopped the lorry and found sand in it. On interrogation, driver of the lorry ie., A.1 revealed his identity particulars.

PW1 further deposed that, ‘A.1 confessed that A.2 asked him to load sand near Munneru river and when reached to Aithavaram village, A.2 handed over documents relating to sand and also informed to show the documents, whenever police caught hold the sand’. The documents shown by A.1, revealed that sand was loaded at Seethanagaram village,

East Godavari District and that a mediators report was drafted and A.1 was arrested. 

11.PW2/Sk.Nagul Meera deposed that he along with other police officials, mediator proceeded to Paritala village and noticed one lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TC 9266 coming from Nandigama to

Vijayawada. They stopped the lorry and found sand in it. On interrogation, A.1 revealed his identity particulars and confessed that the lorry belongs to A.2. Pw2 further deposed that A.1 produced relevant documents secured by him from East Godavari District related to

Seethanagaram village. A.1 further confessed that the said load has to be unloaded as per the instructions of A.2. Thereafter, the lorry was seized with load of sand and A.1 of was arrested under Ex.P.1. Signature of A.1 was also obtained under Ex.P.1. 

5

12.PW3/Chinnam Surya Chandra Rao deposed that SI of police,

Kanchikacherla addressed a letter to him for clarification, whether the bills enclosed with it was original or not. On verification, he opined that bills sent by SI of police are fake. Ex.P.2 is his letter and Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are bills.

13.PW4/K.Lakshmi Narayana deposed that on 25­08­2014, he along with police staff and mediators proceeded to Paritala and stopped one lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 9266 which was coming from Nandigama. They checked and found sand in it. On verification of documents produced by driver of lorry revealed that the vehicle was proceeding in wrong direction.

The driver of the lorry ie., A.1 revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he is working as per the directions of A.2, owner of the said lorry. S.I of police, seized the lorry, prepared mediators report, arrested

A.1.

14.PW5/AVS Rama Krishna deposed that on 25­08­2014, on reliable information, he along with other police staff, two mediators proceeded to outskirts of Paritala village at about 06­00 AM, stopped a lorry bearing No.

AP 16 TC 9266 proceeding from Nandigama towards Vijayawada and found sand in it. On verification, A.1 disclosed that on the instructions of his owner ie., A.2 he is transporting the sand from Aithavaram to Vijayawada and produced Exs.P.3 and P.4 saying that A.2 informed to show whenever police asked him.

15. PW5 further deposed that on suspicion, he drafted mediator report under Ex.P.1; seized lorry; registered a case in Cr.No. 321/2014; examined and recorded statements of witnesses; served notice u/s. 41A crpc; issued

Ex.P.7 proceedings; sent a letter to PW3 who opined that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P4 6 are fake. He added section 420, 465 IPC and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 

16. Charges u/s. 420, 379 I.P.C were framed against A.1 and A.2 and a charge u/s. 465 of I.P.C was framed against A.2. Section 465 of I.P.C provides punishment for forgery of documents. It is the case of prosecution that on the date of Ex.P.1, mediators report, they have seized

Ex.P.3 and P.4, bills from the possession of A.1 under cover of Ex.P.1 and that under Ex.P.2, PW3 has opined that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are fake documents. On this ground, it is alleged that accused no.2 is liable for forgery of Ex.P.3 and P.4. It is not out of place to mention here itself that except confession of A.1 that A.2 is his owner and that upon his instructions he was carrying sand in crime vehicle and that he produced

Exs.P.3 and P.4 bills when asked by police, there is no other material that has been produced by prosecution to speak about the alleged forgery of

Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 by 2nd accused. It is clearly admitted by PW5 in his cross examination that he has not referred Ex.P.3 and P.4 to RFSL for expert opinion. In the absence of any such evidence, the forgery attributed to A.2 cannot be believed, only basing on the Ex.P.2, letter issued by PW3.

17. The prosecution also has not chosen to produce the records of crime vehicle so as to say that A.2 is its owner. Therefore, no allegation of forgery can be believed to be committed by A.2. Hence, charge u/s. 465 of

I.P.C against A.2 becomes groundless.

