Smt G Radhika

1 of 11

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. RADHIKA GAVVALA, V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cum JJB,  FAC XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS, Thursday, the 04th day of August, 2022

C.C. No. 669 OF 2016

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

Neelam Rathan Kumar @ Chintu, S/o Satyanarayana, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.8­3­228/678/1616, Sriram Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. 

…… Accused 

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri K.Karuna Sagar, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjaguta, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.154/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :­

(i)On 14­02­2015 at 05.30 hours LW12/D.Suresh, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Jubilee Hills received a complaint from PW1/Sri 2 of 11

P.Varun Kumar stating that on 14­02­2015 in between 00.20 hours to 00.45 hours some unknown people came in front of the coffee shop namely Testa Rossa Cafe, Road No.10, Jubilee Hilss, out of them two persons entered into the premises by pushing their security guard and valet person and threw stones at the entrance glass and damaged the entire entrance glass and also threatened the working staff by name B.Sai Bab (Security) and M.Dharakeshwar Goud (Valet) and they can identify the said unknown persons, if shown to them. There were other friends of the unknown people waiting outside on the bikes. After damaging the glass property, they ran away by giving slogans JAI BAJRANG DAL, JAI SRI RAM, JAI HANUMAN, etc, and they were protesting against Valentine’s Day and being Indians they should not celebrate Valentine’s Day. Hence PW1 requested to take necessary action against the said unknown persons and their friends as per law.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, LW.12­D.Suresh, Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime

No.154/2015 under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC and issued F.I.R. and handed over the case file to PW6/S.Guru Swami,

Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S.Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. During investigation, PW6 examined LW1 and recorded his statement and later Pw6 visited scene of offence located at Testa Rossa Cafe, Road

No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and observed the scene minutely, later secured two mediators i.e., LW5 Sridhar and Lw6 Charry and conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama and drew rough sketch and later Pw6 examined the witnesses i.e., LWs2 to 4 3 of 11 and recorded their detailed statement and later the witnesses stated that they could identify the accused, if they see the accused persons.

While the investigation was in progress, received information from his counter part of LW11/Sri N.Nagesh, S.I. of Police, S. R. Nagar Police

Station stating that they apprehended the accused and on interrogation, he confessed to have committed this offence alongwith his associates i.e., A2/Jeevan, A3/Krishna and A4/Tony, all are residents of Moosapet, Hyderabad, later Lw11 secured two panchas and recorded and the accused confession statements of accused in their Crime No.121/2015 u/s 386, 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of PS

S.R.Nagar and the accused also confessed about the commission of offence along with his friends/associates Jeevan, Krishna and Tony pertaining to this case and admitted that they are activists of Bajrang

Dal Party and are protesting against the Valentine’s day celebrations.

Later PW6 obtained PT Warrant from the court against the accused but before he could be produced before this court on PT Warrant, the accused person was granted bail and later on 26­03­2015 on receipt of credible information by Pw6, he alongwith his staff apprehended the accused and brought to PS at 10.15 hours and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and admitted that he has committed the offence in this case alongwith the associates of Bajrang Dal Party namely A2.Jeevan, A3.Krishna and

A4.Tony, who are shown as absconding. The accused was produced

before the court for judicial custody on 26­03­2015. After completion

of investigation and after collecting necessary documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under sections 4 of 11 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC showing A2, A3 and A4 as absconding.

3.This Court had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the A1 and accordingly summons issued to the A1.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 before this Court, copies of documents were supplied to him as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel, a charge under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code have been framed against the accused No.1, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused

No.1 denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6.In order to substantiate the said charges, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Basing on the report of police, the evidence of LW2, LW3 and LW5 are closed by this court vide docket order dated 29.04.2022. Further the evidence of

LW6 is closed vide docket order dated 09.05.2022. Subsequently, on 5 of 11 17.05.2022 the learned APP given up the evidence of LW9 , LW10 and

LW12. 

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 denied the incriminating material put to him and he did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:­

“Whether the prosecution proved its

case against accused No.1 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences

punishable under sections 448, 427 and

153­A r/w 34 of IPC or not?” 

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.02.2015 the A1 to A4 have trespassed into the Testa Rossa Cafe of LW1 by pushing security guard/LW2 and have hurled with stones on the glass entrance of the cafe thereby damaging it and later fled away from there by raising slogans uttering ‘Jai Bajrang Dal, Jai Sri Ramm Jai Hanuman etc and further shouted saying that they are protesting against Valentine’s

Day and being Indians they should not celebnrate Valentine’s Day 6 of 11 and thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC.

11.To prove the charges, the prosecution has to prove and establish that accused No.1 along with other accused persons trespassed into the Testa Rossa Cafe and hurled with stones on the glass and thereby damaged the glass entrance by raising slogans like Jai Sri Ram, Jai

Hanuman, etc. In this case, the prosecution, to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the above said offences, got examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6. PW1 is the def­complainant, PW2 is the witness/Manager in Testa Rossa Cafe, PW3 is the panch witness for confessional statement of the accused in Cr No.121/2015 of PS

S.R.Nagar, PW4 is the another panch witness for confessional statement of the accused in Cr No.121/2015 of P.S. S.R. Nagar. PW5 is the Investigating Officer and apprehended the accused in Cr

No.121/2015 of PS S.R.Nagar. PW6 is the Investigating Officer in this case.

