Sri G.Srinivas, PDJ

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present : G.Srinivas,

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 10th day of October, 2023

Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2023

From which Court the appeal : The Special Judicial Magistrate of First was preferred Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu. No. of the case in that Court : Calendar Case No.208/2016

No. of the appeal : Crl.A.No.14/2023

Name and description of the : Gangula Sairathnakar Reddy, aged about appellant. 28 years, S/o.G.Venata Ramana Reddy, Vepakunta Village, Kanganapalli Mandal, Name of description of the : The State., represented by its Sub- respondent/s Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli Police Station. [Cr.No.01/2013] Section of Law, it was : The Accused is found guilty for the offences imposed by the Trial Court. punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec.196 of Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence under section 181 of M.V. Act and also accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under section 196 of M.V.Act. The above sentences passed against the 2 accused shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

Whether Confirmed, : Modified.

Reversed or Modified if In the result, Modified the modification

1) Conviction of the appellant for the offence U/s 304-A of IPC and sentence of two years of simple imprisonment imposed thereon under the impugned judgment

dated 23.01.2023 passed in Calendar Case

No.208/2016 by Spl. Judicial I Class

Magistrate, Proh & Excise Cases,

Ananthapuramu is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The accused is entitled to take back the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by him before the trial Court.

2) The sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence U/s 181 of MV Act to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months is hereby set aside by confirming the fine amount of

Rs.500/- imposed and paid by the accused;

3) The sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence 196 of

MV Act to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month is hereby set aside by confirming the fine amount of

Rs.1,000/- imposed and paid by the accused;

4) In view of modification of conviction and reduction of sentence, the bail bonds of the accused shall continue for the purpose U/s 3 437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months to meet the situation of prosecution preferring further revision or appeal if any. Appellant shall execute necessary personal bond and undertaking for continuation of bond for further period of six months.

Accordingly, the judgment of lower court in

C.C.No.208/2016, dt.23.01.2023 is modified and appeal is partly allowed as per the powers conferred upon this court

U/sec.386 (b) (iii) of Cr.P.C.

Dates of Presentation Filing Notice Appearance Hearing Judgment 06.02.2023 07.02.2023 07.03.2023 23.03.2023 06.10.2023 10.10.2023

This Criminal Appeal has been finally heard on 06.10.2023 in the presence of Sri C.Ashok Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri

R.Harinatha Reddy, Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon hearing both sides and having stood for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against the judgment dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu in C.C.No.208/2016 for convicting him under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 r/w 181, Section 196 of M.V

Act.

2) The case of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, in brief, is as follows:

4

On 31.12.2012 at about 4:00 PM, the accused and Mandala Boya

Venkata Ramudu/deceased No.1 went to Ananthapuramu on Bajaj Discovery motorcycle bearing No. AP02-AF-8618 to Purchase PVC plastic pipes. Later they started from Ananthapur at about 11:10 PM to visit the house of

Lw.1/Mandala Bhaskar at Dharmavaram and when they reached

S.K.University, the accused rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Mamakuntla

Chandraiah/deceased No.2 on his back, while he was walking towards

S.K.University, due to which deceased Nos.1 and 2 and the accused fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. The Lws.4/B.Ashok Kumar,

Lw.5/Parashuram Naik, Lw.8/P.Ramanaiah and Lw.9/T.Eswar, who witnessed the accident shifted the injured (D-1, D-2 and accused) to Govt.

Hospital, Ananthapur where the duty doctor examined deceased No.1 and declared as dead at 12:00 Mid Night and further advised to shift the deceased

No.2 to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. On that Lws. 4, 5, 8, and 9 shifted the deceased No.2 to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool where the duty doctor examined deceased No.2 and declared him as dead at 3:10 AM on 01.01.2013. On receiving information, Lws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 visited respective hospitals and found the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 respectively.

The defacto complainant LW.1/M.Bhaskar gave report to Station

House Officer, Itukulapalli Police Station. LW.18/B.NagaSekhar, Sub-

Inspector, registered a case in Cr.No.01/2013 U/sec.304 (A) IPC and investigated the offence. During the course of investigation, LW.18 held inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 at Mortuary, Govt. General

Hospital, Ananthapur on 01.01.13 from 8:30 AM to 11:30 AM and sent the dead body for autopsy and report, LW.18 also examined Lws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. LW.18 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of offence and scene observation proceedings and seized crime vehicle i.e., Bajaj Discovery motorcycle bearing No. AP-02-AF-8618. On the 5 instructions of LW.18, LW.17/Baba Fakruddin, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police visited Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool and held inquest over the body of deceased No.2 at Mortuary, Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool on 01.01.13 from 10.00 AM to 12:00 Noon and sent the dead body for autopsy and report.

During the course of inquest, LW.17 examined LWs.6 to 9 viz.

M.Seetharamaiah, M.Balakrishna, P.Ramanaiah, T.Eswar and recorded their statements. Further LW.18 verified the investigation done by LW.17 (ASI.580).

On 13.01.13 LW.18 arrested the accused at 9:30 AM at Itukulapalli Police

Station itself and sent him for Judicial custody. The accused did not produce his original driving license and the Insurance policy of the car produced by the accused regarding to the crime vehicle was expired. The doctor (LW.14/Dr. G.

Mahesh) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and issued Post Mortem Examination report opining that the deceased died due to ‘head injury with intracranial haemorrhage’. The Doctor (LW.15/Dr. T. Sai

Sudheer) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.2 and issued Post Mortem Examination report opining that the deceased died due to ‘intracranial haemorrhage associated with fracture skull’ due to head injury.

The Motor Vehicle Inspector, (LW.16/D. Venkateswarlu,) who examined the crime vehicle driven by the accused and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. After completion of investigation

LW18 filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for brevity IPC), Sec.3 & 4 r/w 181 & 196 of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the charge.

3) After filing of the charge sheet, on perusal of record, the case was taken on file U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sections 3&4 r/w 181, 196 of M.V. Act against the accused and numbered the case as CC.No.208 of 2016 and issued summons to him.

6

4) On the appearance of the accused before Court, copies of case documents were furnished as mandated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

6) After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7) On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the record, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and

Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec.196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.The accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence under section 181 of

M.V.Act and also accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a 7 period of three months and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under section 196 of M.V.Act. The above sentences passed against the accused shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

8) Aggrieved by the said judgment for convicting him, the accused preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

(i) The judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

(ii) The trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1 to 14 and ought to have acquitted the appellant.

(iii) The trial court ought to have rejected Exs.P1 to P11 and ought to have acquitted the appellant.

(iv) The trial court mainly by relying on the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.9 and come to conclusion that the appellant committed the offence. In fact, the trial court ought to have held that they are not eye witnesses to the alleged incident and ought to have acquitted the appellant.

(v) The trial court should have observe that PW.1 is not an eye witness to the incident and he came to know about the alleged accident through brother of accused and visited to the Govt. Hospital, Ananthapuramu and found dead body of deceased No.1 and on the next day he gave report to the police. Hence he is not an eye witnesses to the alleged offence. On this aspect the trial court failed to consider. Hence whatever the evidence spoken by PW.1 is hearsay and not admissible under law.

(vi) It is submitted that PW.3 did not identify the accused and he deposed that he heard the sound and rushed to the place and noticed 3 persons were fallen on road, sustained injuries and further deposed that he never witnessed the above said accident and he went to the place after the accident. Hence he is not an eye witness to the alleged accident. On this aspect the trial court failed to consider hence failure of justice.

(vii) It is submitted that PW.9 deposed that he did not witness any incident concerned to this case and further deposed that he is not an eye witness to the accident and he do not know who drove the vehicle and from which side the said vehicle coming. Hence he is also not an eye witness to the offence. On this aspect trial court fail to consider on correct lines. Hence failure of justice.

8

(viii) The trial court ought to have held that PW.1, PW.3 and PW.9 are not the eye witnesses to the offence and their evidence is hearsay and not admissible under law. On this aspect the trial court fail to see on correct lines. Hence failure of justice.

(ix) It is submitted that other two eye witnesses to the prosecution i.e. LW.8, 9 were not examined and when the evidence of PW.1, 3 and 9 excluded for consideration, the other evidence produced by the prosecution is not at all helpful for prosecution to prove the offence against the accused. Hence the trial court ought to have acquitted the accused.

(x) It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, the accused is also sustained injuries in the said accident. But no record is produced to prove the said fact. Now wound certificate and no medical record is produced by the prosecution in the above case. On this aspect trial court fails to see on correct lines. Hence failure of justice.

(xi) It is submitted that, there is delay in lodging the report to the police and on this aspect trial court fail to see on correct lines, hence failure of justice.

(xii) It is submitted that, the prosecution not collected any incriminating material at the scene of offence to connect the accused in the present case. This aspect trial court fails to consider, hence failure of justice.

(xiii) It is submitted that, the alleged offence did take place during the night and no presence of light at the scene of offence and hence the identification of the person during the said dark night cannot be believed.

(xiv) It is submitted that the trial court should have observe that immediately after the alleged accident the deceased No.1 and 2 were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Ananthapuramu and the doctors attended on both of them and that doctors declared that the deceased No.1 was died and deceased No.2 was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Kurnool after initial treatment. But no record from the Govt. Hospital, Ananthapuramu about the admission of deceased No.1 and 2 were produced. This aspect trial court fails to see, hence failure of justice.

(xv) It is submitted that Ex.P9 is police proceedings and it is created one. Nearby the scene of offence number of offices and houses are there and further they seized the motor bike at the scene of offence, but the prosecution not produced and not marked the said bike as material object. Hence under these circumstances it can be safely held that Ex.P9 is created one. Further if really there is an incriminating material at the scene of offence the investigating officer should have noted the same in Ex.P.10 rough sketch. Further there are no existence of light and the scene of offence. This aspect trial court fails to see, hence failure of justice.

9

(xvi) It is submitted that, as seen from the cross examination of PW.1, he depose that he cannot say the name of the person with whom he made enquiry with regard to the incident that accused rode the vehicle with high speed and further deposed that he made enquiry about the incident in the university with 10 persons and the said persons came to police station and gave their statements

before police. Hence the accused submits that the prosecutions

suppressed the said statements. On this aspect trial court fails to consider, hence failure of justice.

