Sri G.Satya Prabhakar Rao

1

In the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Vijayawada

Present: ­ G. Satya Prabhakara Rao, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of February, 2017

Calendar Case No. 114 of 2015

Between

Gudela Adinarayana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, 50 years, Business, R/o. D. No. 6­13­47, Jodubommala Centre, Gollapalemgattu, Vijayawada, Krishna District.… Complainant

A n d

M. Nirmala, W/o. Late Vandanam, Hindu, Housewife, & Properties, R/o. D. No. 9­28­1/35, Gandumala Atchamma Street, Tailorpet,

Vijayawada – 520009.... Accused

This case is coming before me on 08.02.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Durga Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Complainant, Sri M. Hanumanth, Advocate for the Accused, having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following: ­

J u d g m e n t

1.This is a Private Complaint filed by Complainant U/s 190 and 200 of 

Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.,') to punish the Accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (In short 'NI Act')

2.Case of complainant, in concise, is this:

Accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/­ from complainant on 25.03.2012 for her family expenses and executed a demand promissory note in favour of complainant on the even date undertaking to repay the said sum with interest at 24% per annum; on repeated demands made by 2 complainant, accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/­, dt. 06.11.2014 drawn Oriental Bank of Commerce, R.R. Appa Rao Street, Vijayawada towards part payment of said legally enforceable debt in favour of complainant; complainant presented the said cheque for collection in State 

Bank of India, Vidyadharapuram Branch, Vijayawada; but, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement that “Funds are Insufficient”; thereby, on 08.12.2014, complainant got issued a Legal Notice to accused calling upon her to pay the amount covered under the said cheque; accused, who received the said notice got issued a litigious reply on 22.12.2014; the complainant thereby got issued a Re­joinder Notice on 20.01.2015 and hence, the complaint.

3.The said complaint is taken on file as C.C. No. 114 of 2015 against accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable 

Instruments Act and issued summons to accused.

4.After appearance of accused before court, copies of case documents are supplied to her as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.,

5.Accused is examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable 

U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, during which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of complainant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 are marked. On behalf of accused, D.W.1 is examined and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 are marked.

3

7.After closure of complainant side evidence, accused is examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., during which, she denied evidence of complainant side witnesses as false.

8.Heard Learned Counsel for both parties and perused the record and written arguments filed on behalf of accused.

9.The Points which emerge for consideration are:

i) “Whether the Cheque in issue is true, valid and binding on accused?” ii) “Whether there is a legally enforceable debt in between complainant and accused?” iii)“To what relief?”

P O I N T N O.s (i) & (ii)

Since these two points are interrelated in nature, they are taken up together for just and proper adjudication of the matter.

10.In order to substantiate his claim, complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and one of the attestors of promissory note is examined as P.W.2.

11.P.W.1, in brief, speaks from his chief­examination that “accused 

borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/­ from him on 25.03.2012 and 

executed a demand promissory note in his favour on the even date 

undertaking to repay the said sum with interest at 24% per annum; on 

4

repeated demands made by him, accused issued a cheque for 

Rs.1,50,000/­, dt. 06.11.2014 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, 

R.R. Appa Rao Street, Vijayawada – 1 Branch, Vijayawada; but, the said 

cheque was returned with an endorsement that 'funds are insufficient'; 

the accused, who received the said notice got issued a Reply Notice 

with all false allegations; thereby, he again issued a Re­joinder Notice 

denying the contents of Reply Notice; inspite of it, accused did not pay 

the amount covered under the said cheque and hence, the complaint.”

From the chief­examination of P.W.1, the Promissory Note is marked as Ex.P.1, Cheque is marked as Ex.P.2, Cheque Return Memo is marked as 

Ex.P.3, Office Copy of Legal Notice got issued by complainant is marked as 

Ex.P.4, Postal Acknowledgement is marked as Ex.P.5, Reply Notice got issued by accused is marked as Ex.P.6, Re­joinder Notice got issued by complainant is marked as Ex.P.7 and lastly Postal Acknowledgement is marked as Ex.P.8.