12.PW1/Varun Kumar, who is the defacto­complainant in this case deposed that he is the Manager at Testa Rossa Cafe at Road No.10,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on the date of incident and on 14­02­2015 at about 11.30 P.M. some unknown persons came near our cafe in four to five motor cycles and pelted stones on the entrance glass of the cafe, due to which entrance glass broken and on returning they raised slogans as Jai Bhajrangdal and left the place and he deposed that he has not seen the faces of the miscreants and by the time he came out, 7 of 11 they fled away from the place and on the next day of the incident, he went to Police Station and lodged ExP1 complaint.

13.PW2/Jawahar Babu, who is the witness to the incident, deposed that he worked as Shift Manager of Testa Roosa Cafe at the time of date of incident and on 14­02­2015 at around 12.15 A.M. while they were present inside the Testa Rossa Cafe, he heard some noise from outside, as such he came out and noticed that the main door glass of cafe broken down and he came to know through LW2 and 3 that some unknown persons pelted stones on the main door glass and immediately he called Jubilee Hills police and informed through his

Manager and the police came to our place and recorded the statements.

14.PW3/Mohd Haji, who acted as panch witness in Cr No.

121/2015 U/s 386 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of PS SR Nagar, deposed that on 14­02­2015 at around 04.00pm, police called him to the police station and shown some persons and asked to identify them and he identified the persons shown by the police. He further deposed that due to lapse of time, he cannot identify those persons, even if they shown to him and later the police obtained his signature on some blank paper.

15.PW4/Mohd Jaleel, who acted as another panch witness in Cr

No. 121/2015 U/s 386 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of PS SR Nagar, also deposed on the same lines as deposed by the PW3.

8 of 11

16.PW5/N.Nagesh, who is the investigating officer in Cr No.

121/2015 of PS SR Nagar, deposed that on 14­02­2015 on credible information about the presence of accused who involved in Crime

No.121 of 2015 of PS S.R.Nagar, he along with his staff proceeded there and apprehended the accused and on interrogation, he confessed his commission of offence in Crime No.121/2015 alongwith his associates and accordingly he recorded the confession statements of accused in the presence PW3 and PW4 and on the same day, effected the arrest of accused and sent him to court for judicial custody.

17.PW6/S.Guru Swamy, who is the investigating officer in this case, deposed that on 14­02­2015 at 05.30am, PW1 submitted written complaint to LW12, basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.154/2015 and issued ExP8 FIR to all concerned and later handed over the CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of

LWs1 to 4, visited the scene of offence in the presence of LW5 and

LW6. While the investigation was in progress on 14­02­2015 received information from S.R.Nagar Police Station that they have apprehended the accused in their Crime No.121/2015 of PS

S.R.Nagar and during the course of investigation, accused confessed his commission of offence in the present case along with his associates. Later on the same day, he effected the arrest of accused and sent him to judicial custody and made efforts to arrest A2 to A4 9 of 11 but in vain. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in this case.

18.From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he was at the scene of incident at the time of alleged offence. Therefore his evidence is circumstantial in nature to the extent of occurrence of incident. LW2 and LW3 are only cited as eye witnesses to the incident, but then they were not examined by prosecution for the reasons best known to him.

Further the evidence of PW2 also circumstantial in nature regarding occurrence of incident. Though PW3 is one of the panch witness for confession statement of A1 in Cr No.121/2015 of PS SR Nagar, he simply stated that due to lapse of time, he cannot identify the person who confessed commission of offence, even if that person shown to him. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 also not showing the involvement of A1 in alleged offence.

19.Except the evidence of PW5 and PW6 who are the investigating officers, there is no evidence available with the record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Since PW5 and Pw6 are interested witnesses in success of the case, it is not safe to convict the A1 basing on their only evidence. Therefore, A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt.

20. In view of the above discussion and circumstances this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 448, 427, 153­A r/w 34 of IPC and also failed to prove nexus between the accused and the alleged offence.

10 of 11

The prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.Point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 427, 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of the Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1– P.Varun Kumar (Def­complainant )­ None ­

PW2– M.Javahar Babu (witness) 

PW3 – Mohd Haji, (Panch witness in Cr No. 121/2015 of PS SR Nagar)

PW4 – Mohd Jaleel (another panch witness in Cr No. 121/2015 of PS

SR Nagar)

PW5 – N.Nagesh (Ist Investigating Officer in Cr No. 121/15 of PS SR

Nagar and apprehended the accused No.1)

PW6 – S.Guru Swamy (Investigating Officer in this case) 11 of 11

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Complaint dated 17.11.2015

Ex.P2 – 161 Cr PC Statement of Pw1

Ex.P3 ­ 161 Cr PC statement of Pw2

Ex.P4 – Signature of Pw3 on confession statement

Ex.P5 – Signature of Pw4 on confession statement

Ex.P6 – Attested copy of remand case diary in Cr.No.121/2015 

Ex.P7 – Attested copy of confession statement of accused recorded in 

Cr. No.121/2015

Ex.P8 ­First Information Report 

Ex.P9 – Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P10 – Rough sketch map

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 of 11

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. RADHIKA GAVVALA, V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cum JJB,  FAC XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS, Thursday, the 04th day of August, 2022

C.C. No. 669 OF 2016

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

Neelam Rathan Kumar @ Chintu, S/o Satyanarayana, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.8­3­228/678/1616, Sriram Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. 