(xvii) The trial court should have observe that accused is a stranger to prosecution witnesses and in absence of prior identification parade any identification before the court at 1st time cannot be believed, on this aspect the trial court fail to consider, hence failure of justice.

(xviii) It is submitted that as seen from the evidence produced by the prosecution, there is no legally admissible evidence to connect the accused to present offence and hence the trial court ought to have acquitted the accused.

9) Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the Judgment of trial court is sustainable under Law

and it warrants interference by this Court or whether it is liable to

be set aside ?

2. To what relief?

10) No oral or documentary evidence is adduced before this Court of appeal.

11) The parties are arrayed as per nomenclature in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

12) POINT No.1:-

The appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu in C.C.No.208/2016, dt.23.01.2023.

10

13) It is the case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2012 at about 4:00 PM, the accused and Mandala Boya Venkata Ramudu/deceased No.1 went to Ananthapuramu on Bajaj Discovery motorcycle bearing No.AP02-AF- 8618 to Purchase PVC plastic pipes, later they started from Ananthapur at about 11:10 PM to visit the house of Lw.1/Mandala Bhaskar at Dharmavaram and when they reached S.K.University, the accused rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the

Mamakuntla Chandraiah/deceased No.2 on his back, while he was walking towards S.K.University, due to which deceased Nos.1 and 2 and the accused fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. The Lws.4/B.Ashok Kumar,

LW.5/Parashuram Naik, Lw.8/P.Ramanaiah and Lw.9/T.Eswar, who witnessed the accident shifted the injured (D-1, D-2 and accused) to Govt.

Hospital, Ananthapur where the duty doctor examined deceased No.1 and declared as dead at 12:00 Mid Night and further advised to shift the deceased

No.2 to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. On that Lws. 4, 5, 8, and 9 shifted the deceased No.2 to Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool where the duty doctor examined deceased No.2 and declared him as dead at 3:10 AM on 01.01.2013. On receiving information, Lws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 visited respective hospitals and found the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 respectively.

The defacto complainant LW.1/M.Bhaskar gave report to Station House

Officer, Itukulapalli Police Station. LW.18/B.Naga Sekhar, Sub-Inspector, registered a case in Cr.No.01/2013 U/sec.304 (A) IPC and investigated the offence.

14) The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no material grounds to interfere with the Judgment under appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the trial court considered all the material aspects and finally arrived at correct conclusion that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused and convicted him 11 and there are no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the trial court and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

15) Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides.

The Court carefully perused the material on record including the impugned

Judgment and grounds of appeal urged by the appellant herein. Before going to deal with the merits of the case for determination of the points, it is relevant to examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As already referred above, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11.

All the witnesses so examined, PW.1 is son of deceased No.1 and gave complaint to the police against the accused, P.W.2 is wife of deceased No.1,

P.W.3, P.W.9 are eye witnesses and shifted the deceased 1 and 2 to the hospital, P.Ws.4 and 5 are hearsay and circumstantial witnesses, P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 10 are Inquest panchayathdars for the inquest held over the dead body of deceased No.1, P.W.11 is Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on Deceased

No.1, P.W.12 is Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on deceased No.2,

P.W.13 is Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased No.2 and P.W.14 is also Investigating Officer, who investigated the case and registered the case.

16) A perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that an accident took place on 31.12.2012 at about 11.19 p.m., near S.K.University,

Ananthapuramu rural mandal wherein the deceased 1 and 2 sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment and accused, who ride the motor cycle bearing No.AP02-AF-8618 also sustained injuries in the fatal accident. Though the leaned counsel for the Accused cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but he could not dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased 1 and 2 and accused in that accident and the death of the deceased on account of such injuries. Hence, it 12 can be held basing on the oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence that the deceased 1 and 2 succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and the accused sustained injuries in the said accident.

17) The learned defence counsel mainly contended that P.Ws.1, 3 and 9 are not eye witnesses to the alleged incident and whatever the evidence spoken by them is hearsay evidence. P.W.3, who cited as eye witness, but he categorically, admitted that he heard the sound of accident and rushed to the place and noticed three persons were fallen on the road and sustained injuries. P.W.9 categorically deposed in his evidence that he is not an eye witness to the accident, he does not know who drove the vehicle and from which side, the said vehicle coming, hence, he is not eye witness to the incident. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 9 is not admissible under law.

He further contended that accused was sustained injuries in the accident, but prosecution has not produced any medical record to prove said fact. There is delay in lodging the report to the police. The accused is stranger to the prosecution witnesses and in the absence of test identification parade, the identification of accused before the court cannot be believed. The other two eye witnesses did not state anything against the accused.

18) The Court carefully perused the material on record including the impugned Judgment and grounds of appeal urged by the appellant herein.

Before going to deal with the merits of the case for determination of the points,

it is relevant to examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

19) On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 9, they categorically stated with regard to the nature of the accident and sustaining of injuries by accused and deceased 1 and 2. During 313 Cr.P.C examination that accused denied that he committed the alleged accident. The learned counsel for the 13 accused further contended that the Investigating Officer has failed to conduct

Identification Parade to ascertain the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, it is fatal to the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 9 is corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6, 9 to 14. P.Ws.7 and 8, who cited as Inquest Panchayathdars of Inquest conducted on the body of D.1 turned hostile for the reasons best known to them. Since there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused as the eyewitnesses identified the accused in open court as after the accident, injured person i.e., deceased 1 and 2 and accused were shifted to the hospital. Hence, non-conducting of the

Identification Parade of the accused by the Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of prosecution.

20) The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the

Investigating Officer/PW.14, who drafted Ex.P10 Rough sketch does not mention the exact place of accident. P.W.14 Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that the scene of offence is situated 100 mts towards south from their police station, he did not mention the existence of Police in Ex.P.10. During cross-examination he admitted that he has not examined the petty shop owner, as the accident occurred near the petty bunk because at the time of accident, the petty bunk was closed. The learned counsel form the appellant further relied on the evidence of P.W.14, who categorically admitted in his evidence that accident cases generally medico legal case will be registered at

GGH and later it will be transmitted to concerned police, he received report from P.W.1 on the next day of the incident, no MLC was registered, he do not have any knowledge about the accident as no MLC intimation was received except P.W.1 report. The learned defence counsel further relied on the evidence of Investigating Officer that P.W.14 admitted during cross- examination that police staff was posted duties infront of main gate of SK university on that day, but he did not receive any information from the police 14 staff, who were posted to duty and he did not obtain the wound certificate pertaining to the accused.

21) The learned counsel further relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 9 and contended that P.W.1 during cross-examination clearly admitted that he is not eye witness to the incident, he made enquiry with the brother of accused, but he cannot say his name and whose negligence the accident was occurred. He gave report to the police that he is son of D1, accused had been working with his father [D1], previously his father used to come Dharmavaram on motor cycle and his father never complained him that accused used to drove vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. From the evidence of P.W.1, it clearly goes to show that on enquiry and due deliberations as D1 and D2 succumbed to the injuries, P.W.1 gave report to the police against accused, but he has no knowledge who rode the motor cycle at the time of accident.

22) The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.3, who cited as eye witness of the accident, but he cannot give the name of the person who is responsible for the said accident. He categorically stated that he never witnessed the accident, but he went to the place of said accident after the accident. During cross-examination he admitted that there is no security guards at the main gate, they have no permission from VC or from any other department to conduct new year celebrations infront of main gate of

University, the distance between the scene of offence and main gate is 50 to 70 feet, there were 300 students present at the time of incident. On close scrutiny of evidence of P.W.3, it clearly reveals that during New Year celebrations the students are on the roads, which causes hindrance to vehicular traffic and this may be one of the reasons as the rider of the motor cycle could not control the vehicle as deceased No.2 suddenly crossed the road.

15

23) P.Ws.4 and 5 clearly admitted that they are not eye witnessed to the accident, they heard about the accident from some other persons. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to know about whose negligence the accident occurred. P.Ws.6 to 8 Inquest panchayathdars did not state anything about the accident and against the accused.

24) The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the evidence of P.W.9 is not reliable as his evidence is contradicting with the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.9 categorically admitted during cross-examination that at 11.45 P.M., on 31.12.2012 himself went to tea stall for taking tea, there was a distance of 100 feet from the main gate to scene of offence, there was distance of 200 feet from the main gate to tea stall, no persons were present at that time, except himself and P.W.3. He further admitted that he was not eye witness to the incident and as well as who drove the said vehicle and from which side, the said vehicle coming, he came to know from D1 that the said accident was taken place as he was in conscious when he reached to the scene of offence, he has no prior acquaintance with deceased 1 and 2 or accused, he seen them at first time. There is contradiction from the evidence of P.W.3, who stated that there were 300 students on the road on the eve of New year celebrations. But P.W.9 stated a different version except himself and P.W.3 none were present at that time. From the evidence of above witness, it is not clearly reveals that who exactly ride the motor cycle at the time of accident.

P.W.1, who categorically stated in his evidence that his father [D1] and mother [P.W.2] are working as coolies in the garden of accused and previously his father and accused used to come Dharmavaram on motor cycle, but his father never complained against the accused as he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.1 clearly averred that in the fatal accident his father [D1], one student of University, namely Chandraiah [D2] and accused were sustained severe injuries, D1 and D2 succumbed to the 16 injuries and accused was in unconscious and under treatment in Sreenivasa

Hospital. The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be completely rely that he is only hearsay witness with regard to the accident.

25) A perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that an accident took place on 31.12.2012 at midnight i.e., 11.45 pm., infront of gate of SK

University, wherein the deceased and accused sustained severe injuries.

Though the leaned counsel for the Accused cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but he could not dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased and accused in that accident and the death of the deceased 1 and 2 on account of such injuries.

26) Therefore, there are several lacunae on the part of investigation that whether who rode the bike at the time of accident, the appellant herein ride the bike in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident on the date of accident or whether in case to avert the accident to D2, who passing on the road without observing the vehicular traffic, as the accident was caused at midnight. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 9 would not be helpful to the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused in commission of offence

U/sec. 304-A I.P.C.