12.It is obvious to observe herein that evidence of P.W.1 touching the validity of Ex.P.1 promissory note and Ex.P.2 cheque is very consistent and confident without any fumble. It may be pointed herein that nothing credit is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 made on behalf of accused, at length, to suspect the validity of said Ex.P.1 promissory note and Ex.P.2 cheque. On the other hand, it is clear from the cross­examination of P.W.1 in a way to support the claim of complainant that “he knows about 

accused through her daughter since last seven years; to his knowledge, 

accused is residing in the address furnished in Ex.P.1 and complaint; 

5

they mentioned Door No. 9­28­1/35 as address of accused; he 

personally demanded the accused to pay the amount; he knows the 

contents of Ex.P.6 and Vandanam @ Suresh Kumar is the name of 

husband of accused.”

13.It is a relevant place to observe herein that complainant has also succeeded to examine one of the attestors of promissory note as P.W.2. In this connection, P.W.2 speaks from his chief­examination, in brief, that 

“accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/­ from complainant on 

25.03.2012 for her family expenses and executed a demand promissory 

note in favour of complainant on the even date at Vijayawada agreeing 

to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and the entire 

transaction took place before him at Vijayawada.”

14.It may be pointed out herein that evidence of P.W.2 duly sails with evidence of P.W.1 without any divergency even from his cross­examination to the effect that “at the request of P.W.1 he came to court for giving 

evidence; he is having acquaintance with P.W.1 for the last two years; 

he got acquaintance with accused for the last five years; accused is 

residing behind Cholera Hospital, Vijayawada and that he knows the 

contents of his chief­examination affidavit.”

15.Accused has examined herself as D.W.1. As can be seen from the chief­examination affidavit of D.W.1 filed by accused, the accused took the plea that “Ex.P.1 promissory not is not supported by any consideration; 

as such, the complainant cannot claim anything either under 

6

promissory note or under cheque for the reason that complainant is not 

a holder in due course of the instrument which he was relied upon in 

the complaint.” It is nowhere stated by her in the said affidavit with regard to how the promissory note and cheque marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 came into the custody of complainant. Such is the situation, accused cannot be permitted to take a divergent stand to suit her convenience, as an after thought.

16.Hence, D.W.1 has conceded from her cross­examination made on behalf of complainant in unequivocal terms that “Two Cheque Dishonour 

Cases are pending against her; door number mentioned in Ex.D.3 

varies with door number mentioned in her chief­examination affidavit; 

she cannot say whether chief­examination affidavits of P.W.1 and P.W.2 

would contain her signatures to show that she received the same in 

court or not and she did not give any police complaint stating that she 

lost her cheques and she did not file any criminal case against P.W.1 

after Ex.P.7 Re­Joinder Notice.”

17.Further, in Ex.P.6 Reply Notice, strangely it is contended on behalf of accused that “complainant is bound to explain how he is in possession 

of the cheque and promissory note with believable evidence to fasten 

liability against accused under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments 

Act.” Indeed, Ex.P.4 Legal Notice got issued by complainant clearly explains how the complainant got possession of Ex.P.2 Cheque. In this context, it discloses that “accused who borrowed an amount of 

Rs.1,00,000/­ from complainant on 25.03.2012 for her family expenses 

7

executed a promissory note in favour of complainant on the even date 

undertaking to repay the said sum with interest at 24% per annum and 

on repeated demands made by complainant, towards part payment of 

said debt accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/­, dt. 06.11.2014 

drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, R.R. Appa Rao Street, 

Vijayawada.” But, on the other hand, as observed supra, accused had failed to explain how the complainant got possession of her cheque. 

Therefore, a bald and wild allegation from accused that complainant had fabricated a promissory note and cheque does not exonerate the accused from the criminal liability conferred under Ex.P.2 cheque. In my firm view, the said defence of accused is tainted with an illegality only to escape from her liability without there being any just cause and reason.

18.The other fold of defence of accused is that “the particulars 

mentioned in the description column of promissory note are not 

correct; the name of her husband was wrongly shown as Vandanam in 

the promissory note and also in the notice and the door number 

mentioned in the promissory note is also not correct.”