…… Accused 

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri K.Karuna Sagar, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjaguta, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.154/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :­

(i)On 14­02­2015 at 05.30 hours LW12/D.Suresh, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Jubilee Hills received a complaint from PW1/Sri 2 of 11

P.Varun Kumar stating that on 14­02­2015 in between 00.20 hours to 00.45 hours some unknown people came in front of the coffee shop namely Testa Rossa Cafe, Road No.10, Jubilee Hilss, out of them two persons entered into the premises by pushing their security guard and valet person and threw stones at the entrance glass and damaged the entire entrance glass and also threatened the working staff by name B.Sai Bab (Security) and M.Dharakeshwar Goud (Valet) and they can identify the said unknown persons, if shown to them. There were other friends of the unknown people waiting outside on the bikes. After damaging the glass property, they ran away by giving slogans JAI BAJRANG DAL, JAI SRI RAM, JAI HANUMAN, etc, and they were protesting against Valentine’s Day and being Indians they should not celebrate Valentine’s Day. Hence PW1 requested to take necessary action against the said unknown persons and their friends as per law.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, LW.12­D.Suresh, Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime

No.154/2015 under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC and issued F.I.R. and handed over the case file to PW6/S.Guru Swami,

Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S.Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. During investigation, PW6 examined LW1 and recorded his statement and later Pw6 visited scene of offence located at Testa Rossa Cafe, Road

No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and observed the scene minutely, later secured two mediators i.e., LW5 Sridhar and Lw6 Charry and conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama and drew rough sketch and later Pw6 examined the witnesses i.e., LWs2 to 4 3 of 11 and recorded their detailed statement and later the witnesses stated that they could identify the accused, if they see the accused persons.

While the investigation was in progress, received information from his counter part of LW11/Sri N.Nagesh, S.I. of Police, S. R. Nagar Police

Station stating that they apprehended the accused and on interrogation, he confessed to have committed this offence alongwith his associates i.e., A2/Jeevan, A3/Krishna and A4/Tony, all are residents of Moosapet, Hyderabad, later Lw11 secured two panchas and recorded and the accused confession statements of accused in their Crime No.121/2015 u/s 386, 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of PS

S.R.Nagar and the accused also confessed about the commission of offence along with his friends/associates Jeevan, Krishna and Tony pertaining to this case and admitted that they are activists of Bajrang

Dal Party and are protesting against the Valentine’s day celebrations.

Later PW6 obtained PT Warrant from the court against the accused but before he could be produced before this court on PT Warrant, the accused person was granted bail and later on 26­03­2015 on receipt of credible information by Pw6, he alongwith his staff apprehended the accused and brought to PS at 10.15 hours and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and admitted that he has committed the offence in this case alongwith the associates of Bajrang Dal Party namely A2.Jeevan, A3.Krishna and

A4.Tony, who are shown as absconding. The accused was produced

before the court for judicial custody on 26­03­2015. After completion

of investigation and after collecting necessary documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under sections 4 of 11 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC showing A2, A3 and A4 as absconding.

3.This Court had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the A1 and accordingly summons issued to the A1.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 before this Court, copies of documents were supplied to him as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel, a charge under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code have been framed against the accused No.1, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused

No.1 denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6.In order to substantiate the said charges, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Basing on the report of police, the evidence of LW2, LW3 and LW5 are closed by this court vide docket order dated 29.04.2022. Further the evidence of

LW6 is closed vide docket order dated 09.05.2022. Subsequently, on 5 of 11 17.05.2022 the learned APP given up the evidence of LW9 , LW10 and

LW12. 

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 denied the incriminating material put to him and he did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:­

“Whether the prosecution proved its

case against accused No.1 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences

punishable under sections 448, 427 and

153­A r/w 34 of IPC or not?” 

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.02.2015 the A1 to A4 have trespassed into the Testa Rossa Cafe of LW1 by pushing security guard/LW2 and have hurled with stones on the glass entrance of the cafe thereby damaging it and later fled away from there by raising slogans uttering ‘Jai Bajrang Dal, Jai Sri Ramm Jai Hanuman etc and further shouted saying that they are protesting against Valentine’s

Day and being Indians they should not celebnrate Valentine’s Day 6 of 11 and thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 448, 427 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC.

11.To prove the charges, the prosecution has to prove and establish that accused No.1 along with other accused persons trespassed into the Testa Rossa Cafe and hurled with stones on the glass and thereby damaged the glass entrance by raising slogans like Jai Sri Ram, Jai

Hanuman, etc. In this case, the prosecution, to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the above said offences, got examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6. PW1 is the def­complainant, PW2 is the witness/Manager in Testa Rossa Cafe, PW3 is the panch witness for confessional statement of the accused in Cr No.121/2015 of PS

S.R.Nagar, PW4 is the another panch witness for confessional statement of the accused in Cr No.121/2015 of P.S. S.R. Nagar. PW5 is the Investigating Officer and apprehended the accused in Cr

No.121/2015 of PS S.R.Nagar. PW6 is the Investigating Officer in this case.

12.PW1/Varun Kumar, who is the defacto­complainant in this case deposed that he is the Manager at Testa Rossa Cafe at Road No.10,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on the date of incident and on 14­02­2015 at about 11.30 P.M. some unknown persons came near our cafe in four to five motor cycles and pelted stones on the entrance glass of the cafe, due to which entrance glass broken and on returning they raised slogans as Jai Bhajrangdal and left the place and he deposed that he has not seen the faces of the miscreants and by the time he came out, 7 of 11 they fled away from the place and on the next day of the incident, he went to Police Station and lodged ExP1 complaint.