27) There are contradictions among the witnesses i.e. PWs.1, 3 and 9, particularly with regard to manner of occurrence of the accident. In view of the detailed discussion coupled with the reasons stated supra, this court is of the considered view that there is a possibility of negligence on the part of deceased No.2, who is walking on the road without observing the traffic, therefore it cannot be said that the accident was occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused only. The social responsibility is on the passenger, who should have avoided walking on the 17 roads by leaving pathway. In the present case on hand, the fact remains that the accused and deceased proceeding on the bike at midnight, due to darkness, when suddenly seen the Deceased/D2, to avert dash against to the deceased No.2, the rider could not control the bike and caused the accident.

28) Moreover, it is a cardinal principle under criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the burden always lies on the prosecution to establish its case. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the Administration of Justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, which means that the benefit of doubt must always goes in favour of the accused. This

Court has carefully gone through the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. In view of the discussion coupled with reasons stated supra, it is very much clear that the learned trial Judge failed to notice the above discussed material points, which can go to the root of the prosecution case.

29) The Court carefully gone through the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. In view of the discussion coupled with reasons stated supra, it is very much clear that the learned trial Judge failed to notice the above discussed material points, which can go to the root of the prosecution case and thereby erred in holding that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.304-A IPC and convicting him therein. Therefore, this court is of the view that there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the trial court and it has to be interfered with. Hence, this court holds that the impugned Judgment of the 18 trial court is liable to be set-aside with regard to convicting the accused

U/sec.304-A IPC.

30) Regarding U/Secs.3 & 4 r/w 181 and Sec.196 of Motor Vehicles Act, the Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 13.3.2013 on his surrender after his discharge from the hospital and on verification of records relating to the crime vehicle, which shows that crime vehicle do not have valid Insurance at the time of accident and the accused does not possess the Driving License and Insurance to the vehicle, therefore there is violation of MV Act. From the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused being only earning member of his entire family, he is sole bread winner of his family, agriculturist, if he may put behind the bars, certainly it leads to pelmel condition of his family and there is no past bad record that the accused previously also subjected to several accident. In view of the discussion made and conclusions drawn as above, this court finds that conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offences U/Sec.181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act by the learned Special Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu under the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2023 made in C.C.208/2016 are hereby set aside by confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- and 1000/- for the said offences.

Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

31) Point No.2::-

In the result,

1) Conviction of the appellant for the offence U/s 304-A of IPC and sentence of two years of simple imprisonment imposed thereon under the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2023 passed in Calendar Case No.208/2016 by Spl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Proh & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The accused is entitled 19 to take back the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by him before the trial

Court.

2) The sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence U/s 181 of MV Act to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months is hereby set aside by confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- imposed and paid by the accused;

3) The sentence imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence 196 of MV Act to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month is hereby set aside by confirming the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed and paid by the accused;

4) In view of modification of conviction and reduction of sentence, the bail bonds of the accused shall continue for the purpose U/sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for a period of six months to meet the situation of prosecution preferring further revision or appeal if any. Appellant shall execute necessary personal bond and undertaking for continuation of bond for further period of six months.

Accordingly, the judgment of lower court in C.C.No.208/2016, dt.23.01.2023 is modified and appeal is partly allowed as per the powers conferred upon this court U/sec.386 (b) (iii) of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 10th day of October, 2023.

Sd/- G.Srinivas,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Copy to:

The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Ananthapuramu. (C.C.No.208 of 2016 dt.23.01.2023)

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 1 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: G.Srinivas, Chairman, MACT-Cum-Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 06th day of October, 2023

M.V.O.P. No.153/2020

Between :

1. Adra Lakshmi Devi W/o late A.Chinna Babaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, House wife.

2. Adra Bhaskar, S/o late A.Chinna Babaiah, Aged about 33 years, Hindu.

3. Adra Uma Sankar, S/o late A.Chinna Babaiah, Aged about 30 years, Hindu.

4. Adra Hari Babu, S/o late A.Chinna Babaiah, Aged 38 years, Hindu.

All are residing at Parvathadevara Palli Village, Kanaganipalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Petitioners.

And

1. Razia Jaweed, W/o S.Jaweed Muneer, Muslim, Major, R/at Door No.3-6-158-1, St.No.17, Hymayath Nagar, Hyderabad. [Owner of Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562] [Died]

2. The Manager, Legal Cell, IFFICO-TOKIA, Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd., O/o Shop. No.17 & 18, 5th Floor, MRB Trade Centre, Bangarapupeta, Kurnool. [Insurer of the Offending Vehicle] [Vide Policy No.1-14C208HL P400 Policy # M7833173, Valid from 15.05.2019 to 14.05.2020.]

3. S.F Jaweed, S/o Dr Syed Jaweed Muneer, Major, Muslim, R/at Door No.3-6-158-1, St.No.17, Hymayath Nagar, Hyderabad [Driver of Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562] [R1 died, memo, dt.1.4.2022 filed, except R3 is legal heir of R1]

4. Dr Syed Jaweed Muneer, S/o late S.F.Saheb, Muslim, aged 73 years, R/at Door No.3-6-158-1, St.No.17, Hymayath Nagar, Hyderabad [Husband of the 1st respondent as legal heir] [R.4 added as per orders passed in I.A.No.11/2023, dt.3.1.2023.

… Respondents.

* Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 2 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

This petition has come up on 03.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Chenna Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners/claimants and of Sri T.Ramakrishna, Advocate for the respondent No.2, and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 remained exparte, upon hearing both the counsel and on perusal of the material papers on record, this court delivered the following :

A W A R D

01.This is a petition filed by the petitioners Under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 R/w.Rule-455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased by name late Chinna Babaiah, S/o Pedda Pakkeerappa in a motor vehicle accident.

02. The averments made in the petition, in brief, are as follows :

(i) On 5.1.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased Adra Chinna

Babaiah was went to his fields, then on the same day at about 3.30 p.m., after completion his work he return back to his house, while on the mid way, he was standing by the side of the road for crossing the NH 44 road, it leads to Ananthapuramu to Bangalore high way, in the meantime the offending vehicle Hyundai I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562 came from

Ananthapuramu to Bangalore side in a rash and negligent manner and hit said Babaiah, as a result of which he fell down and received grievous and simple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Govt., General

Hospital, Ananthapuramu in 108 ambulance for medical treatment.

Where, he took treatment for few hours, then shifted to KIMS Saveera

Hospital, Ananthapuramu for better treatment, got admitted and treated by duty doctors, but he succumbed to the injuries at 7.47 p.m., while undergoing treatment. The same is informed to Kanaganipalli police station and shifted the dead body to GGH, Ananthapuramu, Police held * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 3 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle

Hyundai I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562.

(ii) In this connection, a case in Cr.No.2/2020 of Kanaganipalli

P.S., under Section 304-A of I.P.C was registered. The respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurer, R.3 is the Driver of Hyundai

I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562. R.1 died and R.3 and R.4 are legal heirs of R.1. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioners with interest from the date of accident till payment.

(iii) The 1st petitioner is wife, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of deceased Adra Chinna Babaiah. The deceased was quite hale and healthy person prior to the accident. He was aged about 75 years at the time of fateful accident and he was working as Mason and Coolie and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing his entire income to the welfare of his family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, all the petitioners lost love and affection of deceased and Petitioner No.1 lost her consortium of her and suffered a lot.

03.During the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st respondent, who is RC owner Hyundai I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562 died and pendenti lite. The Legal heirs of R.1 i.e., R.4 [husband] added to the proceedings. R.3 [son] [Driver of crime vehicle] is already on record and they remained exparte.

04.The Respondent No.2/Insurer of the crime vehicle/ Car bearing

No.AP09-CM-6562 has filed written statement denied the allegations made in the petition and contending that the petitioners are strict proof that they are the sole legal heirs of the deceased with oral and * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 4 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 documentary evidence. The driver of I-20, Car bearing No.AP09-CM- 6542 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and in view of the said violation, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No.1/owner wilfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the driver, hence violated the MV Rules and R.1 alone is liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners. The petitioners are strict proof of the age, income and avocation of the deceased with documentary evidence and they are sole legal heirs of the deceased. The accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased alone, who crossed the road without observing the vehicular traffic. The complaint is lodged with false allegations against the driver of the offending vehicle, as such the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and the same is liable to be dismissed against R.2/Insurance Company. The liability of the respondent is governed by the provisions of the MV Act and the policy of

Insurance if at all issued by the respondent and in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the proposal shall be condition precedents to make any payment under the policy and subject to Sections 145 (b) &

(d), 146, 147, 149 of MV Act and Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The compensation claimed is exaggerated and excessive and petitioners are not entitled for the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. The interest has to be paid in accordance with Banking Regulations Act, 1949. Hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

05. Respondent No.2 filed petition U/Sec.170 of M.V. Act permitting him to contest the claim all or any of the grounds that are available to the respondent No.2. This court accorded permission to respondent No.2 in I.A.No.1011/2023 on 5.7.2023.

* Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 5 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

06. Basing on the above pleadings the following Issues are settled for trial :-

1. Whether the death of the deceased Adra Chinna Babaiah caused due to the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident on 5.1.2020 at about 3.30 p.m., near Parvathadevarapalli village, Kanaganipalli village, Ananthapuramu District due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6542?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

07.During the course of trial, the petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW.1 and her evidence was eschewed. The 2nd petitioner is examined as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. One Adinarayana is examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company,

Ex.B.1 Insurance Policy is marked with consent.

08.Heard arguments on both sides. The counsel for R2 filed authorities in support of its contention with regard to contributory negligence and granting of compensation under the head of filial consortium. Perused the record.

Issue No.1 :-

09. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 5.1.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased Adra Chinna Babaiah was returning from the fields to his house at about 3.30 p.m., while on the mid way, he was standing by the side of the road for crossing the NH 44 road-

Ananthapuramu to Bangalore high way, in the meantime the offending vehicle Hyundai I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562 came from

Ananthapuramu to Bangalore side in a rash and negligent manner and * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 6 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 hit said Babaiah, as a result of which he fell down and received grievous and simple injuries, immediately, he was shifted to GGH,

Ananthapuramu, then shifted to KIMS Saveera Hospital,

Ananthapuramu and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at 7.47 p.m., on the same day. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle Hyundai

I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562. In this connection, a case in

Cr.No.2/2020 of Kanaganipalli P.S., under Section 304-A of I.P.C was registered. The respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurer, R.3 is the Driver of Hyundai I 20 Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6562.