19.To support the said defence, D.W.1 has placed much reliance on 

Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 and they are True Copy of Photo Identity Card of husband of accused, True Copy of Health Card and True Copy of Identity Card of accused. I am unable to convince with the said defence put­forth on behalf of accused. In the instant case, after receiving legal notice from complainant, the accused, in turn, has got issued a Reply Notice and thereafter complainant has got issued a Re­joinder Notice. In such a 8 situation, the contention of accused that her address is not correct does not hold water.

20.Further, as can be seen from the cross­examination of P.W.1 made on behalf of accused “the name of husband of accused is Vandanam @ 

Suresh Kumar.” Apart from that it is a case basing on a Cheque issued by accused in favour of complainant, but not a case against husband of accused. So, the correct name of husband of accused not a core point for consideration in the present case.

21.The other fold of defence of accused is that there is no legally enforceable debt under Ex.P.2 Cheque.

L E G A L L Y E N F O R C E A B L E D E B T: ­ “It may be noted that having admitted the issuance of 

cheque in favour of complainant, the burden is very heavy 

on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued 

with in connection with the transaction as alleged by 

complainant. An independent assessment of the evidence 

adduced by complainant, both oral and documentary, lead 

to an irresistible conclusion that the cheque was issued by 

the accused in connection with the recital mentioned in 

Ex.P.1 promissory note, but not in connection with some 

other transaction as contended by accused.” 9 The essential ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable 

Instruments Act are that . . .

“There must be a debt or other liability legally enforceable, 

that the cheque must be given by the debtor in favour of 

the creditor in discharge of the said debt or liability, in 

whole or in part and that cheque should be returned by the 

bank for insufficiency of funds to the credit of the debtor to 

honour the cheque.”

In the present case, the above ingredients are brought out by the evidence of complainant supported by documents.

22.Following are the Acts which are the components of an offence of under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:

i) “Drawing of the cheque; ii) Presentation of the cheque into the bank;

iii) Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank;

iv) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque 

demanding the payment of the cheque amount;

v) Failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.”

The said ingredients, stated supra, are also in favour of complainant.

10

23.Learned counsel for accused has invited my attention to the following decision reported in: ­ “2006 (2) ALD (Criminal) 402 (Andhra Pradesh)”

Between “K.A. Prakash Rao Vs. U. Indira Devi and others”

In the said decision, his Lordship is pleased to hold that . . .

“There should be a legally enforceable liability on accused 

to attract an offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments 

Act.”

The dictum laid down in the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand since in the present case as observed supra, there is a legally enforceable debt in between complainant and accused and the same is duly supported by valid consideration.

24.Learned counsel for complainant has invited my attention to the following decisions reported in: ­

i) “2010 (2) ALD (Criminal) 734 (SC)”

Between “Rangappa Vs. Mohan”

In the said decision their Lordships are pleased to hold that,

“Presumption mandated by Section 139 includes existence 

of a legally enforceable debt or liability.” 11 ii) “AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT – 2898”

Between “Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadikonda 

Ramulu Firm and others.”

In the said decision their Lordships are pleased to hold that,

“If the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof 

by showing the non­existence of the consideration, the 

plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of 

presumption arising U/s 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments 

Act.”

The proposition of law laid down in the said two decisions is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances involved in the present case to come to a conclusion that complainant is perfectly entitled to the relief U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

25.An overall scrutiny of the material placed before this court would clinchingly establishes the fact that there is a legally enforceable debt in between complainant and accused and that, there are no bonafides on the part of accused for not paying the amount covered under the said cheque to complainant. Therefore, accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

26.Hence, these two (2) points are answered in favour of complainant and against accused.

12

P O I N T N O. (iii)

27.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable 

U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, she is 

Convicted for the said offence U/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.,

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2017.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

28.Accused is questioned with regard to 'quantum of punishment' for which, she submitted as follows: 

29.In view of gravity involved in the present case, I find no valid reason to invoke the provisions under Probation of Offenders Act in favour of accused.