18. On charge u/s. 420 of I.P.C, it is the allegation of prosecution that by using Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, fake bills, the accused are illegally transporting sand and thereby cheated the Government but at the same time, prosecution has not produced clinching evidence to speak about the exact nature of cheating committed by them. The charge u/s. 420 of I.P.C 7 against A.2 is absolutely groundless. As far as A.1 is concerned, his submission is that they were given to him by A.2. There is no material against A.2 to say that he handovered Ex.P.3 and P.4 to A.1. However, the material produced by prosecution by way of evidence of PW1 to PW5 reveals that A.1 was transporting the sand in crime vehicle and was caught red handedly. The material available on record reveals that A.1 failed to produce reliable material to say that he was lawfully transporting the sand. Therefore, prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused 1 and 2 for Section 379 r/w 34 I.P.C and at the same time, prosecution failed to produce cogent material to prove the charge u/s. 420 of I.P.C.

against A.1 and A.2, in view of the fact that no victim is examined as a witness on behalf of prosecution. Admittedly, even the Tahsidar,

Kanchikacherla who is lawful custodian of the property in the vicinity is also not examined as witness for prosecution. Hence, it is concluded that prosecution failed to bring home guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence u/s.

420 r/w 34 of IPC.

19. In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. A.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 465 of I.P.c and accordingly they are acquitted for the same u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

20.A.1 and A.2 are found guilty for the offence u/s. 379 r/w 34 of I.P.C and accordingly they are convicted u/s. 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Steno Gr.III., transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of October, 2018.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I Additional Judl. Magistrate of I class­ cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of I class­cum X I I I A d d i t io n a l M e t r o p o l i t a n M a g i s t r a t e , N a n d i g a m a .

21.When question about quantum of sentence, accused reported that they are bread winners of their families and their detention would hamper the entire family. It is found that this is not a fit case to extend the benefits of Section 360 Cr.P.C or any of provisions of Probation of 8

Offenders Act. There is no previous criminal record against accused. Hence, their submission is considered and a lenient view is taken. In this situation, it is found justifiable to impose fine only instead of sentencing them at once to any imprisonment.

22.In the result, A.1 and A.2 who are convicted for the offence u/s. 379 r/w 34 of I.P.C are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/­(Rupees Ten thousand only) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months each. The orders of interim custody of crime vehicle is made absolute. 

Dictated to the Steno Gr.III., transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of October, 2018 

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I Additional Judl. Magistrate of I class­ cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of I class­cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

ProsecutionDefence

PW1G. Venkata RaoNONE PW2Sk. Nagul Meera. PW3Chinnam Surya Chandra Rao PW4K. Lakshmi Narayana PW5AVS. Rama Krishna.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defense

Ex.P.1Panchanama.NIL Ex.P.2Letter No.6309 by genuinity by 2014, dt. 28­08­2014 along with enclosures given by PW3. Ex.P.3Bill No. 1954 Ex.P.4Bill No. 603. Ex.P.5FIR. Ex.P.6Rough sketch Ex.P.7Proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Kanchikacherla vide RC.No.B/82/14, dt. 03­09­2014

MOs marked

­ NIL ­

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I Additional Judl. Magistrate of I class­ cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of I class­cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: Sri G. Prabhakar, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Saturday, dated this the 27th day of October, 2018.

C.C. No. 258 of 2017

Between:

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Veerlapadu Police Station. …Complainant

And

Mamillapalli Rameshbabu @ Ramesh S/o Pitchaiah, 40 years,

C/ Kamma, V.Annavaram village, Veerlapadu mandal. ..... Accused

This case came before me on 26.10.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerlapadu Police Station, filed Charge Sheet against sole Accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of

Indian Penal Code [for short I.P.C.] and u/s.3 and 4 of D.P. Act in Cr.No. 24 of 2017.