10. It is the contention of the respondent No.2/Insurance company that the driver of I-20, Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6542 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and in view of the said violation, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, R.1/owner wilfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the driver and violated the MV Rules.

He further contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased alone, as such the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and the same is liable to be dismissed against

R.2/Insurance Company. He relied on the following decisions viz.,

[1] 2009 ACJ 2193 [G.Ramulamma & Ors Vs Depot Manager, AP

State Road Transport Corporation and another.

[2] Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 [Shri Ram General Insurance

Co., Ltd., Vs Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors.

[3] FAO No.1280 of 2022 [Bhagwati & Ors Vs Manmohan and Ors]

The purport of the dictums relied by the counsel for R2 considered while rendering the orders of the case.

* Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 7 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

11. The petitioners in order to prove their contentions examined the 1st petitioner and her evidence was eschewed. 2nd petitioner has examined as PW.2 [who cited as LW.1 in the charge sheet/Ex.A.5] and he narrated all the averments of the petition in his chief-examination. The petitioners filed attested copies of First Information Report, Inquest report, Postmortem report, MVI report and Charge sheet as Exs.A.1 to

A.5. During the course of cross examination of PW.1, it is elicited that he lodged the complaint to the police about the accident, he is not eye witness to the accident. He further admitted that it is recited in the police complaint that while crossing the road, his father met with the said accident, the mishap occurred on a National High way, which leads to Bangalore to Hyderabad, there was a road divider in between the said high way. He denied that the accident was occurred due to sheer negligence of his father [deceased], but with a wrongful intention, they mentioned in the claim application that their deceased father stood by the side of the road and the crime vehicle hit him while he was standing by the side of the road.

12. The petitioners got examined one Mangali Adinarayana, who cited as L.W.6 in Ex.A.5 charge sheet, as witness to the alleged accident as

PW.3. He supported the version of the Petitioners with regard to the manner of the accident and death of deceased Adra Chinna Babaiah.

From the cross-examination, it is elicited from P.W.3 that at about 3.30 p.m., by the time of accident, the deceased Chinna Babaiah standing on the left side of the road, he was examined by the police. He further admitted that “by the time of the accident, the deceased Chinna Babaiah is crossing the road and he has stated the said fact to the police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement.” He further stated that road is straight at the accident spot. He denied that the said accident due to the rash and * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 8 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 negligent act of the deceased Babaiah and he did not witness the accident.

13. On perusal of Exs.A1 and A5/First Information Report and

Charge sheet would show that after investigation, the Investigating

Officer filed charge sheet against the 3rd respondent herein for causing the accident and for the death of the deceased Adra Chinna Babaiah.

The respondents have not filed any documentary proof to deny the case of the petitioners with regard to the accident. In a dictum reported in

2007 (4) ALD 85 (SC) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prem

Lata Shukla & Ors., wherein it is held that “Accident proved by FIR, once part of the contents of the document admitted cannot be permitted to turn round.” In another dictum reported in 2012 ACJ 1370 New

India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pazhaniammal and others, wherein it is held that “Production of the charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for purpose of claim U/Sec.166 of M.V.

Act.”Therefore, the petitioners proved that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver [R3] of crime Vehicle Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6542 and caused the death of deceased Adra

Chinna Babaiah. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue No.2:

14. It is the contention of 2nd respondent/insurance company that at the time of accident the deceased crossing the road without observing the vehicular and met with an accident, hence, the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased. P.W.1 strongly denied the contention of the respondent No.2 and contended that while his deceased * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 9 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 father standing on the side of the road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. P.W.3, who cited as eye witness to the accident, gave two different statements in his evidence. At first instance he deposed that “at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased Chinna Babaiah standing on the left side of the road.” He further admitted that “by the time of the accident, the deceased Chinna Babaiah is crossing the road and he has stated the said fact to the police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement.” On perusal of Ex.A.1

FIR, P.W.2 gave complaint to the Kanaganapalli PS wherein it is clearly mentioned that while crossing the road by his father, the accident was occurred. On further scrutiny of Inquest report/Ex.A.2, at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased Babaiah, the inquest panchayathdars opined that the accident was occurred while the deceased was crossing the road. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 75 years. Due to old age, there is possibility that the deceased Babaiah could not observe the vehicular traffic or hear the horn sound of the offending vehicle and suddenly crossed the road, the driver who could not control the vehicle by applying breaks, the accident might be caused due to the negligence of either side.

15. Therefore, in the manner and in the circumstances in which the accident had occurred and in the light of the evidence available on record, as righty contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, this court has observed that as per Exs.A.1 and Ex.A.2 i.e.,

FIR and Inquest Report, the accident occurred while the deceased crossing the road, as such this court has come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as such, this court is taking into consideration of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased @ 25%, as such this court is only inclined to grant 75% * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 10 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 out of the compensation entitled by the deceased. As such the petitioners are entitled the compensation @ 75% only out of the total compensation awarded by this Tribunal by relying upon the case law

2004 (4) ALD 444 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., K. Anjaiah

and others.

16. Coming to the liability of the respondents, since the accident was caused by third respondent, who was the employee of first respondent and he was driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident and caused the death of deceased Adra Chinna

Babaiah. The respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the legal heirs of R.1, i.e., driver [R3] and husband of R.1 [R4] have not appeared before this court even though they have received notices in this case and not contested that they are not driver and owner of the crime vehicle. In a dictum reported in 2011 (6) SCC 425 Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain wherein it is held that “for the act of the driver, the owner and others are also liable.” Ex.B.1 policy for the vehicle Car bearing No.AP09-CM-6542

Vide Policy No.1-14C208HL P400 Policy # M7833173, Valid from 15.05.2019 to 14.05.2020. The accident in this case was occurred on 05.01.2020. So, at the time of accident, the policy was in force.

17. The petitioner No.2 who is son of the deceased himself examined as PW.1 and her evidence is replica of averments of her petition. During cross-examination P.W.2 admitted that he is doing cultivation and petitioners 3 and 4 are his younger brothers and they are prosecuting their studies. No proof of income was filed by the petitioners or examined any witness under whom the deceased is working as coolie/Beldari work. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 75 years and he was working as Beldar/coolie * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 11 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the petitioners have not filed any proof of income. During cross-examination, it is not suggested to P.W.2 that the deceased was suffering with any ailment and he is not in a position to attend any work. There is no yardstick to measure the compensation. As per the dictum reported in 2018 ACJ 1011 (Jagdish

Vs. Mohan and others), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held :

“The measure of compensation must reflect a genuine

attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our

yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one

to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it

must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and

the trauma of suffering. Award of compensation are not law’s doles.

In a disclosure of rights, they constitute entitlements under law.

Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic

subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights

as intrinsic to human dignity.”

In the absence of any proof of income, as the deceased got wife, three children, who are majors, not dependents upon him, his notional income is treated as Rs.300/- per day, Rs.9,000/- per month i.e.

Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. As per Ex.A.2 inquest report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 79 years. Hence, the relevant multiplier applicable to the deceased is “5” as per the observations of Sarala

Verma’s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. Hence, the calculation comes to Rs.1,08,000 X 5 = Rs.5,40,000/-. As the deceased was having four dependents i.e. wife and three children, hence, 1/4th is deducted for the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, it comes to

Rs.4,05,000/- [Rs.5,40,000/- - Rs.1,35,000/-]. Out of it the petitioners entitled 75% compensation i.e., Rs.3,03,750/-. Apart from them, the petitioners also entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 12 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023 funeral expenses of Rs.16,500/- as per the dictum of observation of

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

18.The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further relied that in

Civil appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023, it is observed that the sum for loss of love and affection being Rs.50,000/- and for loss of consortium for

Rs.40,000/- could not have been granted to each of the three dependents. In the above said judgment, it is observed that Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and

Rs.15,0000/- respectively, the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Hence, by considering the conventional head loss of filial consortium, an amount of Rs.44,000/- is reasonable and justified to the1st petitioner, who is wife of deceased Adra

Chinna Babaiah.

19.The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.23,451/- towards medical bills, contending that immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, from there to KIMS

Saveera Hospital, Ananthapuramu, but unfortunately inspite of their efforts, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. In proof their contention, the petitioners filed Ex.A.6 medical bills. Taking into consideration of expenses incurred by the petitioners towards medical and transportation of deceased to the hospitals, the petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.23,451/- towards medical expenses will meet ends of justice. In-toto the petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,04,201-00.

But the entire amount is awarded to the 1st petitioner alone as she is wife of deceased Babaiah. The claim of Petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed as they are not dependents upon the deceased Babaiah.

* Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 13 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

20. The court can award just and reasonable compensation to the petitioners as the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation, social welfare legislation, beneficial legislation, holistic legislation, as per the dictums reported in the following cases :

1. K. Raghu Babu Vs., C.Veerasekhar reported in 2011(2)ALD 763 wherein their Lordships held that :

“1) Act is a beneficial legislation, should adopt a

pragmatic approach – Tribunals are expected to award

just compensation.

2) Physical disability suffered by a victim in MV.

Accident, cannot adequately be measured and

compensated in monetary terms – However the

disability which carries all through the life of the

claimant, can, at best be solaced to a limited extent by

awarding just compensation so as to give moral boost

to, and to instill confidence in claimant to lead rest of

life with some sort of satisfaction.

3) Towards past and future attendant charges can be awarded.

4) Court should be liberal and some times more liberal, in cases of injuries than the cases of death.

5) Court has a discretion to grant reasonable interest

basing upon facts of each case – Supreme court has not

decided about interest to be granted in each case”.

2. 2004 ACJ 1 in between National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Swaran Singh and others wherein their Lordships held that :

“Interpretation of Statues. Act is a social welfare

legislation to extend relief by way of compensation to

victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles.