13.PW2/Jawahar Babu, who is the witness to the incident, deposed that he worked as Shift Manager of Testa Roosa Cafe at the time of date of incident and on 14­02­2015 at around 12.15 A.M. while they were present inside the Testa Rossa Cafe, he heard some noise from outside, as such he came out and noticed that the main door glass of cafe broken down and he came to know through LW2 and 3 that some unknown persons pelted stones on the main door glass and immediately he called Jubilee Hills police and informed through his

Manager and the police came to our place and recorded the statements.

14.PW3/Mohd Haji, who acted as panch witness in Cr No.

121/2015 U/s 386 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of PS SR Nagar, deposed that on 14­02­2015 at around 04.00pm, police called him to the police station and shown some persons and asked to identify them and he identified the persons shown by the police. He further deposed that due to lapse of time, he cannot identify those persons, even if they shown to him and later the police obtained his signature on some blank paper.

15.PW4/Mohd Jaleel, who acted as another panch witness in Cr

No. 121/2015 U/s 386 and 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of PS SR Nagar, also deposed on the same lines as deposed by the PW3.

8 of 11

16.PW5/N.Nagesh, who is the investigating officer in Cr No.

121/2015 of PS SR Nagar, deposed that on 14­02­2015 on credible information about the presence of accused who involved in Crime

No.121 of 2015 of PS S.R.Nagar, he along with his staff proceeded there and apprehended the accused and on interrogation, he confessed his commission of offence in Crime No.121/2015 alongwith his associates and accordingly he recorded the confession statements of accused in the presence PW3 and PW4 and on the same day, effected the arrest of accused and sent him to court for judicial custody.

17.PW6/S.Guru Swamy, who is the investigating officer in this case, deposed that on 14­02­2015 at 05.30am, PW1 submitted written complaint to LW12, basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.154/2015 and issued ExP8 FIR to all concerned and later handed over the CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of

LWs1 to 4, visited the scene of offence in the presence of LW5 and

LW6. While the investigation was in progress on 14­02­2015 received information from S.R.Nagar Police Station that they have apprehended the accused in their Crime No.121/2015 of PS

S.R.Nagar and during the course of investigation, accused confessed his commission of offence in the present case along with his associates. Later on the same day, he effected the arrest of accused and sent him to judicial custody and made efforts to arrest A2 to A4 9 of 11 but in vain. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in this case.

18.From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he was at the scene of incident at the time of alleged offence. Therefore his evidence is circumstantial in nature to the extent of occurrence of incident. LW2 and LW3 are only cited as eye witnesses to the incident, but then they were not examined by prosecution for the reasons best known to him.

Further the evidence of PW2 also circumstantial in nature regarding occurrence of incident. Though PW3 is one of the panch witness for confession statement of A1 in Cr No.121/2015 of PS SR Nagar, he simply stated that due to lapse of time, he cannot identify the person who confessed commission of offence, even if that person shown to him. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 also not showing the involvement of A1 in alleged offence.

19.Except the evidence of PW5 and PW6 who are the investigating officers, there is no evidence available with the record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Since PW5 and Pw6 are interested witnesses in success of the case, it is not safe to convict the A1 basing on their only evidence. Therefore, A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt.

20. In view of the above discussion and circumstances this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 448, 427, 153­A r/w 34 of IPC and also failed to prove nexus between the accused and the alleged offence.

10 of 11

The prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.Point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 427, 153­A r/w 34 of IPC of the Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1– P.Varun Kumar (Def­complainant )­ None ­

PW2– M.Javahar Babu (witness) 

PW3 – Mohd Haji, (Panch witness in Cr No. 121/2015 of PS SR Nagar)

PW4 – Mohd Jaleel (another panch witness in Cr No. 121/2015 of PS

SR Nagar)

PW5 – N.Nagesh (Ist Investigating Officer in Cr No. 121/15 of PS SR

Nagar and apprehended the accused No.1)

PW6 – S.Guru Swamy (Investigating Officer in this case) 11 of 11

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Complaint dated 17.11.2015

Ex.P2 – 161 Cr PC Statement of Pw1

Ex.P3 ­ 161 Cr PC statement of Pw2

Ex.P4 – Signature of Pw3 on confession statement

Ex.P5 – Signature of Pw4 on confession statement

Ex.P6 – Attested copy of remand case diary in Cr.No.121/2015 

Ex.P7 – Attested copy of confession statement of accused recorded in 

Cr. No.121/2015

Ex.P8 ­First Information Report 

Ex.P9 – Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P10 – Rough sketch map

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. RADHIKA GAVVALA, V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cum JJB,  FAC XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Monday, the 01st day of August, 2022

C.C. No. 616/2016

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1) Smt. Jasti Sree Roopa, D/o J.Nehru, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Managing Director, R/o Flat No.4506, Janapriya Metropolis, Erragadda, Hyderabad, N/o Gudivada, Krishna District.

A2)Smt. Devineni Sree Sudha, W/o D.Prathap, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Manager, R/o Flat No.4506, Janapriya Metropolis, Erragadda, Hyderabad, N/o Gudivada, Krishna District. 

…… Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri M.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjaguta, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.893/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 of 10

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case:­

(i)On 17­11­2015 at 10.00 hours, Sri Y.Linga Reddy, SI of Police,

PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad lodged a complaint stating that on receipt of credible information that one Mrs.Sriroopa Jasti (Accused no.1 herein) along with her friend Mrs. D.Srisudha (Accused no.2 herein) have been running an office of man power consultancy in the name of ‘Trend Employment’ Overseas Manpower and Education Consultants located at H.no.6­3­1093/103, Ist Floor, V.V.Vintage Boulayard, Raj

Bhavan Road, Hyderabad without obtaining any valid license from the concerned authorities with the help of her employees and they lure the gullible aspirants promising them that they will send abroad and collecting huge amounts from them. A1 and A2 used to prepared and enclose fake and fabricated letters, certificate, etc to the applications of the aspirants for getting Visa’s. There is no license from the concerned authorities for running recruitment/consultancy license and on enquiry, came to know that A1 has been operating from

Visakhapatnam and in Hyderabad. A petition has been received by this office from one Murali Mohan Challa, cell no.09297406708 which was addressed to High Command, Brunei, Darussalam on 10­02­ 2014 wherein he stated that, “with reference to my below mail and attached document, I am an aspirant of overseas job and I have been informed by my consultant (Trend Employments) that I have been selected and waiting for contract letter and visa, but in the attachments, reference number is not mentioned and he feel bit suspicious, so contacting you for guidance. Please give me the information of below attachment files are genuine or not”. Based on 3 of 10 the complaint the High Command, Brunei, Darussalam caused enquiries and reported that it is, “I am forwarding the mail appended below from one Mr.Murali Mohan Challa, and an attachment, taking the letter head the signature of this High Commission. The letter contains various names stating that their visa applications for Brunei have been verified, it is clearly a ploy to cheat the persons. Hence he requested to take necessary action against the concerned of ‘Trend

Employments Overseas Manpower and Education Consultants’, as per law. 

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, Lw.10­B.Mansing, Sub­

Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta registered a case in Crime No.

893/2015 under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and issued F.I.R.

During investigation, LW.10 examined LW1 and recorded his statement and later LW10 obtained permission from ACP, Panjagutta

Division and prepared search proceedings in the presence of panchas and rushed to the spot and raided the premises which is at first floor and there they found Office Manager Smt. Sree Sudha and served search proceedings and on enquiry she revealed her name as Smt.

Devineni Sree Sudha, working as Manager, Human Resources at

Trend Employment Consultancy, Somajiguda since March, 2014 and her elder sister Smt. Sree Roopa, Managing Director of the company.

On enquiry she voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and admitted that on the directions of her elder sister Sree Roopa, she has been running the said Consultancy without having valid permission from Government of India or Government of Telangana and they used to collect money from many candidates by saying that 4 of 10 they will process the visas for London and collected Rs.20,000/­ from each candidates and they used to collect visas from other countries and prepare documents as if they obtained permission from the

Consulate of Brunei and also prepared a ‘License to run Employment

Agency’ as given by Singapore and Lw10 and his team searched the office and seized copy of Oman Visas­6 papers, Electricity bill, maintenance bill, Flat rental receipts, Indent Offer letter of Trend

Employment, HP Laptop, etc under the cover of confession­cum­ seizure panchanama. Lw10 brought the accused alongwith seized material to PS and secured the presence of victims Lw4 to 7, examined and recorded their statements. Lw10 effected the arrest of the accused. After completion of investigation and after collecting necessary documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused

No.1 and 2 for the offences under sections 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC showing A2 absconding.

3.This Court had taken cognizance of the offences under sections 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the

Accused No.1 and 2 and issued the summons.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before this Court, copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel, a charge under sections 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of 5 of 10 the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the accusation levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6.In order to substantiate the said charges, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 and 6 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:­

“Whether the prosecution proved its

case against accused No.1 and 2 beyond 

all reasonable doubt for the offences

punishable under sections 420, 467 and 

471 r/w 34 of IPC or not?” 

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons committed forgery and used forged documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable under sections 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC. 

6 of 10

11.To prove the charges, the prosecution has to prove and establish that accused persons committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and used fake and forged documents as genuine. In this case, the prosecution, to prove the guilt of accused persons for the above said offences, got examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 3. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is one of the panch witness, PW3 is the

Investigating Officer.

12. The main contention of prosecution is that A1 and A2 in collusion with each other by creating fake documents, cheated the gullible people by promising to send them to foreign countries and thereby extracted huge money from the people.

13.PW1 who is the defacto complainant, deposed that he received credible information that the accused no.1 is running office of manpower consultancy in the name and style of Trends Employment

Overseas Man Power and Education Consultant at Raj Bhavan Road, without having any valid license from the concerned authorities i.e., from Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and they used to prepare fake and fabricated certificates to the applications of the aspirants to get visa’s. On enquiry A1 operating from Vishakapatnam but she doesn’t have any such license in Hyderabad to run consultancy from the concerned authorities. A petition received by Passport Office which was addressed to Brunei, Darusalam wherein it is stated that he is an aspirant of Overseas Job and informed by the consultant that he has been selected for contract letter and visa but in the 7 of 10 attachment, no reference number was mentioned and he contacted for guidance and to know whether the attached files are genuine or not, based on the complaint, the High Command Brunei enquired and reported that visa and concerned documents are fraud and hence requested to take necessary action against the accused consultancy.

Based on the above report, Pw1 lodged ExP1 complaint before SHO,

PS Panjagutta alongwith enclosures to the complaint i.e., verification report cum complaint of Lw4 and a letter purported to be returned by the High Commission Brunei, Darusalam.

14. This Court perused Ex.P1­complaint and also 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.1, in which he stated that accused persons promised to send the aspirants to abroad by submitting fake documents as genuine and collecting huge amounts from the aspirants by using fake and fabricated letters, certificates, etc. This Court observed that neither PW1 nor the Investigating Officer has filed so­called alleged forged documents submitted by accused for obtaining the visas and contract letters. In his cross examination the PW1 admitted that that he does not seen the victim/Lw4/Challa Murali Krishna and did not collect any document from the office of the accused.