2.The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:- [a] The marriage of informant/LW.1/ Mamillapalli Bhavani, with the accused, was performed on 19.05.2006 at Chowtapalli; she was blessed with two sons; at the time of marriage, her parents offered Ac.1-25 cents of land, cash of Rs.60,000/-, one watch, gold ring and gold chain as dowry; they lived in Hyderabad for five months; thereafter accused joined Vasantha Spinners, Chowtapalli; since then accused subjected her to cruelty and harassment, mentally and physically, suspecting her character; even during pregnancy she was asked to join in job; on 06.01.2009 she could not attend job, she was beaten without considering her pregnancy also; accused subjected her to harassment and torture, demanding additional dowry; they demanded for disposing the land and to get money, she was taken to nuptial place; there was no employment for accused, they faced lot of difficulty; her father 2 cleared the debts by giving money; on 10.11.2012 she attempted to commit suicide due to torture of her husband; accused pledged her gold ornaments and used the money for his lavish purposes; her father sold away land including his land and cleared the debts raised by them, released the gold ornaments from pledge and deposited some amount in bank in favour of his elder son Rohit; her father gave some money to somebody on debt and asked them to use the interest amount for family expenses; her father helped them a lot but the accused harassed her to get remaining amount from her father; on 24.11.2005 her husband beat her severely and necked out her alone and did not give her children; accused has not allowed her to see the children; on 06.06.2016 her father passed away; since 16 months herself and her husband are living separately; on 26.03.2017 her husband came to the house of her parents and threatened not to see the children, since she has not brought dowry demanded for.

[b] It is the further case of prosecution that basing on the report, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Veerlapadu Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No. 24/2017 u/s. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and investigated into.

[c] During the course of investigation, Sub Inspector of Police, examined and recorded statements of witnesses, served a notice to accused u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. on 23.04.2017; the names of other accused were deleted and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against sole accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 506 of

Indian Penal Code and u/s.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against Accused. On appearance of

Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him in compliance with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against Accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied. Charges u/s.498-A of Indian Penal Code and u/s. 4 of D.P. Act were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution has chosen to examine Pw.1 to PW.6 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After closure of prosecution 3 evidence, Accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied. He did not choose to adduce any evidence in his defence.

5.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

6.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution established guilt of accused for the charges framed against him, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

7. Informant examined as PW.1, deposed as under re-iterating the allegations made by her in the complaint marked as Ex.P1. She deposed that her marriage was performed with accused on 19.05.2006 at Chowtapalli as per Hindu marriage customs; their parents have given 1.25 acres of land, cash of Rs.60,000/- watch, ring and gold chain to accused towards dowry; they lived together in Adilabad and lead conjugal life for about five months; thereafter accused used to ask her for

additional dowry; from there they shifted to Timmapur of Yadlapadu mandal and

stayed there for nine years; Accused used to ask her to go for employment during pregnancy and thereby subjected her to pressures; when she replied that she cannot attend work, accused beat her; both of them stopped working and went to some other place; as they did not have employment they incurred debts. PW.1 further deposed that accused used to ask her to sell away the land given at the time of marriage and to bring money; her father adjusted money and cleared their debts; they have spent some more time by getting money by pledging their ornaments; her father got released the said ornaments from pledge and joined accused in the same old job; thereafter also accused used to ask her to bring money by selling the land; accordingly her father sold away the land of 1.25 acres given to her together with his land of 1.25 acres, brought money, purchased household articles for them, also some gold for her, kept Rs.4,00,000/- as fixed deposit to her elder son and gave the remaining money for interest and asked them to use the interest money of

Rs.24,500/- per month for their expenses; they are blessed with two children. PW.1 further deposed that accused asked her to give amount to him, which was lent for interest, and thereby used to harass her, beat her and necked out from the house 4 on 25.11.2015, by retaining the children with him; accordingly she went to the house of her parents; accused never allowed her to meet her children and did not provide anything to her; thereafter, her father died; while she was staying in the house of her parents accused came and beat her; therefore she went to police station and lodged a report under Ex.P1. The evidence of PW.1 and the allegations made by her are not supported by any other witnesses examined as Pws. 2 to 5, since they turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