Provisions of the Act have to be interpreted so as to

effectuate this object.” * Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 14 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

3. 2015 ACJ 2232 (DB) (K.Varalakshmi & others Vs. United India

Insurance company Ltd. and others) wherein their Lordships had held :

“While interpreting the provisions of benevolent Act,

where two views are possible, the view favourable to

the persons for whose benefit the Act is enacted has to

be taken into consideration to achieve the real object.”

4. (2009) 13 SCC 530 (Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh State RTC) wherein their Lordships had held :

“The tribunal has to take holistic view. It was not

necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an

accident caused by a particular proof of an accident

caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may

not be possible to be done by the claimants. The

claimants were merely to establish their case on the

touchstone of preponderance of probability. The

standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not

have been applied.”

In view of the above observations in issue No.1, the respondents 2 and 3 and against the estate of deceased R1, in the hands of R.4 are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally to the petitioners.

21. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION :

(i) The entire compensation amount is awarded to the 1st petitioner alone as she is wife of deceased Babaiah. The claim of

Petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed as they are major sons and not dependents on the deceased Babaiah.

* Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 15 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

22. ISSUE NO.3 :

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part against the

Respondents 2 and 3 and against estate of deceased owner/Razia

Jaweed which is in the hands of Respondent No.4 [husband of R.1] with costs awarding total compensation of Rs.4,04,201-00 with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

(i) The entire compensation amount of Rs.4,04,201/- is awarded to the 1st petitioner alone, who is wife of deceased Adra Chinna Babaiah and permitted to withdraw entire amount with costs and interest forthwith.

(ii) The claim of Petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed as they are major sons and not dependents on the deceased Babaiah.

(iii) The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.4,04,201-00 within ONE MONTH from the date of this order.

(iv) The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs.

(v) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 06th day of October, 2023.

Sd/- G.Srinivas

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

* Amended as per

PDJ Court, Ananthapuramu 16 M.V.O.P.No.153/2020 Dt.06.10.2023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

For Petitioners : For Respondent No.2:

PW.1 : A.Lakshmidevi [eschewed] -None-

PW.2: A.Bhaskar. PW.3: M.Adinarayana.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioners

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.2/2020 of Kanaganipalli PS. Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of Inquest Report Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of Postmortem certificate Ex.A.4 : Attested copy of MVI report Ex.A.5: Attested copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A.6: Bunch of medical bills of Rs.23,451/-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent No.2

Ex.B.1: Insurance policy. S

Sd/- G.Srinivas

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

* Amended as per

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: G.Srinivas,

Principal District Judge,

(FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

FRIDAY THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2025

I.D.No.148/2019

Between:

Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o Basheer, Aged 47 years, C.No.407192, Ex.Shramic, Door No.45/81-1, Bhosh Nagar, Near Rainbow School, Rayachoty (M), Kadapa YSR District. … Petitioner

AND

1) The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Rayachoty Depot.

2) The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kadapa.

3) The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C,

Kadapa. ... Respondents

This Industrial Dispute coming on 27.03-2025 before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramachandra, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri S.Chandrasekhara, Law Officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2)Pursuant of filing of Industrial Dispute by the Petitioner, notice sent to the

Respondents. The Petitioner made his appearance through his counsel and submitted a claim statement. As per the Claim Statement, the Petitioner was appointed as Shramic in the Kadapa Workshop in Tyre retreating section during the year 1991 and Transferred to 2

Rayachoty depot as Shramik during the year 1992 in the Respondent Corporation. Since then he has been discharging his duties sincerely, honestly to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While that was so the Depot Manager, Rayachoty issued charge sheet against the Petitioner with the following charge.

"For having absented to your duties from 14.03.2009 to 06.05.2009 un-authorizedly without any intimation or prior sanction of leave from your Mechanical supervisors due to which day to day work in the maintenance section was badly dislocated and caused much inconvenience to the mechanical supervisors, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

On 22.02.2009 the Petitioner fell sick due to infective disease of Hepatitis and he informed his health condition to his on-duty supervisor and submitted sick certificate for the period from 22.02.2009 to 13.03.2009. The health of the Petitioner further deteriorated and unable to walk and move due to severe Hepatitis and other unknown diseases and on the advice of elders he took treatment at Homeopathy doctor and he submitted sick certificate for the period from 13.03.2009 to 13.05.2009 through his colleague employee to the depot and he was not cured and took prolonged treatment and he submitted sick certificate for the period from 14.05.2009. Since the health of the Petitioner was not good so on the advice of the elders had took treatment for CHETABADI and took Natu Vidyamu (country medicine) in his native place as he affected with paralysis and he took prolonged treatment and rest and was taking Pasuru (herbal juice) daily and after some time his right hand was fractured in the difficult times he could not attend to duty. During the sick Petitioner was in rented house and the post man returned the letters sent by the Respondent Management. The enquiry officer conducted ex.parte enquiry in the absence of the Petitioner and the enquiry letter sent by the Respondent were not served to the Petitioner as he was away and taking treatment. During sick period his aged father fell sick and he was attending to him. The Petitioner sent medical certificates to the depot authorities and the same were not considered by the depot authorities. If the Respondent got any doubt on the sick certificates they could have referred to RTC hospitals for ascertaining the sickness of the Petitioner but the Respondent without hearing his side has conducted exparte enquiry and removed the Petitioner from service which is unjust and requested to set aside the removal order and to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back- wages and all attendant benefits.

3)The Respondent filed Counter denied all the allegations made in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner except those, which are specifically admitted. The Petitioner was appointed as a Casual Khalasi in the Respondent Corporation on 23.10.1991 and subsequently his services were regularized w.e.f 28.04.1991 and the date of 3 retirement from services is 30.04.2033. The past conduct of the Workman is not good and amounts was recovered from the salary on one occasion, annual increment of the Petitioner was deferred on one occasion and on four occasions he was censured for 04 times.

4)It is reported by the MC Rayachoty depot that the Petitioner had absented for his duties from 14.03.2009 to 06.05.2009 without prior permission or sanction of leave from the competent authorities. Due to absence of the Petitioner the work in the maintenance section was dislocated and it caused much inconvenience to the Mechanical supervisors in arranging substitute. Basing on the report the Respondent Depot Manager issued charge sheet.

5)All relevant documents and charge sheet were supplied to the Petitioner but the Petitioner failed to acknowledge the charge sheet and also failed to submit explanation to the charge sheet. The Respondent in order to provide further opportunity to defend his case ordered for conducting domestic enquiry into the case duly nominating the Assistant Engineer (Mech), Rayachoty depot as an enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer sent call letters to the Petitioner’s residential address on 13.10.2009 to attend the enquiry on 24.10.2009 or 28.10.2009 or 02.11.2009 but the said call letter was returned with postal authorities with an endorsement that “Absent for 07 days”. During the course of enquiry the statement of concerned were recorded in the presence of the Petitioner. The Petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to cross examine the witness and also failed to offer his statement during the enquiry, so the enquiry officer conducted an exparte enquiry. A fair and proper enquiry was conducted into the case in accordance with C.C & A Regulations duly following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence available on record submitted his report to the Respondent holding the charges leveled against the Petitioner as proved. Basing on the entire evidences available on record, has issued Show Cause Notice of Removal from Service on 12.11.2009 and the said show cause notice was exhibited on the notice board of the garage from 27.11.2009 to 3.11.2009. The Petitioner failed to submit his explanation to Show Cause Notice of removal. Then the respondent issued final orders of Removal from Service vide final Order No.P1/1(01)/2009- RCTY dated 9.12.2009. The Petitioner preferred appeal to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kadapa on 09.09.2019 i.e., after lapse of 10 years and the same was rejected on 01.10.2019 by the Appellate Authority as time barred. Then the Petitioner preferred appeal

before the Regional Manager, Kadapa and the same was rejected for filing the review

appeal after 10 years vide proceedings dated 23.10.2019. Later the Petitioner preferred mercy appeal before the Executive Director, Kadapa zone and the said authority also rejected the appeal of the Petitioner vide proceedings dated 20.11.2019. The action taken by the Respondent for the proved charge is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of 4 misconduct committed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is no entitled for any relief and requested to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

6)During the course of enquiry, learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo stating that the Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry report procedurally and requested the Court to reappraise the evidence on record and to adjudicate the dispute as per the provisions under Sec.11-(A) of the I.D Act. Accordingly the same was recorded.

7)Both sides have not adduced oral evidence. On behalf of the Petitioner Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-10 are marked. On behalf of the Respondent Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-16 are marked.

8)Heard the arguments of the Petitioner’s counsel and the Law Officer for the Respondents filed Written arguments.

9)Now the points that arise for consideration are:

i.Whether there is intentional lapse on the part of the Petitioner in not attending the duties?

ii.Whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is justified?

iii.If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

POINTS No.i & ii :

10)The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner fell sick continuously and was in bed and was taking homeopathic medicines and country medicine for his sickness and he was also attacked with paralysis and was looking after his aged father and he submitted sick certificates to the Respondent depot from time to time but the same were not considered. The Petitioner changed his house during the sick period and the rent house people wrongly told the postal officials and the postal cover sent by the depot were returned undelivered. The enquiry officer conducted an exparte enquiry. Since the date of removal the Petitioner is out of employment and could not get any employment and his dependents are subjected to starvation and requested to set aside the removal order and to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service with back-wages and all other attendant benefits.

5

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted the following decisions of the superior Court;

A. Writ Petition No.13253/2003 dated 16.11.2021 of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in between G.Nagaiah, Ex.Painter, Kammarapalli Village, Nizamabad district vs. APSR.T.C Bus Depot, Mechanical, District Adilabad, Rep. by its Depot Manager,

B. Writ Appeal No.1354/2011 dated 26.12.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in between the Depot Manger, APSRTC, Gooty Depot, Anantapur District vs. P.Basha Khan, Anantapur and 03 others.

C. Writ Petition No.22428/2007 dated 26.09.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in between N.Krishnaiah Vs. APSRTC, rep. by tis Divisional Manager, Medak Division, Sangareddy and another.

D. Writ Appeal No.475/2019 of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana.

E. Writ Petition No.5446/2012 dated 29.02.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in between Y.Vasudeva Rao Vs. The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another.