15.Pw2/Md. Hazi Hussain, who is cited as one of the panch witness, stated in his evidence that on 17­11­2015, Pw3 asked him to come to their police station and Pw3 asked him to attend to the search to be conducted and he alongwith Pw3 and LW3/Mohammed

Sameer proceeded to the office at Somajiguda and found two female 8 of 10 persons in the office and there Pw3 seized one laptop, some papers, passports, rubber stamps. Later police drafted all proceedings in his presence for search and seizure of property and he attested on the same alongwith Lw3. Later he along with the accused and seized property were brought to Police Station.

16.During the cross examination, PW2 stated that he is running

Hotel at Raj bhavan road and LW10 not issued any written summons to him to act as panch witnesses and he did not go through the description and details of the documents seized by LW10 at the scene of offence .

17.PW3/B.Man Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of this case deposed in his evidence that on 17­11­2015 at about 10.00am, he received complaint from Pw1, basing on the same, registered a case in

Crime No.893/2015 and issued ExP2/FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 and securing the two mediators and after obtaining permission from ACP,

Panjagutta, proceeded to the spot and raided the premises. Upon entering the Office, found one Manager Smt. Sri Sudha and on enquiry revealed her particulars and searched the entire office in the presence of mediators and seized the documents and later brought them to Police Station along with seized documents and produced them before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/s 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

9 of 10

18.During the cross examination, the PW3 stated that he did not enquire regarding the registration of M/s trade employment is registered institute or not. He further admitted that date of incident occurred on 10.02.2014 and date of issuance of FIR was on 17.11.2015. He further admitted that he did not collect any documentary evidence in proof of payment made by the LW3 to LW6.

19.It is crystal clear from the entire material evidence on record that no complaint was lodged by any of the victims before the police and moreover the prosecution did not choose to examine any of the victim even after giving ample opportunities by this court. The court further observed that prosecution even did not choose to mark the document which were said to be allegedly forged documents and used as genuine. In the absence of the same and non­examination of victims is highly fatal to the prosecution case and it goes to the root of the prosecution case and on this core alone the prosecution case fails at the threshold itself. Therefore, the evidence of remaining witnesses serves no purpose and will not improve the prosecution case.

20.In view of the above discussion and circumstances this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC and also failed to prove nexus between the accused and the alleged offence.

The prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused 10 of 10 beyond all reasonable doubts and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.Point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 420, 467 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01 st day of August, 2022.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1– Y.Linga Reddy, (complainant )­ None ­ PW2– Md. Hazi Hussain (Panch witness) PW3 – B.Man Singh, (S.I. of Police/IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Complaint dated 17.11.2015 Ex.P2 ­ First Information Report dated 17.11.2015 Ex.P3 – Search proceedings Ex.P4 – Scene of offence observation cum confession cum seizure panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT :SMT. Radhika Gavvala,

V ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022.

CC. No. 1602 of 2013

Between:

The State of Telangana through P.S. Panjagutta,

Hyderabad. ….. Complainant

AND

A1) M/s Reliance Communications, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep by A1

A2) Mr Ashok Ghose, Age: 51 years, Occ: Circle Head M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

A3) Mr Ravi Shanker Pandey, Age 38 years, Occ; Retail Lead of M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

( As per Docket Order dt.25.10.2021 case against A3 is abated as died )

A4) Mr Kiran, Age 35 years, Occ: Zonal lead of M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

A5) Mr Sandeep Shukla, Age 49 years, Occ: Retail lead M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

A6) Mr Srinivas Raghavapudi, Age 41 years, Occ: Banking & Money Reconciliation M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, 2 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013

A7) Mr Subramanyam Vadali, Age 53 years, M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

A8) Sathish Govindan, Age 40 years, M/s Reliance Communications Ltd, # 6-3-1090/D/1, 2nd floor, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

….. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and Sri L Prasad Rao, the counsel for accused and after perusing the case record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G E M E N T :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad has filed

Charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 8 in Cr No. 545 of 2011 for the offence punishable Under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) r/w 156(3) of Crl. Procedure Code (Cr.PC)

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that:-

On 20.07.2011 at 15.00 hours received a private complaint from this court vide Dis No. 860/XIVACMM/HYD/2011, dated 01.07.2011 duly filed by M/s N.P.R. Marketing, Office at D.No. 2-3-70/A, Sri Sai

Apartments, Amberpet, Hyderabad rep by its Managing Partner Sri G

Praveen Reddy, against A1 to A8 who belongs to Reliance

Communications Ltd, in which he stated that he is running firm under the name and style of “N.P.R Marketing” and whereas the accused persons are the employees & working in the Reliance Communications

Ltd. The complainant firm has entered into agreement with Reliance

Wenstore Ltd as franchisee agreement dated 10.12.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the Reliance Communications, the complainant firm has to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- for obtaining franchisee. Accordingly he 3 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013 has paid the said amount and the Reliance Webstore has collected Rs.

