Sri. G. Ramalingam

1 CC.No.98 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: BOATH:

ADILABAD DISTRICT

Present : G. Ramalingam, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

Friday, this the 24th day of January, 2020

C.C.No. 98 of 2017

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Echoda. ...Prosecution A N D 1)Shaik Waheed, S/o. Zaheeroddin, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture.

2) Shaik Ahmad, S/o. Suleman, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture.

3) Shaik Jaleel, S/o. Abdullah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o Gundala.

4) Shaik Mukeed @ Goru, S/o. Abdul Azeez, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Bhainsa, …Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Rupender Singh, Advocate Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Echoda filed charge sheet in

Crime No. 212 of 2016 against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (2) of PDPP Act and Section 20, and 29 of AP Forest Act alleging as follows:

The Accused No.1 to 3 are the wood smugglers, they illegally fell down the teak wooden trees in the forest by causing damage to the public property, and they are smuggling the teak wood to Bhainsa by selling to Accused No.4 on high rate, and earning money. On 14.12.2016 as per instructions of Accused No.4, accused No.1 to 3 illegally fell down 2 CC.No.98 of 2017 10 teak wooden trees and they were made them in to logs, on the same day, the Accused No.4 sent Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing No.TS08-UB- 8357, near to the Accused No.1 to 3 instructing them to bring the said logs in the said vehicle, and accordingly the accused No. 1 t 3 got loaded the 10 teak wooden logs in said vehicle, and while illegally transporting to

Bhainsa, on the way at 1400 hours, the police apprehended them. Thus, the accused No.1 to 4 committed the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (2) of P.D.P.P. Act, and Section 20, and 29 of AP Forest Act.

02.Cognizance was taken Under sections under section 379 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (2) of PDPP Act and Section 20, 29 of

AP Forest Act against the accused No.1 to 4. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

03. Accused No. 1 to 4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offences under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of

PDPP Act and Section 20, and 29 of T.S. Forest Act is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 and PW- 4 and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and on the other hand Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the Accused.

05.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No. 1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining increminating evidence against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

3 CC.No.98 of 2017

06.Heard both sides and perused record.

07.The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of PDPP Act and Section 20, and 29 of T.S. Forest Act againstthe accused No. 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt?

08.POINT: To bring home the guilt for the said offences against the Accused No.1 to 4 the prosecution have examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and relied on Ex.P1 to P6. According to the prosecution case, the PW-1 is police constable who assisted the PW3/Investigating officer, PW-2 and PW- 4 are independent panch witnesses for confessional statement-cum- seizure panchama, and PW-4 is Investigating Officer.

9.It is evidence of PW1 that 14.12.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., he along with PC 3119 were conducting patrolling duty around at Echoda, at that time our SI of police received credible information that one Ashok

Leyland Vehicle B. No. TS08 UV 8357 was illegally transporting teak logs from Chincholi village. Immediately their SI of police informed us to go to that area. They immediately went to the said area and their SI of police also came to the spot and they found the said vehicle which was coming in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly they stopped them and they searched the said lorry and found (10) teak logs in the said vehicle and they also found three persons namely Jaleel, Waheed and Ahmed.

Immediately they SI of police secured two mediators, conducted panchanama and seized the said (10) teak logs and brought the same to the police station and suo-moto registered a case. Our SI of police examined him and recorded his statement. It is his further evidence that he can identify the persons who caught hold at the scene of offence, and he identified the Accused No.1 to 3 during his evidence.

4 CC.No.98 of 2017

10.It is evidence of PW3 who is Investigating officer that on 14.12.2016 AT 1830 hours, When he along with his staff were performing patrolling duty at Echoda at that time he received a credible information that A1 to a3 were illegally transporting teak logs in Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing No. TS08 UB 8357 from Gundala forest area to Bhainsa.