F.Civil Appeal No.6074 with 6075 of 1998 (arising out of SLP © No.14573 with 21651 of 1997 dated 04.12.1998 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in between Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India.

G. Civil Appeal No.1664/2008 dated 29.02.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in between Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rawel Singh.

H. Civil Appeal No.2106/2012 dated 15.02.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in between Krushnakant B.Parmar Vs. Union of India & Another.

11)Learned Law Officer for the Respondents submitted that Petitioner is a chronic absentee and he left the country and filed the present Petition with ill motive to get employment. Due to sudden absence of the Petitioner the maintenance work in the garage was disrupted and services were not operated in schedule times and the Respondent

Corporation sustained loss. Keeping in view of long continued absence the Depot Manager ordered for an enquiry and the enquiry officer sent call letters to the Petitioner’s residence but they were returned undelivered. The enquiry notice was displayed on the notice board of the garage but there was no response from the Petitioner’s side. In the circumstances, the Enquiry officer conducted an exparte enquiry and basing on the material on record, the

Disciplinary Authority removed the Petitioner from service. After lapse of 10 years the

Petitioner preferred appeal to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer and the same was 6 rejected as time barred. The Petitioner had no interest in his job and left without intimation.

The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief and requested to confirm the orders of the

Respondent authorities and dismiss the Claim of the Petitioner.

Learned Law officer for the Respondent submitted the following decision of the superior Court;

A. Writ Appeal No.2666/2011 dated 28.01.2016 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. V.Ramaswamy.

12)The Petitioner filed Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-7. Ex.W.1 is the removal proceedings issued by the Depot Manager, Rayachoty. Ex.W.2 is the proceedings of the Chief Mechanical

Engineer, Kadapa rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner. Ex.W.3 is the proceedings of the

Regional Manager, Kadapa rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner. Ex.W.4 is the proceedings of the Executive Director, Kadapa zone rejecting the mercy appeal of the Petitioner. Ex.W.5 is the xerox copy of Sickness certificate issued by the Medical Officer, APSRTC, Clinic,

Community Health Center, Rayachoty. Ex.W.6 is the xerox copy of Medical sickness certificate issued by HMS Homeopathy Clinic, Rayachoty. Ex.W.7 is the order copy of Writ

Petition No.31756/2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Ex.W-8 is the Aadhar card of the

Petitioner bearing No.881135648370. Ex.W-9 is the PAN card of the Petitioner. Ex.W-10 is the xerox copy of service record of the Petitioner.

13)The Respondent filed Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-15. Ex.M.1 is the report of the MC of Rayachoty depot. Ex.M.2 is the charge sheet. Ex.M.3 is the acknowledgement of the charge sheet.

Ex.M.4 is the enquiry call letter. Ex.M.5 is the undelivered RPAD cover. Ex.M.6 is the domestic enquiry report. Ex.M.7 is the show cause notice of removal from service. Ex.M.8 is the undelivered RPAD cover. Ex.M.9 is the SCN exhibited on notice board. Ex.M.10 is the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority. Ex.M.11 is the undelivered RPAD cover. Ex.M.12 is the proceedings of the Appellate Authority. Ex.M.13 is the proceedings of the Review

Authority. Ex.M.14 is the proceedings of the Appeal Authority. Ex.M.15 is the service

Record. Ex.M.16 is the letter from Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada.

7

14)The contention of the Petitioner is that he fell sick on 22.02.2009 and could not recover from the hepatitis disease and was in the bed for long period with one disease or another disease and was not in the house and the owners of the rent house informed the postal authorities wrongly and the postal covers were returned so he unable to attend the enquiry and the Respondent without taking further steps has conducted exparte enquiry and removed the Petitioner from service.

15)The contention of the Respondents is that the Petitioner without any intimation to the Depot authorities left the services and this caused loss to the Respondent Corporation in maintenance of vehicles in the garage and the Petitioner failed to attend the domestic enquiry and after due process of law the Enquiry Officer conducted exparte enquiry. The

Petitioner went to abroad for better employment and after return from abroad the

Petitioner preferred appeal on 09.09.2019 that is after long lapse of 10 years from the date of removal from service in order to enter into the Respondents Corporation. The version of the Petitioner is that he is sick, if he is really sick, he could have attended before the depot authorities to refer him for better treatment from the RTC specialized hospitals, the

Petitioner has not taken any steps in this regard. For RTC employees a recognized hospital located at Tarnaka, Hyderabad. No medical records filed by the Petitioner that he underwent treatment for a prolonged time of 10 years.

16)The Mechanical Chargeman of the Rayachoty depot submitted report on 04.05.2009 to the Respondent Depot Manager that the Petitioner S.M Vally, Shramic has been absent from 14.03.2009 to 06.05.2009 and he is facing difficulty in schedule-III maintenance.

Basing on the report of the Mechanical Chargeman the Respondent Depot Manager issued

Charge sheet under Ex.M.2 for absenteeism and sought explanation from the Petitioner for the lapse of absenteeism, since the charge sheet was not received by the Petitioner, the charge sheet was exhibited on the Notice Board and Ex.M-3 is the acknowledgement for the exhibition of the notice dated 26.08.2009. Ex.M-4 is the enquiry call letter to the

Petitioner by the Assistant Engineer (Mech), APSRTC, Rayachoty (Enquiry officer) advising the Petitioner to attend the enquiry by giving flexible dates i.e., on 24.10.2009 or 28.10.2009 or 02.11.2009. The said notice sent to the Petitioner under Ex.M.5 but it was 8 returned undelivered with the postal endorsement that the addressee not known, want of door number, hence returned to the sender" So, the enquiry officer sent another notice in different cover with the Door No.45/25, Bose Nagar, Rayachoty and this letter was also returned by the postal authorities "Addressee left the Door number, returned to sender”. Since the Petitioner failed to attend before the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer conducted an exparte enquiry by examining the Management witness. The Enquiry

Officer submitted enquiry report to the Respondent and basing on the findings of the enquiry officer the Respondent issued show cause notice of removal from service to the

Petitioner vide Ex.M-7 dated 12.11.2009 seeking explanation from the Petitioner as to why his services should not be removed for long absenteeism and the said show cause notice sent to the Petitioner’s address under Ex.M-8 and the same also returned undelivered with the postal authorities that "the addressee left to Saudi Arabia". So, the Respondent exhibited the show cause notice of removal on the Notice Board on 27.11.2009 with the acknowledgement of witnesses. Finally, the Respondent Depot Manager issued removal proceedings dated 09.12.2009 and the same was sent to the Petitioner’s address under

Ex.M.11 and the said cover was returned with the postal endorsement as the addressee left to Saudi Arabia, so the Respondent Depot Manager displayed the removal proceedings on the Notice Board with the proper acknowledgement of witnesses. Ex.M-12 is proceedings of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kadapa dated 01.10.2019 wherein the appeal of the

Petitioner dated 09.09.2019 is rejected. Later the Petitioner preferred appeal before the

Regional Manager, Kadapa on 14.10.2019 and the said appeal was also rejected by the

Regional Manager, Kadapa. The Petitioner preferred mercy petition before the Executive

Director, Kadapa zone on 03.11.2019 and the same was rejected. This Court sent a letter to

Regional passport Office, Vijayawada for ascertaining travel details of the Petitioner and in reply the Regional Passport Office submitted letter enclosing particulars relating to two passports and the particulars are as follows;

FIRST PASSPORT DETAILS:

Passport Number:19733252 Date of issue:15.07.2014 Datre of Expiry:14 07.2024 Name:Shaik Mastan Vali 9

Father's Name:Shaik Basheer Mother's Name:Shaik Bee Bi Jan Date of Birth:10.02.1972 Place of Birth:Rayachoty Address:12/44, Mohammed Pura St. Rayachoty

SECOND PASSPORT DETAILS:

Passport Number:E9561656 Date of issue:28.06.2004 Datre of Expiry:27.06.2014 Name:Shaik Mastan Vali Father's Name:Shaik Basheer Mother's Name:Shaik Bee Bi Jan Date of Birth:10.02.1972 Place of Birth:Rayachoty Address:12/44, Mohammed Pura St, Rayachoty, Kadapa district.

The Respondent filed xerox copy of service record of the Petitioner where in the date of birth of the Petitioner is shown as 15.04.1973 and the same date of birth is shown in

Aadhar card and Pan Card; whereas the date of birth in pass port particulars is shown as 10.02.1972, except the date of birth all other particulars of the Petitioner are tallying.

The information furnished by the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada clarifies that the

Petitioner was issued with two passports. The name of the Petitioner and his father's name,

Mother’s name is correctly tallying. As per the Regional Passport Office letter covered under Ex.M-16 it appears that the Petitioner flew away to abroad with different pass ports and spent there for years together and earned something and after landing at the India he ventured to start litigation i.e.., after 10 years from the date of removal from service and he preferred appeal before the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer; later to the Reginal

Manager, Kadapa, and a mercy petition before the Executive Director, Kadapa zone for reinstatement into service. This indicates that the Petitioner is not interested to work in the

Respondent Corporation and left the Corporation without intimation and without following the due process of law and filed the present I.D with false plea that he was sick and was taking treatment for one disease or another is totally false which is invented for the case.

The principle of Vigilantibus non-dormientibus jura subveniunt articulates that law helps to those who are vigilant but not negligent, law helps those who are awake but not asleep.

The Petitioner slept over 10 years and seeking reinstatement stating that he is sick which 10 is not believable as the documents submitted by the Regional Pass port Office indicates that the Petitioner was issued with two pass ports and the postal endorsement clearly shows that the Petitioner went to abroad during the absenteeism period and now claiming he was sick and prayed to reinstate him into service. Leaving the job without intimation is an offence, added to it, the absence of the Petitioner caused much hardships to the garage supervisors in arranging substitute and the maintenance of schedule-III. If the Petitioner had not went to abroad there could not be such long gap of preferring appeal before the

Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kadapa i.e., after 10 years. The Petitioner tried a chance to enter into service by creating false sick certificates and wrong plea of sickness.