8. PW.6 is the Investigation officer who deposed that on 01.04.2017 he received report from PW.1, registered it as a case in Cr.No.24/2017 u/s.498-A, 506

IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and issued F.I.R under Ex.P6; during the course of investigation he examined and recorded statement of PW.1 in the police station, proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Choutapalli of Veerulapdu mandal, where he examined and recorded statements of Pws.2 to 4 and LW.4/

M.Vijayalakshmi; then he proceeded to V.Annavaram village where he examined

Pw.5 and LW.7/ B.Satyanarayana, recorded their statements; on 23.04.2017 he served notice to accused u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C.; on 24.05.2017 he deleted the names of other accused against whom no evidence was found; on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused. Pws.2 to 5 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to

Ex.P5.

9. Now that Pws.2 to 5 have not supported the case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1, her sole testimony has to be examined with care and caution to see, whether, with the help of her evidence prosecution could bring out the material to establish guilt of accused for the charged offences. In her cross examination she admitted that the mother of Ex-Home Minister and her paternal grandmother are real sisters and accused worked in the spinning mill of said Ex-Home Minister in

Timmapur near Choutapalli, they stayed at different places. She denied the suggestion that she eloped with one Kotibabu and that during said period accused looked after her ailing father and children. She also denied the suggestion that in order to escape from the report given by accused on that incident, with the help of

Ex-Home Minister she foisted the case against accused. She admitted that accused 5 is educating their two children in a convent at Madhira, she also admitted that she has taken away the children from the custody of accused and also admitted about the filing of GWOP No.598/2018 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions

Court, Vijayawada. She further admitted in the cross examination that it was averred by her in Ex.P1 that by doing job she is living in Vijayawada. But she strangely deposed as if she is residing in Chowtapalli village, which is also a doubtful circumstance to believe the evidence of PW.1. She also admitted that she has not filed any piece of material to support the allegation of giving of dowry or gifts.

10. In the above circumstances a serious cloud of doubt is cast upon the truthfulness of version of PW.1 in her chief examination as well as Ex.P1 report, which is not corroborated by any other witness. On these circumstances, solitary testimony of PW.1 cannot be believed to bring home guilt of accused for the charged offences. Hence extending benefit of doubt, accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.

498-A of Indian Penal Code and u/s.4 of D.P. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of next six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed and typed , corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of October, 2018

sD I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for ProsecutionDefence PW.1 - M. Bhavani…None… PW.2 - D.Rangarao PW.3 - D.Ramakrishna PW.4 - K. Konda PW.5- D. Ravi PW.6- P. Kishore 6

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Report Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P6F.I.R.

MOs marked - NIL -

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 258 of 2017 on the file of I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

DATE OF

Offence Report orApprehensRelease onCommencClosure ofSentence complaint ion ofbail ement oftrial or order accused trial

Prior to01.04.2017 Issued 41-A Cr.P.C. 20.09.2017 25.10.2018 27.10.2018 01.04.2017Notice to accused

Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 02.06.2017. After receipt of summons accused appeared, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 28.08.2017 Accused was examined u/s.239Cr.P.C. On 27.08.2018 PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 24.9.2018 PW.2 was examined and Ex.P2 is marked. On 26.9.2018 PW.3 was examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 1.10.2018 PW.4 was examined and Ex.P4 is marked. On 15.10.2018 PW.5 was examined and Ex.P5 is marked. On 25.10.2018 PW.6 was examined and Ex.P6 is marked. On 26.10.2018 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and also Heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 27.10.2018. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Judgment in C.C.No: 258/2017 on the file of I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Veerlapadu Police Station. …Complainant

And

Mamillapalli Rameshbabu @ Ramesh S/o Pitchaiah, 40 years,

C/ Kamma, V.Annavaram village, Veerlapadu mandal. ..... Accused

Offence: U/s. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and u/s.4 of D.P. Act

Finding : Not guilty

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and u/s.4 of D.P. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of next six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copy to : The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Nandigama.