Immediately they went to the said area and when they reached at the outskirts of Chincholi village at about 1400 hours they noticed the said vehicle and on seeing them the persons who were traveling in the said vehicle stopped the same and tried to escape by leaving the said vehicle. But they chased them and caught hold Accused No. 1 to 3 and interrogated them. When A1 was ready to confess about the offence he secured the presence of Pw2 and PW4, drafted confessional statement of

Accused No.1 in their presence who confessed to have committed this offence along with Accused No.2 and 3 on the instructions of Accused

No.4 who sent the above said vehicle for illegal transportation of teak logs and later he seized (10) wooden logs and also the said vehicle in the presence of said mediators under cover of confessional-cum-seizure panchanama. The said confessional cum-seizure panchanama was marked uner Ex.P2 in his evidence. Further, it is his evidence that later he along with accused No. 1 to 3 and case property returned to the police station and suo-moto registered a case in Cr.No. 212/2016 U/S 379 IPC 3(1)(2) of

P.D.P.P. Act and 20 and 29 of A.P. Forest act and issued FIR under Ex.P3.

Later he handed over the case property to the forest Range officer for measurement and later LW5 gave his measurement report under Ex.P4.

Thereafter he examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 and LW1.

Later he effected the arrest of the accused persons by issuing arrest memos and later produced them before this court for judicial custody. On 14.12.2016 he handed over the seized property i.e. (10) teak wooden logs and Ashok leyland vehicle to the forest range officer for case custody 5 CC.No.98 of 2017 under proper acknowledgment under Ex.P5. After completion of investigation I filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 by showing A4 absconding. He denied a suggestion in his cross-examination that they never conducted patrolling duty on the date of incident nor he received any credible information about illegal transporting of teak logs and he never drafted any confessional panchanama of Accused No.1 nor seized any teak logs and vehicle from the scene of offence, and he registered false against the accused persons only statistical purpose without any proper investigation.

11. PW2, and PW4 who are independent panch witnesses in conducting confession statement of Accused No.1-cum-seizure panchanama under Ex.P2 according to case of prosecution, but the PW2 did not support the case of prosecution as he turned hostile except admission of his signature on confessional-cum-seizure panchanama of

Accused No.1, and nothing was elicited during his cross-examination by the learned A.P.P. Coming to evidence of PW4, he also did not support the entire case of prosecution as he also turned hostile. He deposed mainly that about 3 years back police caught hold one vehicle at chincholi cross- roads i.e., Pickup vehicle. At that time police personal were present, and he found (10) teak sizes and, the police seized the same in his presence.

But no other persons were present at that time. Later police police conducted panchanama in his presence and seized the said (10) teak sizes and vehicle in his presence. Thereafter police obtained his signatures on the said panchanama. But no body confessed about the commission offence in his presence. During his evidence he identified his signature on confessional-cum-seizure panchanama, but he denied a suggestion in his cross-examination by the learned A.P.P. that on 14-12-2016 at 1400 hours at Chincholi village outskirts, police caught hold of Accused No. 1 to 3 and 6 CC.No.98 of 2017 they also confessed about the commission offence in his presence and also in the presence of PW2.

12. The learned counsel for the Accused argued that the independent panch witnesses, PW-2 and PW4 are very crucial, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution against the Accused No. 1 to 4, and there is no sufficient grounds to convict and sentence them.

13. The evidence of PW4 is not supporting version of prosecution with regard to recording of confessional statement of Accused No.1.

Though the PW4 deposed about seizure of (10) teak sizes and vehicle, but he failed to depose name of the vehicle, and its bearing number. The evidences of PW-1 and PW-3 are not corroborated with the evidence of

PW-2 and PW-4, the independent panch witnesses. The evidence of PW-1 who is police constable, and PW-3, who is Investigating officer are not safe to rely upon without the corroborating the evidence of independent witnesses, as they are highly interested to succeed the prosecution case.

Moreover, the confession before the police officer is not admissible in the evidence and hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

14. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of PDPP

Act and Section 20, 29 of TS Forest Act, and accordingly they acquitted

U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time as per the provisions of Section 437-

A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of January, 2020.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nirmal. FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class Boath.

7 CC.No.98 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION :ACCUSED

PW.1 : B.Sadashiv - Nil-

PW.2 : P.Ganesh PW.3 : B.Shanker PW.4 : S.Shivaiah

(EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-2 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P2: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Measurement report Ex.P5: Custody of Case property acknowledgment Ex.P6: Signature of PW-4 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

ACCUSED

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nirmal FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class Boath.