30.In the result, by taking into consideration of plea submitted by 

accused with regard to quantum of punishment and also by taking into 

consideration of facts and circumstances involved in the present case, 

accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 138 r/w 142 of 

Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, she is Convicted for the said 

13

offence U/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., and that, she is sentenced to undergo 

Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months and also to pay a 

fine of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees Five Thousand), in default in payment of 

fine, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 

One (1) month. Remand Period of – N I L ­ days of accused shall be 

set­off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C., Present age of accused is of 61 (Sixty One) years.

Accused is informed about her Right to prefer an Appeal against the 

Judgment and in that connection, she can avail the services of the Hon'ble 

Mandal Legal Services Committee, Vijayawada for 'Legal Aid'. Free copy of 

Judgment shall be furnished to accused, forthwith.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2017.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: ­For Accused: ­

P.W.1: G. AdinarayanaD.W.1: M. Nirmala

P.W.2: Pyla Srinivasa Rao

Documents Marked

For Complainant: ­

Ex.P.1: Original Promissory Note, dt. 25.03.2012.

Ex.P.2: Cheque, dt. 06.11.2014.

Ex.P.3: Cheque Return Memo, dt. 11.11.2014.

Ex.P.4: Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt. 08.12.2014.

Ex.P.5: Postal Acknowledgement, dt. 09.12.2014.

14 Ex.P.6: Reply Notice, dt. 22.12.2014.

Ex.P.7: Re­Joinder Notice,dt. 20.01.2015.

Ex.P.8: Postal Acknowledgement, dt. 22.01.2015.

For Accused: ­

Ex.D.1: True Copy of Employee Identity Card.

Ex.D.2: True Copy of Health Card, dt. 17.07.2008.

Ex.D.3: True Copy of Identity Card of Election Commission, dt. 12.08.2003.

M.O.s

. . . N I L . . .

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Case No: 114 of 2015 on the file of Chief Metropolitan 

Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

Date of

Report or Apprehension Released Commenceme Closure of Sentence or Offence Complaint of Accused on bail nt of trial trial Order 1234567

Prior to 23.01.201508.07.201508.07.201504.04.201609.11.201622.02.2017 11.11.2014

Explanation for Delay and Remarks (8):

The Complaint is taken on file on 22.04.2016 against Accused and numbered as Calendar Case No. 114 of 2015. On appearance of Accused on 08.07.2015, copies of case documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., Accused is examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C., on 26.08.2015. P.W.1 is examined on 04.04.2016; 12.07.2016; 09.11.2016. P.W.2 is examined on 09.08.2016; 09.11.2016. On 09.11.2016, complainant side evidence is closed. Accused is examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., on 22.11.2016. D.W.1 is examined on 14.12.2016; 18.01.2017. Defence side evidence is closed on 18.01.2017. Arguments of both sides are heard on 08.02.2017 and on 22.02.2017, Judgment 

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 114 of 2015 on the file of Chief 

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

Gudela Adinarayana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, 50 years, Business, R/o. D. No. 6­13­47, Jodubommala Centre, Gollapalemgattu, Vijayawada, Krishna District.… Complainant

A n d

M. Nirmala, W/o. Late Vandanam, Hindu, Housewife, & Properties, R/o. D. No. 9­28­1/35, Gandumala Atchamma Street, Tailorpet,

Vijayawada – 520009.... Accused

Offence: U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Finding: Found Guilty.

Result: ­ In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable 

U/s 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, she is Convicted for the said offence U/s 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., and that, she is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 

Six (6) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees Five 

Thousand), in default in payment of fine, she shall undergo 

Simple Imprisonment for a further period of One (1) month. 

Remand Period of – N I L ­ days of accused shall be set­off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C., Present age of accused is of 61 (Sixty One) years.

Accused is informed about her Right to prefer an Appeal against the Judgment and in that connection, she can avail the services of the Hon'ble Mandal Legal Services Committee, Vijayawada for 'Legal Aid'. Free copy of Judgment shall be furnished to accused, forthwith.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Dis. No.Dated:

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: G.Satya Prabhakara Rao

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada. Friday, this the 13th day of November, 2015

C.C No.607-2014

Between: The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Ajit Singhnagar P.S., Vijayawada City. ….Complainant.

Vs

Karnati Somaiah, S/o. Rama Rao, 28 years, Uppara, Vijaya Durga Nagar, Madyakatta, Vijayawada.….Accused

This case is coming on 12-11-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.V.L.V.Himabindu, APP for Complainant and of Sri K.Sundara Ramaiah, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Ajit

Singnagar Police Station, Vijayawada City has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.199/2014 of Ajit Singhnagar Police Station,

Vijayawada for the offence punishable U/Sec.498A of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C).

02.Case of prosecution, in concise, is this:

Victim is wife of accused and she is resident of Vijaya

Durga Nagar, Madyakatta of Vijayawada; marriage between victim and accused was solemnized about eight years back; accused is working as a tractor driver; they blessed with one son and one daughter; after marriage accused who used to addict vices in a drunken state of mind subjected the victim with harassment and cruelty; everyday he used to beat the victim; on 19-6-2014 at 11.30 p.m accused came to house in a drunken state of mind leaked cooking gas without her knowledge, closed the doors and went away; when she made a phone call to her parents, they came as to her rescue and saved her; on 26-6-2014 at 2 1.00 p.m she came to Ajit Singhnagar police station and lodged a report and the same is registered as a case in Cr.No.199/2014

U/sec.498A of IPC; on 2-7-2014 at 10.00 a.m accused was arrested and sent for judicial remand; after completion of investigation, Sub

Inspector of Police, Ajit Singhnagar Police Station, Vijayawada city has filed charge sheet in Court and hence accused is liable for punishment.

03.The said case is taken on file as C.C.No.607/2014

U/sec.498A of I.P.C and issued summons to accused.

04.After appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents are supplied to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

05.Accused is examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C and after hearing accused, a charge U/secs.498A of I.P.C has been framed, read over and explained to accused, during which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.On behalf of prosecution, PW1 is examined and Exs.P1 and

P2 are marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

07.Since there is no incriminating evidence against accused, 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with.

08.Heard and perused the record.

09. The point for consideration is:

Whether prosecution has proved its case against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498A of I.P.C, beyond a reasonable doubt?

POINT

3

10.At the outset, case of prosecution against accused is that “victim who is wife of accused was subjected to harassment and cruelty in the hands of accused.”

11.In order to substantiate its contention, prosecution has cited 6 witnesses; but, it has succeeded to examine only one witness as PW1. PW1 is none other than victim-cum-wife of accused. But, to the dismay of the case of prosecution, she did not render any support whatsoever to the case of prosecution.

12.For clarity and brevity, if we invite our attention to the evidence of PW1, she speaks even from her chief examination that “accused never harassed her at any point of time; she was not

subjected to cruelty by accused; accused did not commit any

offence; she does not know the contents of report given by her

to police and that she was not examined by police.”

13.Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor left with no option sought permission and cross examined PW1; but, nothing credit is elicited to support the case of prosecution.

14.In view of non support rendered by material witness to the case of prosecution, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor had given up evidence of remaining prosecution side witnesses.

15.It is suffice to say that the case of prosecution fully and completely rests on mere surmises and conjectures without there being any positive proof to point out guilt of accused for the offence leveled against him. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, accused is perfectly entitled to get a clean acquittal under law.

16.Hence, the point is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

4

17.In the result, I find that accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.498A of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused is acquitted from the said charge U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months from today. Present age of accused is of 29 years.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13th day of November, 2015.

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum-Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution.For Defence. PW1: K.Bhavani -None-

Documents marked

For Prosecution.For Defence. Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report - Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

IV Addl. C.M.M-cum -Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

5

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDL. MAHILA MAGISTRATE::VIJAYAWADA

DATE OF

OffenceTaken ApprehenReleased CommenClose Senten- on file- sion of on bail- cement of trialce or accusedof trialOrder 26-6-1416-8-142-7-144-7-1412-11-1512-11-1513-11-15

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: This case is taken on file on 16-8-14. Accused is appeared before Court on 24-11-2014, copies of documents supplied to him on the same day. On 19-02-2015, accused is examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C; and after hearing, a charge U/sec.498A of I.P.C; and that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PW1 is examined on 12-11-15 and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked; evidence of LWs 2 to 6 is given up by the prosecution; since there is no incriminating evidence 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with; heard the arguments of prosecution and defence counsel. Judgment is

pronounced on 13-11-2015. For some adjournments, accused are called

absent. Hence, the delay. CALENDAR CASE NO. 607-2014 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

Descriptionof The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Ajit complainant: Singhnagar P.S., Vijayawada City.

Description of the Karnati Somaiah, S/o. Rama Rao, 28 years, accused:Uppara, Vijaya Durga Nagar, Madyakatta, Vijayawada.

Offence:Husband or relative of husband subjecting to cruelty of a woman

Section of Law:498A of IPC

FindingAccused found NOT GUILTY

Result: In the result, I find that accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.498A of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused is acquitted from the said charge U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months from today. Present age of accused is of 29 years.

IV Addl. C.M.M-cum -Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE-CUM-ADDL. MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: G. SATYA PRABHAKARA RAO,

IV- Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 20th day of July, 2015

CALENDER CASE No. 78 of 2015

Between:-

The State:- Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata PS/CCS-Team 3,

Vijayawada City. ... Complainant

(Cr. No. 908/2014)

AND

1) Mukku Gopi @ Gopi, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 20 years, R/o Magallu village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Pallepogu Naga Raju @ Naga Raju, S/o Guravaiah, Aged 21 years, R/o Magallu village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. … Accused

This case was coming today ie, on 20-07-2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Smt. V.L.V. Himabindu, APP for complainant;

and of Smt.G. Malathi, Advocate for accused 1 and 2 under legal aid and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub- Inspector of Police, Patamata/CCS, Team No.3, Vijayawada

City laid charge-sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr. No. 908/2014 for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC.

2

02.Case of prosecution, in concise, is this:

A theft of motorcycle was occurred on 11-10-2014 at 08-00 PM in

Gurunanak Colony, opposite to More Super Market, Patamata, Vijayawada, belongs to defacto complainant by some unknown offenders; it was occurred when defacto complainant kept the said motorbike bearing Regn.

No. AP 16 AB 2378, Hero Honda company infront of More Super Market in

Patamata for shopping; worth of said motorbike is of Rs.10,000/-; on the report given by defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.908/2014 U/sec. 379

IPC was registered in Patamata police station on 14-10-2014 at 08-30

PM; during the course of investigation, on 15-11-2014 at 12-00 noon in ‘Y’ junction, Gollapudi village, Vijayawada Rural, acucsed 1 and 2 were arrested by Sub Inspector of police, CCS Team No.2, Vijayawada in the presence of mediators in Cr.No.573/2014 of Machavaram police station,

Vijayawada; on questioning accused 1 and 2 have confessed the offence of present case; basing on their confession theft property ie, Hero Honda

Splendor motorcycle was seized; on execution of prison transfer warrant, accused 1 and 2 are produced before this court on 04-07-2015 and since then they are in judicial custody.

03.After apprehension of accused 1 and 2 before this court, copies of documents are supplied to them as contemplated U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

04.Accused have pleaded no means to engage an advocate. Hence

Smt. G. Malathi, Advocate, Vijayawada is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel

for accused 1 and 2. They were duly represented by learned Legal Aid

Counsel.

3

05.Accused are examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing accused 1 and 2, a charge U/sec. 411 of IPC has been framed, read over, explained to them, during which, they pleaded GUILTY.

06.I took the admission of guilt by accused 1 and 2 as free, voluntary and without any force.

07.Accused 1 and 2 when questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, they pleaded that they are poor and only earning members for the family and therefore a lenient view should be taken.

08.Therefore, by taking into consideration of present set of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to sentence accused 1 and 2 by imposing three months simple imprisonment on each accused.