10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs only) from him as security Refundable Deposit apart from this, company has also collected Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) from him as Non-Refundable sign up fees. He has paid the said amounts through Demand Drafts i.e. DD bearing No. 028941 and 028940 dated 17.11.2007. The complainant run the franchisee from 02.01.2008 and continued till 26.10.2010. On 20.08.2010 he had given resignation and on behalf of the Reliance Communications, the A4 and

A5 have received the same and A4 endorsed his signatures on the resignation letter. Thereafter none of the accused persons either corresponded nor even visited the store during this period and all of a sudden on 26.10.2010, the A4 and others employee of the company by name Manikanta and Vijay Kumar, without assigning anything straight away came and handed over the keys of the store and asked him to leave the store forthwith and obtained his signatures on the check list.

When he asked the above said persons to give acknowledgement regarding handing over the store by them, they simply refused to do so and informed him that they correspond through mail and accordingly on 27-10-2010 he sent a mail to Channel Care regarding the store I.D’s being handed over to the company and for the same Vijay Kumar,

Channel Care & Manikanta, CRM sent reply mail of acknowledging and

A4 informed about the handing over of store by the company on 26-10- 2010. As per companies norms and regulations, the company take over the store and obtains signatures on the check list of the franchisee concerned, the company has to settle the account i.e., full and final settlement within 45 days. But the company has failed to do so and made him to wait till 07 months. Later the company without settling 4 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013 their final settlement, handed over the store to one Jagadish Burada, a new franchisee and entered into the agreement. On 18-02-2011, A5 informed the A3 and A4 to furnish the details of account to the complainant and assured that settlements will be made within 15 days but till now no settlements were done. While discussing, he expressed how the company is serious in collecting PIS defaults penalty charge

Rs.1,000/- per day and A5 promised that he will see to pay in similar manner and settlement will be done and would take approval from A7.

It is pertinent to mention that no policy is available to collect any PIS default earlier, the same has been came into effect from 01-06-2011 and same is circulated by DAKC on 28-05-2011 to the A.P.Circle. In the instance case the accused persons have collected PIS amount to a tune of Rs.82,000/- and on questioning how the accused are collected PIS amount, no answer from them. In the year 2009 the complainant has been chosen and selected by the company for the Trip to London called “Chalo London” and the company collected Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as deposit, which is refundable amount and the company finally informed the complainant that they forfeited the amount. The accused persons initially not informed about the forfeiture of the amount but subsequently manipulating the documents, mails, circular-policy on PIS defaults document dt.30-4-2009 and thus accused have cheated the complainant at various levels. Normally, when the collections are made on franchisee I.D’s, then the firm name would be reflected alongwith amount, date and same would be shared on a day to day basis, in any event if the collections are collected by the company on the franchisee I.D’s, it would be shown as ‘IN HOUSE’, but the company has collected the amounts to an extent of Rs.2,71,427/- 5 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013 and the report shared by the company on day to day basis. But when the settlement process of the complainant was taken out, the accused persons showed the above said amounts were liable to be paid by the complainant and the same is debited from his deposits. But when the complainant tried to show that he is not liable for the amounts which was collected by the company, the accused persons by manipulating the details of the report the complainant’s firm and swindled the said amount of Rs.2,71,427/- by cheating the complainant, mail dt.03.11.2010 clearly shows that the francishee handed over the collection to in house. The A8 with malafide intention tried to manipulate the documents and can swindle PIS amounts by manipulating so, which clearly shown in his mail. After several requests made by the complainant the A1 to A7 have sent mail of the accounting by making interpolations and manipulations and swindled his amount to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/- approximately. When the issued is brought to the notice of A2, A5 came forward informing the complainant that he would be the single point of contact pertaining to the complainant’s settlement process to the utmost satisfactory. A5 was astonished at the accounts made by the commercial team and promised to resolve the issues and would see the amounts reverted back to the complainant’s credit account at the earliest. When asked about the earlier settlement, they used to answer in an arrogant manner and used to reply in abrupt manner, by saying that the company is not answerable to anybody and whatever the company pays he should take without any issues. Hence, the complainant requests to take necessary action in this matter.

6 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence Under Section 420 of IPC r/w 156(3) Cr PC against the accused no.1 to 8.

4.On appearance of accused no.1 to 8, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.1 company represented by A2, A4 to A8 were examined Under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. and charges were framed for the offences Under Section 420 of IPC r/w 156(3) Cr PC and the same are read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution failed to produce any one of the witnesses even after granting sufficient time and ample opportunities, as such the evidence of prosecution is closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of the accused no.1 to 8 Under section 313 of CrPC was dispensed as there is no incriminating evidence available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences U/s 420 of IPC r/w 156(3) Cr PC ?

7 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013

10. P O I N T : The specific allegations leveled against the accused persons is that they all voluntarily causing loss to the complainant by not paying the final settlement amounts as per the the norms and regulations of the company.

11. To prove the said allegation the prosecution did not choose to examine any of the witnesses even after giving several adjournments and opportunities given by this court.

12.After meticulously scanning the entire record, this court found that there is no iota evidence on the record to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence. Even the prosecuting agency did not chose to examine any of the material witnesses to support and substantiate their contention to prove the ingredients of alleged offences.

13.In view of the above discussion and circumstances this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence and also failed to prove nexus between the accused persons and the alleged offence. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

14.Point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result the accused no.1 representing A2, A4 to 8 are found not guilty for the offences Under Section 420 of IPC r/w 156(3) Cr PC 8 of 8 CC No. 1602 of 2013 and accordingly they are acquitted in terms of section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of August, 2022.

FAC XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

NIL

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

FAC XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

1 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT RADHIKA GAVVALA V ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE cum J.J.B,

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Monday, the 01st day of August, 2022

C.C. No. 841/2016

Between : The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant

And

A1) Manya Vijay Kumar, S/o Narsing Rao, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.6-2-69/3, Raju Colony, Balanagar, R.R.District, N/o Oura, Bidar District, Karnataka State.