The record placed by the Respondents clearly indicates that the Petitioner intentionally left the service without informing the depot authorities and seeking reinstatement with wrong pleas is unjust. In the circumstances, it can be concluded that the Petitioner came to Court with wrong pleas which has no basis and seeking reinstatement after long gap of 10 years shows that he slept over his grievance for a decade, so he is not entitled for any relief and the Claim Petition deserves for dismissal.

POINT No.iii:

In the result, the Claim Petition is dismissed by granting exemplary and compensatory costs of Rs.3000/- payable by the Petitioner to the Respondent U/Sec. 35-A of C.P.C for making false, frivolous and vexatious claim.

Accordingly, the Award is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the In-charge Steno-Typist, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Principal District Judge,

(FAC)Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR Petitioner:FOR Respondent:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

11

FOR Petitioner:

1)Ex.W-1Dt.09.12.2009Removal proceedings issued by the Depot Manager, Rayachoty.

2)Ex.W-2Dt.01.10.2019Proceedings of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kadapa rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.23.10.2019Proceedings of the Regional Manager, Kadapa rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.20.11.2019Proceedings of the Executive Director, Kadapa zone rejecting the mercy appeal of the Petitioner.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.-Xerox copy of Sickness certificate issued by the Medical officer, APSRTC, Clinic, Community Health Center, Rayachoty.

6)Ex.W-6Dt.14.03.2009Xerox copy of Medical sickness certificate issued by HMS Homeopathy clinic, Rayachoty.

7)Ex.W-7Dt.01.10.2015Order copy of Writ Petition No.31756/2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

8)Ex.W-8Dt.-Aadhar card of the Petitioner bearing No.881135648370.

9)Ex.W-9Dt.-PAN card of the Petitioner.

10)Ex.W-10Dt.-Xerox copy of service record of the Petitioner.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1Dt.04.05.20090Report of the MC of Rayachoty depot.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.08.05.2009Charge sheet.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.-Acknowledgement of the charge sheet.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.13.10.2009Enquiry call letter.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.-Undelivered RPAD cover.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.31.10.2009Domestic enquiry report.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.12.11.2009Show cause notice of removal from service.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.-Undelivered RPAD cover.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.27.11.2009SCN exhibited on notice board.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.09.12.2009Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.-Undelivered RPAD cover.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.01.10.2019Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.23.10.2019Proceedings of the Review Authority.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.20.11.2019Proceedings of the Appeal Authority.

12

15)Ex.M-15Dt.-Service Record.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.18.02.2025Letter from Regional Passport officer, Vijayawada.

Principal District Judge,

(FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by:

Read by:

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Sri G.Srinivas, Prl. District Judge, (FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

WEDNESDAY THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2025

M.P.No.24/2022 Between:

S.Venkata Pratap, S/o S.Venkata Krishnaiah, Aged 36 years, Worked as Manager -EHS (HR/Admin and IT Department), Residing at D.No.3/734/3, Krishnapuram, 5th Road, Tadipatri, Anantapuramu District.… Petitioner

AND

1)The C.H.O, Hyundai Transys India Pvt., Ltd., C/o Kia Motors, Erramanchi (Village), Penukonda (Mandal), Satya Sai District.

2)The H.R,HOD, Hyundai Transys India Pvt., Ltd., C/o Kia Motors, Erramanchi (Village), Penukonda (Mandal), Satya Sai District.

3)The H.R Executive, Hyundai Transys India Pvt., Ltd., C/o Kia Motors, Erramanchi (Village), Penukonda (Mandal), Satya Sai District.

… Respondents This M.P is coming on 24-03-2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Viswanath, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. M.Nageswari, Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy, Advocates for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

O R D E R

This Petition is filed under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, praying the Court to determine the amount due to the Petitioner and direct the Respondents to pay the same in the interest of justice.

2) The brief case of the Petitioner is that he joined as a Deputy Manager, EHS

Department, Hyundia Transys India Private Limited, C/o Kia Motors, Eramanchi Village, 2

Penukonda Mandal, Satya Sai District on 25.06.2018 and his salary fixed as annual package of Rs.7,50,000/- per year and he discharged his duties without any remarks, later he was promoted as a Manager and his salary increased from 7,50,000/- to 10,69,000/- per year. The Petitioner has no independent powers and he has no supervisory powers or salary issuing authority even he worked as Manager in EHS department. The Petitioner resigned his job on 17.12.2021 and the Respondent Company relieved the Petitioner from service on 16.02.2022 and issued Service Certificate. The Petitioner Company did not pay

February month salary of Rs.56,000/-; yearly bonus of Rs.67,000/-, E.L encashment of

Rs.1,30,000/- casual leave encashment of Rs.14,500/- and sick leave encashment of

Rs.7,000/-. Even the Respondents promised to pay the total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- in the

February 2022 month pay cycle but the said amount was not adjusted in the February 2022 month salary. So the Petitioner requested the Respondents for adjustment of the said due amounts to the Petitioner through his mails and the Respondent again promised for adjustment of the said amount in the March 2022 pay cycle but the same was not adjusted in the March 2022 pay cycle. So the Petitioner submitted mail on 01.04.2022 but there was no response from the Respondents. So the Petitioner issued legal notice to the

Respondents on 24.04.2022 with demand for payment of due amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the Petitioner but the Respondents did not respond for the legal Notice. The Petitioner had not discharged his duties as a supervisor and he was not vested with any supervisory powers and he had no salary disbursement powers. The claim of the Petitioner is as follows;

1.February month salaryRs.56,000/-

2.Yearly BonusRs.67,000/-

3.Earned leave encashmentRs.1,30,000/-

4.Casual leave encashmentRs.14,500/-

5.Sick leave encashmentRs.7,000/-

3)As per the Standing Orders of the Respondent Company the Petitioner is entitled for (3) to (5) column amounts. The Petitioner repeatedly requested the Respondents for settlement of above amount to a tune of Rs.2,75,000/- but the Respondents have not paid the entitled amount. The Petitioner is entitled for the total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum i.e., from the date of resignation 16.02.2022.

3

4)The Respondent No.2 filed Counter and the said counter is adopted by the

Respondent No.1 & 3. The contention of the Respondents in the Counter is that the Petition is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation that the

Respondents assured to pay an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- and went on postponing the same is untrue. The averments of the Petition and the Petitioner’s employment, salary and resignation are all true. The Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager – Safety by later

dated 25.06.2018, later he was promoted as Manager-HR, Admin & IT vide promotion letter

dated 01.04.2020. The Petitioner tendered his resignation on 17.12.2021 and left the job

on 16.02.2022. The Petitioner as a Manager he exercised all functions as a Manager and his job roles has to build business standards, leading team and the duties of the Petitioner are of Managerial and administrative in nature and the Petitioner is not a Workman as contemplated under law. During the month of February Petitioner worked for 21.5 days and the amount earned for the said period was adjusted in his full and final settlement. The

Petitioner availed excess leaves than the eligible. The Petitioner availed excess leaves i.e.,

Earned leaves of (-) 13 days; Likewise excess of casual leaves of (-) 6 days; excess sick leaves of (-)4 days.

5)The Petitioner has claimed Bonus of Rs.67,000/- and he has not mentioned for which year he is claiming bonus. Basing on the performance, bonus is given but the Petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit. The Respondents settled full and final settlements after tendering resignation. The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The Petitioner requested to dismiss the Petition.

6)During the course of enquiry, Petitioner is examined as W.W.1 and on his behalf

Ex.W.1 to Ex.W-10 are marked. On behalf of the Respondents no oral and documentary evidence is adduced.

7)Heard the arguments of both sides.

8)The point that arise for consideration is; i.Whether the Petitioner is a Workman? ii.Whether the claim of the Petitioner can be entertained or not?

4 iii.To that relief the Petitioner is entitled?

POINTs i & ii:

9)The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that even the designation of the

Petitioner is a Manager but he was not endorsed with the duties of administrative and managerial, he tendered his resignation on 17.12.2021 and his resignation was accepted after two months i.e., on 16.02.2022. The Respondent has promised to pay entitled amounts but later failed to pay the February month salary, yearly bonus, earned leave encashment, casual leave encashment, sick leave encashment. The Petitioner is entitled for the total sum of Rs.2,75,000/-. Since the Respondents have not paid the entitled amount even on repeated requests, so he is claiming interest @ 24% from the date of relieving orders. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of Hon’ble

High Court of Calcutta in W.P.No.10138(W) of 2011 dated 08.10.2013 in

between Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. State of West Bengal & Others

reported in 2014 1 LLJ 91.

10)The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that Petitioner discharged duties as an administrator and manager, so he cannot be called as Workman and he will not fall under the definition of a Workman, so this Court has no jurisdiction to tray the case and requested to dismiss the Petition. The Respondent has paid full and final settlements as per the Company norms and the claim of the Petitioner is false. The claims of earned leave, casual leaves and sick leaves were exhausted by the Workman as he availed more than the entitled leaves. The Petitioner excessively availed 13 days earned leaves, 6 days causal leaves and sick leaves for 4 days. Bonus is paid on the basis of work performance.

The entire claim of the Petitioner is on wrong lines he is not entitled for any benefit as claimed by him and requested to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

11)The Petitioner filed documents and they are marked as Ex.W-1 which is copy of appointment letter issued by the Respondents. Ex.W-2 is the copy of relieving letter. Ex.W- 3 is the copy of service certificate. Ex.W-4 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.W-5 is the served acknowledgements to the Respondents (3 in number). Ex.W-6 is the copy of mail 5 sent to the 2 & 3 Respondents by the Petitioner. Ex.W-7 is the copy of reminder mail sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents 2 & 3. Ex.W-8 is the copy of mail sent by the

Petitioner to the Respondents. Ex.W-9 is the copy of mail sent by the Petitioner to the

Respondents 2 & 3. Ex.W-10 is the copy of mail sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents and Managing Director.