09.In the result, accused 1 and 2 are convicted to undergo simple imprisonment of three (03) months each U/sec. 241 of Cr.P.C. for the charge punishable U/sec. 411 of IPC. Period of detention undergone by accused 1 and 2 is of seventeen (17) days each and the same shall be set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Present ages of 1st accused is of 20 years and 2nd accused is of 21 years. Interim custody of case property ie, Hero Honda motorcycle given to defacto complainant as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1120/2015 shall be made absolute after appeal or appeal time

is over.

(Typed to my dictation to Record Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of July, 2015).

Sd/- G. SATYA PRABHAKARA RAO,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-, 4

Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

-NIL- -NIL-

Documents marked For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

-NIL- -NIL-

Material Objects Marked -NIL-

Sd/- G. SATYA PRABHAKARA RAO,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-, Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-, Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDL. MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

CALENDER CASE NO: 78/2015

Date of:

1. Offence : 11-10-2014

2. Complaint : 14-10-2014

3. Apprehension of accused : 15-11.2014

4. Commencement of trial: --

5. Closure of Trial : --

6. Judgment : 20-07-2015

07. Name of the complainant : SI of Police, Patamata PS/CCS., Vijayawada City

8. Name of the accused :

1) Mukku Gopi @ Gopi, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 20 years, R/o Magallu village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Pallepogu Naga Raju @ Naga Raju, S/o Guravaiah, Aged 21 years, R/o Magallu village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

9. Offence : Under Sec.411 IPC

10. Finding : Found Guilty

11. Result : In the result, accused 1 and 2 are convicted to undergo simple imprisonment of three (03) months each U/sec. 241 of Cr.P.C. for the charge punishable U/sec. 411 of IPC. Period of detention undergone by accused 1 and 2 is of seventeen (17) days each and the same shall be set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Present ages of 1st accused is of 20 years and 2nd accused is of 21 years. Interim custody of case property ie, Hero Honda motorcycle given to defacto complainant as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1120/2015 shall be made absolute after appeal or appeal time is over.

12. Explanation for delay : The case was taken on file on 30.01.2015. Copies of all documents are furnished to the accused on 17.07.2015. The accused were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., on 20.07.2015. Heard the arguments on 20-07-2015. Judgment was

pronounced on 20.07.2015. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- G. SATYA PRABHAKARA RAO,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-, Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-, Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Saturday, this the 11th day of February, 2017.

Calendar Case No.100030/2016

BETWEEN:

Station House Officer, 11 Town PS, Vijayawada

AND

Devineni Venkata PoornaChandra rao alias Poorna …. Complainant and Accused * * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following

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

IN THE RESULT: Accused 1 to 3 are present. CMS Police Personnel are present. Since accused volountarily pleaded guilty accused 1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC as per section 241 opf Cr.p.c. by sentencing tyhe accused to pay fine of Rs 3000// each in default inpayment of fine, they shall undergo SI for a period of one month each for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 of

IPC Bail Bonds of Accused if any, shallstand cancelled. amount of said Ra 7000// shall be paid to victim U/s 357 Cr.p.c.,

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of February, 2017.

Sd/-XXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

-NIL-

Sd/-XXXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Saturday, this the 11th day of February, 2017.

Calendar Case No.100011/2016

BETWEEN:

Station House Officer,A.S.Nagar Ps, Vijayawada

AND

Nittala Karunakar …. Complainant and Accused * * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following

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

IN THE RESULT: Accused is present. Examined U/s 239 of Cr.p.c., for the ofences punishable U/s 324 of IPC. Accused voluntarily pleaded. Recorded. Accused is convicted U/s 241 of Cr.p.c., accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs 2000// in default in payment of fine he shall undergo si for period of three months for the offences punishable U/s 324 out of fine amount Rs 2000// shall be given to the injured by name

Karunakar U/s 357 of Cr.p.c., towards compensation. Bail Bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled. amount of which Rs 1000// shall be paid to victim U/s 357 Cr.p.c.

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of February, 2017.

Sd/-XXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

-NIL-

Sd/-XXXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.