8 CC.No.98 of 2017

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 0F I CLASS:: BOATH

CC.No. 98 of 2017

Date of offence: 14-12-2016

Date of complaint/report: 14-12-2016

Date of Appearance of Accused: 24-09-2019

Date of commencement of trial: 26-11-2019

Date of closure of trial: 27-12-2019

Date of Judgment: 24-01-2020

Explanation/remarks/delay if any: –

Complainant:

The state represented through P.S. Ichoda.

Accused 1)Shaik Waheed, S/o. Zaheeroddin, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture.

2) Shaik Ahmad, S/o. Suleman, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture.

3) Shaik Jaleel, S/o. Abdullah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o Gundala.

4) Shaik Mukeed @ Goru, S/o. Abdul Azeez, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Bhainsa,

Offence: Under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of PDPP Act and Section 20, 29 of TS Forest Act

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of PDPP Act and Section 20, 29 of TS Forest Act, and accordingly they acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time as per the provisions of Section 437- A Cr.P.C.

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BOATH.

Submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Dis.No. /2020, Dated: - -2020

Dt: 08-02-2020

CC/25/20201 / 1

TSAD090000692020

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: BOATH

Present: Junior Civil Judge, BOATH _

CC/25/2020

Between:

Excise station, Echoda Address: Excise station, Echoda … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Booti Sridhar Address: R/o Kumari village, Neradigonda mandal 2:kandle Sridhar Age: 27 Occupation : R/o Kokasmannur villag … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : APP,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Dt: 08-02-2020

CC/25/20201 / 1

Accused is present before the Lok Adalath. The proh. and Excise Inspector, Echoda filed alteration memo praying this court to permit them to alter the section 43(a0 of TS Excise Act to 8(b) Act in view of the orders of the Government of Telangana vide GOMs No.1084, dated 21.12.204 permitting to compound the cases on payment of the prescribed compound fee and the accused also paid compounding fee of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) through Challan and the said Original challan also is filed to that effect. The complainant/P and EI Echoda filed petition U/S 321 Crpc through learned APP praying to permit them to withdraw the case before the Lok Adalath Bench. In these circumstances at request in the interest of Justice the learned APP/prosecution permitted to withdraw the case of prosecution, in-view of National Lok Adalath. The same is recorded and accordingly award is passed by acquitting the accused U/S 320(8) Cr.P.C.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 08-02-2020 Junior Civil Judge BOATH (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 28-02-2020

CC/289/20161 / 1

TSAD090003662016

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: BOATH

Present: Junior Civil Judge, BOATH

CC/289/2016

Between:

A.P.State Through S.I of Police Ichoda Address: The station house officer, PS Ichoda … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Sellappan Moorthy Address: Age.30 years, Kabnda-BC driver of bolero Br.No.KA 52A 2834, ro.481A kudi street, Veeraputi, Uppupalayam, Kuppinkapalaya Lamakkal, Chittalandur of Tamilnadu 9443713151 … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : Asst.Public Prosecutor,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused is called absent. Petition filed U/S 353 (b) of Cr.P.C. and allowed. Judgment is pronounced vide separate one. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 304-

Dt: 28-02-2020

CC/289/20161 / 1

A of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted U/S 255(1)s of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time as per the provisions of section 437-a Cr.P.C.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 28-02-2020 Junior Civil Judge BOATH (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 28-02-2020

CC/245/20191 / 1

TSAD090003762019

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: BOATH

Present: Junior Civil Judge, BOATH

CC/245/2019

Between:

Excise Station, Ichoda Address: Ichoda … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

M. Swamy Goud Address: Mupkal village and Mandal of Nizamabad District.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : ,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused is called present. Judgment pronounced vide separate one.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under sections 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled o expiry of appeal period as per

Dt: 28-02-2020

CC/245/20191 / 1 section 437 of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is sample of toddy shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 28-02-2020 Junior Civil Judge BOATH (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 28-02-2020

CC/222/20181 / 1

TSAD090002602018

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: BOATH

Present: Junior Civil Judge, BOATH

CC/222/2018

Between:

T.S. through S.I. of Police Neredigonda. Address: R/o. SHO Neredigonda.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Baradwal Mangal Singh Address: R/o. Kortikal(B).

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : ,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused is called present. Judgment pronounced vide separate one. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 304-A of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted U/S 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time as per provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dt: 28-02-2020

CC/222/20181 / 1

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 28-02-2020 Junior Civil Judge BOATH (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)