12)Ex.W-1 is the copy of appointment letter issued by the Hyundai Dymos India private

Limited, Brahmanapalli village wherein the designation of the Petitioner is shown as Deputy

Manager – Safety. Ex.W-2 is the copy of relieving letter wherein the designation position of the Petitioner shown as "Manager - EHS (HR/Admin & IT Department), the resignation letter submitted by the Petitioner on 17.12.2021 is accepted, so he was relieved from services on 16.02.2022 as Manager – EHS (HR/Admin & IT Department) and further mentioned that the full and final settlement would be processed and credited to the account. Ex.W-3 is the copy of service certificate issued by Hyundai Transys India Private Limited wherein mentioned that the Petitioner had served their organization since 25.06.2018 to 16.02.2022 as Manager – EHS (HR/Admin & IT Department. In the relieving letter dated 16.02.2022 the Respondent Management clearly mentioned that the final settlement would be processed and credited in the account provided during the employment of the

Petitioner. Ex.W-4 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the Petitioner for non-payment of entitled amount and the same are served acknowledgements to the Respondents. Ex.W- 6 to 9 is the copy of mails sent by the Petitioner to the Second and Third Respondents for payment of final settlements.

13) The main contention of the Respondents is that the Petitioner worked as Manager and he cannot be called as Workman as he discharged his duties of Managerial and administrative, so he cannot claim benefits before this Court as this Court is barred with jurisdiction and requested to dismiss the Petition.

14) The Respondents have not adduced any oral and documentary evidence during the enquiry proceedings. In the appointment letter the Respondent Management shown the designation of the Petitioner as “Deputy Manager – Safety” and in the service certificate 6

Ex.W-3 the designation of the Petitioner shown as “Manager-EHS (HR/Admin & IT

Department)”. In the Claim Petition ( M.P) the Petitioner mentioned his annual package is

Rs.7,50,000/- per annum for the post of Deputy Manager, later he was promoted as

Manager and his salary was increased from Rs.7,50,000/- to Rs.10,69,000/- per annum. 15)

In the I.D Act a clarification is mentioned between a Workman and a supervisor which is enunciated in Section 2(s) (i) to (iv) of the I.D. The sub section (i) to (iv) of Section 2(s) is produced for clarity of a supervisor (amendment w.e.f 19.08.2010); 2(s) 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or, as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person - i.who is subject to Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or ii.who is employed in the police service or as an Officer or other employee of a prison; or iii.who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or iv.who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (rupees ten thousand) per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason for the powers vested in him functions, mainly of a managerial nature”.

As per the I.D Act an employee cannot called as a Workman if he draws more than

Rs.10,000/- per month with the supervisory duties. The Petitioner in his Petition clearly mentioned that he was promoted as a Manager and his salary was increased from

Rs.7,50,000/- to Rs.10,69,000/- per annum and his designation mentioned as Manager.

Here the Petitioner was paid Rs.10,69,000/- per annum. The record filed by the Petitioner clearly show that he is not a Workman of the Respondents and he was a Manager in the

Respondent Company. In the circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be called as a Workman and that too he discharged his duties as Deputy Manager - Safety vide appointment letter

dated 25.06.2018 and later he was promoted as Manager - HR, Admin & IT. Since the

Petitioner did not fall under the definition of Workman and he discharged supervisory and managerial functions by his designation, so this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case of the Petitioner and the Petition is liable for dismissal.

7

POINT NO.iii:

In the result, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order passed accordingly.

Typed by In-charge Steno-Typist, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th day of March, 2025.

Principal District Judge,

(FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR Petitioner:FOR Respondent:

S.Venkata Prathap W.W-1 -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

1)Ex.W-1Dt.25.06.2018Copy of appointment letter issued by the Respondents

2)Ex.W-2Dt.16.02.2022Copy of relieving letter.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.16.02.2022Copy of service certificate.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.24.02.2022Office copy of legal notice.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.-Served acknowledgements to the Respondents (3 in number)

6)Ex.W-6Dt.01.04.2022Copy of mail sent to the 2 & 3 Respondents by the Petitioner

7)Ex.W-7Dt.04.04.2022 & Copy of reminder mail sent by the Petitioner to dt.05.04.2022the Respondents 2 & 3.

8)Ex.W-8Dt.06.04.2022Copy of mail sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents.

9)Ex.W-9Dt.11.04.2022Copy of mail sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents 2 & 3.

10)Ex.W-10Dt.12.04.2022Copy of mail sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents and Managing Director.

FOR RESPONDENT:

-Nil-

Principal District Judge,

(FAC) Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 8

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Compared by: Read by:

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: G. Srinivas,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 06th day of October, 2023

Crl.M.P.No.219/2023 in Crl.A.No.91/2023

Between:

Shaik Saddam Hussain S/o Shaik Shafi, Aged 40 years, D.No.3-301, Boya Street, C.K.Palli village & Mandal. (Owner of the vehicle No.AP.21.TZ.2205) … Petitioner/Appellant.

And

1. The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu.

2. The Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal.

3. Station House Officer, Bukkarayasamudram P.S., … Respondents.

This petition is coming on 04.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Prakash, Sri A.Fayaz, Advocates for the petitioner/Appellant and of Public Prosecutor for Respondents and on hearing learned Counsel for

Petitioner and respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1) This is a petition filed under Section 6-C (2) of Essential

Commodities Act seeking order to release of seized TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205, infavour of the petitioner/appellant, on furnishing third party property security bond pending disposal of the appeal, in the interest of justice.

2) Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents.

3) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for?

2

POINT:-

4) The contention of the petitioner is that he filed the appeal against the impugned orders of the 1st respondent/Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, imposing monetary penalty of Rs.75,000/- vide Rc.No.K3/277/2023 dt.16.07.2023. The order of the respondent/Joint Collector & Addl. District

Magistrate, Ananthapuramu are put for execution, it will cause prejudice for

the petitioner/appellant and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the seized vehicles cannot be kept pending and exposed to damage by nature and ordered to release the vehicles vide its orders in WP 12153/2021 DT.30.06.2021, WP.20786/2020 DT.10.11.2020,

WP.14351/2020 DT.02.02.2021, WP.16664/2020 DT.16.10.2020,

WP.17979/2020 DT.06.10.2020.

5) The Public Prosecutor has left the matter to the discretion of the

Court.

6) The gist of the case facts are that the Vigilance Officers of

Ananthapuramu District had received credible information that PDS rice is transporting illegally and thereby with the permission of the Higher Authority of Vigilance Department, the Vigilance Officers, Revenue officials,

Panchayathdars jointly conducted search of the vehicles infront of Kanakadasa

Kalyana Mandapam, Gooty Road, Bukkarayasamudram mandal on 24.04.2023 afternoon, they found that one TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 and on suspicion they stopped the said vehicle and on enquiry the driver of the vehicle by name Gujjala Satheesh stated that, he is the driver of the TATA

Goods Carriage. He further stated that, the owners of the stock Somu and

Naresh have collected PDS rice from card holders of surrounding village of

Rajiv Colony, Teachers Colony of Ananthapuramu mandal, Kottalapalli village of Bukkarayasamudram mandal and they loaded the rice into vehicle and was transporting the said rice to Bangarupeta of Karnataka state to sell the same 3 for higher prices. Then the inspecting officials found 116 bags of PDS rice i.e.

57.85 quintals in the vehicle and they seized the said rice along with TATA

Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. The seized PDS rice was handed over to MLS stock point and the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 was kept in

Bukkarayasamudram Police Station for safe custody. The Station House

Officer, Bukkarayasamudram Police Station has registered a case against the respondents in Cr.No.102/2023 dt.25.4.2023. The Tahsildar, Bukkaraya

Samudram finally requested to admit the case U/sec.6-A of EC Act, 1955 and take necessary against the respondents.

7) Subsequently, the petitioner herein carried a claim petition under section 6(E) of the E.C. Act for release of the vehicle before the Joint Collector,

Ananthapuramu. The 1st respondent/Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu imposing monetary penalty of Rs.75,000/- vide RC.No.K3/277/2023, dt.16.07.2023 without giving an opportunity of the petitioner.

8) Custody of vehicle may be entrusted on proof of ownership and deposit of RC book held, Magistrate can order interim custody of vehicle/property even in cases exclusively triable by Court of Sessions and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. The said observation is reported in a case reported in 2007 (2) MLJ (Crl.) 315 = 2007 Supreme (Mad) 428 [Arun @

Arun Prasad Vs State of Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayama Police

Station, Karur District.

It is also observed by their Lordships in a case law reported in 2002 (8) Supreme 525 [Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat that “in no case seized valuables, currency notes, vehicles, liquors and narcotic 4 drugs be kept in police stations for more than 15 days to one month, Registry of the concerned High Court should also see that the rules framed by the High

Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchanama should be prepared.”

9) Perused the entire material as well as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at the police station for a prolonged period and they exposed to damage by nature etc., It is for the Court to pass appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle viz., TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of application for return of such vehicle as the investigation is completed. It will take more time to dispose of the main appeal. Therefore, it is appropriate to order for release of the said vehicle to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent until disposal of this appeal.

Accordingly, point is answered.

10) IN THE RESULT, the Petition is allowed, and the orders passed by the learned 1st respondent/Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, imposing monetary penalty of Rs.75,000/- vide Rc.No.K3/277/2023 dt.16.07.2023 is hereby modified. Consequently, the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205, is ordered to be released for interim custody to the petitioner viz., Shaik

Saddam Hussain S/o Shaik Shafi on executing a personal bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) along with identity proofs such as

Aadhar card, mobile phone number, RC, permanent residential proof etc., to 5 the satisfaction of 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal.

Furthermore, the petitioner shall comply with the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall not use the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 for any illegal or immoral purposes.

(2) If the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 is involved again in any crime, the interim custody of the vehicle given to the petitioner in this case shall stands cancelled; (3) The petitioner shall deposit attested copy of R.C of the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 before the Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal till the disposal of appeal.

(4) The petitioner shall not change the complexion, colour and physical features and shall not alienate the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205; (5) The petitioner shall produce the TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 before the concerned court as and when directed by the court; (6) The 2nd respondent shall take photographs of TATA Goods Carriage bearing No.AP.21.TZ.2205 while handing over the same to petitioner and prepare a panchanama, and submit the same to this Court.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 06th day of October, 2023.

Sd/- G. Srinivas,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Copy to:

1.The Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu.

2.The Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal.

3.The Station House Officer, Bukkarayasamudram PS.

//t.c.f.b.o//

Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District Court, Ananthapuramu