A2) Sanjay Joshi, S/o Kashinath, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Private Job, R/o Plot No.669 to 699, Mallareddy Colony, Kukatpally, R.R.District.

(Vide Docket Order dt 28.11.2019 the case against A2 is

abated as died) …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of theAssistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizam, Advocate for the accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No. 274/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

(i)On 22-04-2013 at 11.00 A.M. Lw5/J.Mahender Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police, Police Station Panjagutta received a complaint from Lw1/Sri Madim Mohd Khan, S/o Niyaz Mohd Khan stating that on 08.03.2013 at about 08.00 P.M. he closed his shop duly locked to glass door and grill door and went to his house and on the next day i.e., on 09.03.2013 at about 7.00 A.M. he returned to his shop and found the grill door and glass door locks broken and doors were open and on his entering into his shop, noticed that the following items i.e., (1) one computer LCD Monitor and one CPU, (2) Laptop

Acer Model 4710, (3) About 50 pen drives (HP, Scan Disk and Sony

Model), (4) Shaber Pens 15 Nos and some cash, croy pens 16 Nos, deductions, etc., (5) Citizen Calculators 12 Nos were found missing.

Due to emergency, he went to Bangalore, hence, the delay occurred in giving the report to police. Finally, he requested to take necessary action.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, LW.5- J.Mahender Reddy, Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta registered a case in Crime

No.274/2013 under sections 457 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC and issued

F.I.R. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW.5 examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/Madim Mohd

Khan, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and examined the scene minutely but could not find any incriminating elements to seize. Later deputed the crime staff with instruction to nab the offenders but could not fetch any useful information. While the efforts were in progress to arrest the 3 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016 offenders, on 03-04-2013 Lw5 received information from

Lw4/G.Vijay Kumar, S.I. of Police, Balanagar P.S., Cyberabad that he arrested the accused persons in Crime No.134/2013 u/s 457 and 380 of IPC and on through investigation, they voluntarily admitted their guilt and confessed about the commission of offence pertaining to this case. LW.4 has recovered the case property i.e., (1) one computer LCD Monitor and one CPU, (2) 15 pen drives (Scan

Disk), (3) 4 Pen Drive H.P., (4) 10 Pen Drives Sony, (5) 20 Black Pens and (6) 5 White Pens, pertaining to this case and A1 and A2 were produced and remanded to judicial custody. On receipt of information, on 03.05.2013 Lw5 on executed PT warrant and produced before the court. After completion of investigation and after collecting relevant documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.The case was taken cognizance for the offences under sections 457 and 380 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 and 2.

4.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C., on their production

before the Court.

5.Thereafter, the prosecution filed death certificate of accused no.2 as such the case against A2 is abated. The accused No.1 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation levelled against him. After hearing the learned Assistant Public 4 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016

Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, a charge under sections 457 and 380 of IPC has been framed against the accused No.1, read over and explained to him in vernacular, who pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P1. Since the prosecution failed to comply the conditional order, the evidence of Lw1 to 4 and 6 are closed by this court.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 denied the incriminating material put to him and he did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record. Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able

to prove the guilt of the accused No.1

for the offences punishable under

sections 457 and 380 of IPC beyond

all reasonable doubt or not ?”

POINT:

9. It is the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 08/09.03.2013, the accused had committed theft of (1) one 5 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016 computer LCD Monitor and one CPU, (2) Laptop Acer Model 4710, (3) About 50 pen drives (HP, Scan Disk and Sony Model), (4) Shaber

Pens 15 Nos and some cash, croy pens 16 Nos, deductions, etc., (5)

Citizen Calculators 12 Nos, by breaking the lock of shop of LW1 at

Road No.1, Banjara Hills and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

10.To prove its case, though the prosecution cited as many as six witnesses, but examined only one witness i.e. PW.1 who is the

Investigating Officer, to the reasons best known to it.

11.PW.1 is the Investigating Officer and he deposed that he received a complaint from LW1 and basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr No. 274/2013 under ExP1 and further he examined and recorded the statements of LW1, visited the scene of offence and caused minute enquiry and while the investigation was in progress, he received information about the arrest of accused persons in Crime No.134/2013 of PS Balanagar and the accused persons confessed about the commission of offence in this case.

Later he produced the A1 and A2 before the court on execution of

PT Warrant. On his transfer, handed over the CD file to Lw6

G.Venkat Reddy, SI of Police, Panjagutta PS.

12.It is crystal clear from the above testimony of PW1 that except issuing the FIR and producing the A1 and A2 on execution of PT warrant before the court, he did not do any other investigation .

6 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016

13.After meticulously scanning the entire record, there is no supporting evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. In the absence of evidence of material witnesses and other essential witnesses, the evidence of investigation officer who is an interested witness in success of the case is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

14.In view of the above discussion and circumstances, this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 457 and 380 of IPC and also failed to prove nexus between the accused and the alleged offence. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15.In the result the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences under section 457 and 380 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted in terms of section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time. The

unmarked case property deposited vide PI No. 61 of 2013 is

given to the defacto complainant vide Crl M.P No. 1169 of

2013 dated 26.07.2013 towards interim custody, is shall

holds good, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of August, 2022.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

7 Of 7 CC No.841 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 – J.Mahender Reddy (S.I. of Police/IO)- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – First Information Report- Nil -

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD