Sri G.Srinivasulu

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri G. Srinivasulu, XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 16th day of September, 2015

CC No. 253 of 2012

Between:

The Assistant District Fire Officer, Mahaboobnagar District …. Complainant

And

H.C. Jain Celestrial Abot, 1-3-183/40/198 & 198A SBI Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, New Bakaram, Hyderabad…. Accused

This case is coming before me today, in the presence of learned APP appearing for State and of Sri. K. Shyam Kumar, Advocate for accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Assistant District Fire Officer, Mahaboobnagar District has lodged a private complaint against the accused and the brief averments in the complaint are that on 10.02.2006 at about 11.30 hours the inspecting officer authorized under section 20 of

A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 i.e LW.1- C. Laxmi Prasad and LW.2- M. Bhupal Reddy inspected the premises of Celestial Abot, 1-3-183/40/198 & 198A, SBI Colony, Near Sai

Baba Temple, New Bakaram, Hyderabad and noticed the deficiencies in Fire safety measures and prepared a report on fire safety requirements and submitted the same to the Director General of Fire and Emergency, Andhra Pradesh and submitted his report.

The Director General of Fire and Emergency Services has addressed a letter to accused dated 16.03.2006 to rectify the deficiencies in fire safety measures and report compliance. Subsequently accused failed to obtain provisional No Objection certificate from the Director General of Fire and Emergency Services, A.P., under the provisions of 13 of the said Act and Regulations 5 (1) of Multi storeyed building Regulations, 1981 and constructed a Multi Storeyed Building with stilt + 5 floors +Pent house with a height of 20.5 meters and occupied the building.

It is further alleged that the accused has failed to provide the fire safety systems/set backs as per the provisions National building code of India as required under the provisions of multi storeyed building regulations, 1981 and occupied - 2 - the building without obtaining No Objection certificate as required under provisions of

Sec. 13 of A.P.Fire Services Act ad Rules 15 & 26 (2) of A.P. Fire and Emergency operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006, and the Municipal Corporation Building Bye

Laws, 1981 and thereby violated Regulation 5 (3) of Multi Storeyed Building

Regulations, 1981.

It is further alleged in the complaint that accused was also intimated about the statutory violations in Fire Safety measures by publishing the notice in the daily news papers in 1st phase Eenadu on 07.06.2006, the Hindu dated 09.06.2006,

Deccan Chronicle 27.09.2006 and had given opportunity to the accused to rectify the fire safety deficiencies within a period of 90 days and to compliance the same. The accused did not submit any complaisance.

Again the accused was intimated about the statutory violations in fire safety measures by publishing the notice in daily news papers in 2nd phase in Hindu daily dated 07.02.2007, Deccan Chronicle dated 07.02.2007 and in Vartha daily dated 14.03.2007 and had given opportunity to rectify fire safety deficiencies within a period of 90 days, however the accused did not rectify the same. The details of statutory violations were mentioned and supplied copy to the accused. Since the accused did not comply with violations and in view of the above the Director General of Fire and

Emergency services, A.P. had passed to prosecute the accused in his proceedings in

RC No. 10153/B2/2002, dated 01.12.2007 under A.P. Fire Service Act and A.P. Fire and

Emergency operations and Levy of Fee rules, 2006 and Multi Storeyed Building

Regulations, 1981 for non compliance of Fire Safety measures in the building and A1 is liable for the offence under section 31 of A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 as he willfully contravenes provisions of the act or rules made thereunder or fails to comply with any requisition lawfully made upon him under said provision and he is also liable for the offence punishable under section 22 of the said act. Thus the complaint.

3. On perusal of the record, case is taken on file by my predecessor in the office for the offence under section 13,19 and 22 of A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999 r/w rules 15 and 26 (2) of A.P. fire and emergency operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006 punishable under section 31 of A.P. fire service Act, 1999 against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.PC, and examined the accused under section 251 of Cr.P.C., explained the accusation in his vernacular language, for the offence under sections 13,19 and 22 of A.P. Fire Service Act and Rules r/w Sec. 31 of A.P. fire

Service Act. Accused is pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

- 3 -

5. During trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 documents. On closure of the evidence the accused is examined under section 313

Cr.P.C explained the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record

7. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 13,19 and 22 of A.P. Fire Service Act and Rules r/w Sec. 31 of A.P. fire Service Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

8. PW.1 – C. Laxmi Prasad who is working as Additional Director of Telangana

State Disaster response and Fire Service Department and his evidence goes to show that as per the directions of DG Fire and Emergency of A.P. Hyderabad he inspected a multi storeyed building i.e Celestial Abot situated in plot bearing No. 1-3-183/40/198 & 198A, SBI Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, New Bakaram, Hyderabad on 10.02.2006 at about 11.30 AM and noticed some fire safety violations i.e deficiencies of open places all around building for operation of fire vehicle in emergency, non provision of external stair case and non provision of statutory fire safety measures, on that he gave report to his Director General of Fire Services. Subsequently his officer instructed him to file prosecution case before court of law, accordingly he filed a case against the accused who is General Secretary of Flat owners Residence association.

9.In brief the evidence of PW.2 who is working as Assistant District Fire

Officer, Central Zone, Hyderabad and his evidence goes to show that one Prabhaker

Swamy who worked as District Fire Officer and retired from service on that PW.2 was authorized by Director General of State Disaster Response and Fire Services to look after the matter in his letter dated 31.10.2013. Then his officer directed him to continue to attend complaint, as such he continued to appear on behalf of said Prabhaker

Swamy. Ex.P1 is the proceeding of the Director General of State Disaster Response and Fire Services dated 31.10.2013. Since accused violated the statutory provisions of file service Act as such he was prosecute. It is intimated by way of paper publication for the violations made by the accused in Eenadu daily news paper dated 07.06.2006 and also in Deccan Chronicle news paper dated 07.02.2007 and also published in Hindu daily news paper dated 26.05.2006. Inspite of notice through paper publication accused did not complied with the violations. Ex.P2 is news paper notification published in Enadu - 4 - daily news paper dated 07.06.2006. Ex.P3 is news paper notification published in

Deccan Chronical dated 07.02.2007. Ex.P4 is news paper notification published in

Hindu daily news paper dated 26.05.2006. Ex.P5 is the General Notice published in

Deccan Chronical dated 27.09.2006. Ex.P6 is prosecution sanction order of Director

General of Fire and Emergency Service dated 01.12.2007.

10.PW.3 is working as District Fire officer at Kurnool and previously he worked as Station Fire Officer, Nandyala Fire Station. As per the directions of Director

General of Fire and Emergency Service he inspected building in question by name

Celestial Abode near SBI Colony, Sai baba temple, New Bakaram, Hyderabad. he submitted his report to his of Director General of Fire and Emergency, Hyderabad.

Ex.P7 is his report dated 15.11.2006. He noted deficiencies in his report. Accused present in court hall is the person violated the rules and he was the Secretary of

Welfare Association of the subject building.

11.The offences that was alleged against the accused under sections 13, 19 and 22 of A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999 r/w rules 15 and 26 (2) of A.P. fire and emergency operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006 and thereby accused is liable for punishment envisaged under section 31 of A.P. fire service Act, 1999. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused is the Secretary of Celestial Abode building welfare Association and he is the occupier of the building and violations that were noted by PW.3 were not rectified inspite of notices given by the prosecution and also given vide publications in daily news papers. Since the accused did not comply with the violations noted by prosecution witness, hence he is liable for the prosecution and also for punishment.

12.Whereas the contention of the accused is that he is neither the building owner nor the owner of the entire site and he did not violate any act or its rules as such complaint itself is not maintainable as such complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground only in fact the complaint is filed against improper person.

13.As it is already stated supra the violations that were noted as for the offence under section 13, 19 and 22 of A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999. Sec. 13 deals with issue of no objection certificate to the building for proposed construction. Any person proposing to construct a building of more than 15 meters height for commercial/business purpose, 18 meters and above height for residential purpose, and buildings of public congregation like schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious - 5 - places, which are more than 500 sq.meters or 600 meter and above in height shall apply to the Director General or any member of the service duly authorized by him in this behalf, before submission of such building plan to the authority or officer competent to approve the same under relevant law etc.,

14.Sec. 19 deals with owner’s or occupier’s liability to provide for fire prevention and fire safety measures it reads as follows:

The owner or occupier or both, of a building or part thereof shall provide fire safety measures in it and maintain them in good repair and efficient condition at all times, in accordance with the building by laws.

15.Sec. 22 deals with steps to be taken in the event of non-compliance of notice and it reads as follows: The authorized officer or any other member of service empowered by him in this behalf may, in the event of non-compliance of any notice issued under section 21, take such steps as may be necessary for the compliance of such notice.

16.In the present case on hand, accused is the occupier of part of the building, so verbatim that was used under section 19 are the owner or occupier or both, of a building or part thereof shall provide fire safety measures etc., in the present case on hand, the building in question is a residential building with a stilt + 5 floors + pent house with a height of 20.5 meters and occupied by the accused and others. Accused did not deny that he is not Secretary of the building Association however his contention is that he is neither builder nor the owner of entire building. As such offences are not applicable to him as he did not violated any act. As it is already stated supra, admitted accused is the Secretary of the building Association and he is the occupier in part of the building and notices were duly served on him and he did not comply with. As such offence that were alleged against the accused are maintainable against him. Admittedly height of building is 20.5 meters. Under section 13 of Act, any residential building should not more than 18 meters from ground if it so the occupier or owner of the building shall obtain no objection certificate from Director General of fire service for construction of building. In the present case on hand, no such no objection certificate was obtained and the purchaser should aware of the fact whether the building was construction within four corners of building rules, HMC act and its rules and A.P. Fire service Act and its rules then only he can purchase and to occupy the building. Admittedly notices were served on the accused as contemplated under section 21 and 22 of A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999, however accused did not give any proper reply. It is alleged by accused that he sent - 6 - some replies, but no proof is produced that it was served on complainant. Flat No. 402 belongs to the accused though his name is mentioned as M.C. Jain and in the complaint his name is mentioned as H.C. Jain however accused did not deny that H.C. Jain is not the accused. In all there 12 flats in the said apartment and there is Celestail Abode building owners welfare association and a representation was made by the accused and

Vandana who is the owner of Flat No. 101 to the Municipal Commissioner, MCH, Tank

Bund road, Hyderabad in which it is mentioned that the terrace floor construction is going on for two flats by M/s Sri Krishna Ventures builder permitted by Mr. Vishal Doshi and Madhava Reddy so requested commissioner to take necessary action and it was signed by the accused and another Flat owner.

17.As can be seen from the representation that were made to various departments including Commissioner shows that M.C. Jain the accused is the owner of the flat No. 402 is the Secretary of the Association and he is hesitant cause of their owner welfare association. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that accused is the proper person to be prosecuted. The another contention that was raised by the learned counsel for accused is that notices were not properly served on the accused and he is not the owner of the building and that there is no need or necessity to comply with deviations as it was made by the builder of the building. A suggestion was made to PW.2 and that he replied that accused is not the builder of that building and he do not know the name of the builder and he do not know how many flats in the said building. PW.2 further admitted in his cross examination that he has no idea about the letter written by apartment association people by stating that builder is making construction of 6th floor to the Commissioner of GHMC dated 22.11.2004 and he is not aware whether any legal notice was sent by the accused to the builder of the apartment

dated 13.04.2004 and the director General of Fire Service, A.P. Hyderabad wrote a

letter to the accused dated 16.03.2008 having received the same accused got issued reply on 28.08.2008 in the said reply accused got mentioned that the pent house was demolished by GHMC authorities however the office of PW.2 did not receive a memorandum of Director General of Fire and Emergency services.

18. PW.3 is the officer who inspected the building as per the directions of Director

General fire and emergency near Sai baba temple, New Bakaram, Hyderabad and submitted detail report to his Director General of Fire and Emergency, Hyderabad.

Ex.P7 is the said report. Perused said report and its contents. Accused present in the court hall is the person violated the rules and he is the Secretary of welfare Association of the subject building and this man was cross examined and he replied that he visited - 7 - the building on 15.11.2006 and he did not know who is the building of the said building and he has no idea about paper publication in which the name of building was published. He knew that accused is one of the flat owners of the building. Nothing is more cross examined the witness who visited the building on 15.11.2006 at the instance of his Director General of Fire and Emergency service.

19. Perused the report that was prepared by PW.3, it shows that there are several deviations. Open spaces required as per Regulations 10 (iii) of M.S.B. R., 1981, specifically mentioned deficiencies so much so for violation of installations and its details were also mentioned. The Director General of Fire services is also given a notice to the accused on 16.03.2006 and the same was acknowledged by the accused.

Nothing is filed to show that a reply was given by M.C. Jain. The prosecution is also filed several copies of paper publications in Eenadu daily news paper, Deccan Chronicle and Hindu daily news paper etc., the same is not denied by the accused and one

Prabhakar Swamy, Assistant Director fire officer, Mahaboob Nagar is nominated to prosecute the building in question by Director General of Fire and Emergency Service,

A.P. Hyderabad. Subsequently on his retirement PW.2 is directed to look after the matter, accordingly he gave his evidence before the Court.

20. Having taken into consideration of facts and circumstances. Deviations that were noted by PW.3 at the time of his inspection which are clearly and categorically mentioned in Ex.P7 report those were not rectified by the accused. It is also contended by learned counsel for accused that Pent house which was constructed on the top of 5th floor was demolished by GHMC authorities for which no proof is produced.

21. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that evidence of PW. 1 to 3 coupled with documents which are marked under Exs.P1 to P7 positively established that the accused violated the fire safety measures and also did not obtain no objection certificate and also did not follow rules that were envisaged under A.P. Fire and emergency operations and levy of fee rules, 2006, hence accused is found guilty for the offence that were alleged against the accused and prosecution is able to establish offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

22.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence 13, 19 and 22 of

A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999 and he is further found guilty for the rules 15 and 26 (2) of

A.P. fire and emergency operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006 and Multi storeyed building regulations, 1981 etc., and he is therefore convicted under section 255 (2)

Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 13, 19 - 8 - and 22 punishable under section 31 of A.P. fire service Act, 1999 and accused further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the violation of Rule 15 and 26 (2) of A.P. fire and Emergency operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006 in default of payment of fine the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each. Total fine amount is Rs. 20,000/-.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 16th day of September, 2015.

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: PW.1 : C. Laxmi Prasad

PW.2 : A. Yagna Narayana

PW.3: M. Bhupal Reddy

For Defence: Nil

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1- proceeding of the Director General of State Disaster Response and Fire

Services dated 31.10.2013

Ex.P2 - News paper notification published in Enadu daily news paper dated 07.06.2006.

Ex.P3 - News paper notification published in Deccan Chronical dated 07.02.2007.

Ex.P4 - News paper notification published in Hindu daily news paper dated 26.05.2006.

Ex.P5 - General Notice published in Deccan Chronical dated 27.09.2006.

Ex.P6 - Prosecution sanction order of Director General of Fire and Emergency Service

dated 01.12.2007.

Ex.P7 – Report of PW.3 dated 15.11.2006

For DEFENCE :

Nil NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri G. Srinivasulu, XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 21st day of September, 2015

CC No. 230 of 2008

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad P.S., Hyderabad …. Complainant

And

A1. Mohd. Khaleel, S/o: Late Mohd. Khaja Age: 22 years, Occ: Hotel Worker R/o: Back side of Nallakunta PS Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad

A2. Mohd. Yousuf Khan, S/o: Late Mohd Ghouse Khan, Age: 19 years, Occ: Radium polish work, R/o: H.No. 17-1-182/5/89/1, Banongar, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad …. Accused

This case is coming before me today, in the presence of learned APP appearing for State and of Sri. Md. Rafathullah, Advocate for accused No.1 and of Sri. Pander Ram, Advocate for A2 and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 457 and 380 of

IPC.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:

That on 16.12.2007 at 16.00 hours the complainant – D. Narayana Doba lodged a report stating that on 13.12.2007 he along with his family members went to Tirupahti by locking their house and on 15.12.2007 his house owner informed through telephone that his house lock was broken and theft occurred in his house, on that on 16.12.2007 he returned to Hyderabad and found his gold and silver articles were missing from his house and he suspected some unknown persons have committed theft in his house and requested to take necessary action.

- 2 - Having received report by LW.13- M. A. Sattar, Sub-Inspector of police,

Musheerabad PS registered a case in Cr.No. 385/2007 under section 457 and 380 of

IPC and taken up investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, the

Sub-Inspector of police examined and recorded statements of LWs.1 to 3 namely D.

Narayana Doba, Smt. Suman, and B. Balakrishna. Visited scene of offence and conducted scene of observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of two mediators namely LWs.4 and 5 A. Narasimha and N.R. Surender Goud.

While so on 30.01.2008 at about 10.30 AM, accused were apprehended by

Langer house police at Jewellery shop near Prathap theatre, Langer House on suspicious circumstances, and brought to Police station and on interrogation accused admitted their involvement in the present case and that confession panchanama of accused was recorded in the presence of LWs. 5 and 6 namely N.R. Surender Goud and S. Venkataiah in which he stated that gold ear tops with martins and one gold necklace and two gold rings were sold to LW.7- Santosh Ranga Rao @ Ghosla @

Pentaiah for Rs. 13,000/- and remaining articles were sold to road passers at

Falaknuma. At the instance of accused the above said articles were seized from the possession of received under separate seizure panchanama and the accused were arrested, send to Court for remand. On completion of investigation filed charge sheet

before Court.

3. On perusal of the record, took the case into cognizance for the under section 411 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.PC, and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C., explained the accusation in their vernacular language, for the offence under section 457, 380 of IPC, accused denied the same, then, charge under section 411 of

IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents and M.Os.1 to 4 are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating material against the accused, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record - 3 -

7. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

8. PW.1 has deposed before court that he is the complainant in this case. his evidence goes to show that on 13.12.2007 he along with his family members went to

Tirupathi. While so, on 15.12.2007 at about 6 or 7 AM he received phone call from his house owner on that he telephoned to his friend Narasimha who is practicing as

Advocate at Hyderabad to go and verify the house of PW.1, accordingly his friend visited the house of PW.1 and informed that there is theft in the house, on that PW.1 returned to home on 16.12.2007 and noticed that the house hold articles are in pelmel condition and on verification he lost some gold and silver articles besides cash of Rs.

4,150/- on that he gave report to the police. Ex.P1 is his report.

9.PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. her evidence is almost all identical with the evidence of PW.1 and she further stated that they returned to Hyderabad on 16.12.2007 verified articles and found one gold necklace with ear tops and one pair of ear tops with maties, six gold finger rinds, one nose stud, three gold chains, seven paris of silver anklets, 10 paris of toe rings, one silver vaddanam and six silver glasses, two small bowls, two silver idols besides cash of Rs. 4,150/- were lost. Her husband gave report to the police. subsequently police recovered M.O.1- gold necklace, M.O.2- ear tops with maties, M.O.3- one gold ring, M.O.4- another gold ring.

10.PW.3 is the owner of the building. His evidence goes to show that on 13.12.2007 PW.1 and 2 went to Tirupathi by locking the house, then he noticed on the next day morning that there was a theft in the house of PW.1 and 2. He passed in the information. Later friend of PW.1 came to the house and verified and on the same day night PW.1 and 2 returned to the house and verified articles lost.

11.PW.4 is the panch witness for observation of scene of offence. His evidence goes to show that he do not know anything about the case. he did not sign on any document. since the witness did not support the case of prosecution, hence his evidence was treated as hostile.

12.PW.5 is the friend of PW.1 who is practicing Advocate at Hyderabad. While so on 16.12.2007 PW.1 telephoned to him from Tirupathi and informed that there was - 4 - theft in his house, asked him to go to his house for verification. Immediately, he went to the house of PW.1 and noticed that house locks were opened the house hold articles were in pelmel condition and he further noticed that almirah doors were opened the boxes in which gold ornaments are kept opened. Then he telephoned to Musheerabad

Police Station, police came there and taken finger prints etc., and prepared observation report and rough sketch on which he signed.

13.PW.6 is the Sub-Inspector of police, Musheerabad Police Station. That on 16.12.2007 at 18.00 hours PW.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 report and he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No. 385/2007 under section 457, 380 of IPC and submitted Ex.P3 FIR to the court. then visited scene of offence situated at MCH Colony, in the house of PW.1, there he examined PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements.

Prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence. Ex.P4 is rough sketch. Meantime he received information that Langer House police arrested A1 and A2 in connection with

Cr.No. 27/2008 under section 380 of IPC. he obtained certified copy of confession cum seizure panchanama dated 30.01.2008 at about 11 AM. Ex.P5 is seizure panchanama of A1, Ex.P6 is confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 dated 30.01.2008 at 12.45

AM. Ex.P7 is the seizure panchanama dated 30.01.2008 at 2000 hours. On completion of investigation filed charged sheet and also filed requisition to issue P.T. warrants.

Subsequently accused were brought on P.T. warrant and remanded to judicial custody.

14.According to the case of prosecution, in the absence of PWs.1 and 2 at home there was a theft in the house of PW.1 the same was noticed by PW.3, house owner and he informed the same to PW.1 in turn PW.1 telephoned to his friend PW.5 to go to his house and know truth or otherwise about the information passed on by PW.3 later PW.5 visited the house and informed that there was theft in his house later PW.1 returned to home and he gave report to police and the Langer House police arrested accused and seized property.

15.Prosecution examined mediators namely PWs.4 and 5 for observation of the scene of offence. There is no dispute with regard to offence taken place in the house of

PWs.1 and 2 in their absence. There is no direct evidence to the occurrence. The charge that was framed against the accused under section 411 of IPC. It is for the prosecution to establish that while the accused were in possession of stolen property knowingly or having reason to believe the same to the stolen property. In fact there is no iota of evidence on record that the accused while they were in possession of stolen property they were apprehended in the presence of eye witnesses and the same was - 5 - recovered from the conscious possession of accused. LW.12 – Zaffer Mahmood, S.I of police, Langer House PS was the person who apprehended A1 and 2 with the assistance of his staff and recovered property from the possession of both the accused.

Prosecutor had given up evidence of Sub-Inspector of police who apprehended the accused and also persons who assisted in recovery of property. However, prosecutor had given up evidence of both mediators.

16.On my marshalling facts and circumstances, there is no direct evidence on record to connect that the accused are the persons who committed offence and while they were in possession of stolen property they were apprehended in the presence of mediators and recovered property. In the given circumstances, it can be said that prosecution has miserably failed to establish charge under section 411 of IPC against the accused and that the accused are entitle for acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused No. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 411 of IPC, they are, therefore acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. A1 is in jail and he shall set at liberty forth with if he is not required in any other case or cases.

The bail bonds of the accused No.2 shall stand cancelled after six (6) months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Property namely M.Os.1 to 4 were already returned to complainant towards interim custody and there is no rival claim over the property as such complainant is directed to retain the same absolutely after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 21st day of September, 2015.

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 : Narayana Doba, Complainant

PW.2: Suman Doba, wife of complainant

PW.3: G. Bala Krishna

PW.4: Surender Goud.

PW.5: A. Narasimha, friend of PW.1

PW.6: M.A. Sattar, Investigating Officer - 6 -

For Defence: Nil

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Report

Ex.P2- Signature of PW.5 on rough sketch

Ex.P3 – Original FIR

Ex.P4- Rough Sketch

Ex.P5 - seizure panchanama of A1

Ex.P6 - confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 dated 30.01.2008 at 12.45 AM.

Ex.P7 - seizure panchanama dated 30.01.2008 at 2000 hours

For DEFENCE :

Nil NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1- Gold necklace, M.O.2- Ear tops with maties, M.O.3- One gold ring M.O.4- another gold ring

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri G. Srinivasulu, XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 21st day of September, 2015

CC No. 279 of 2014

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad P.S., Hyderabad …. Complainant

And

A1. K. Nagaraju, PC 8138 of Musheerbad PS, Hyderabad

A2. M. Sandeep, PC 5396 of Musheerabad PS Hyderabad …. Accused

This case is coming before me today, in the presence of learned APP appearing for State and of Ch. Padma, Advocate for accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:

That on 23.02.2014 at about 03.30 hours complainant – Syed Moqtar Hussain lodged a complaint alleging that he along with Syed.Ilham Hussain, Md. Rizwan

Qureshi, Md. Taher, Md. Shaker, Md. Irfan and local leaders Mr. Kushal and Mr. Yadagiri came to police station Musheerabad for compromise of other dispute of their local area, as the matter has been settled before Inspector while they were going away both the accused and three others came on bike in drunken condition and unnecessarily beaten

Sd. Ilham Hussain in the presence of public, hence the report.

Having received report by LW.8- Md. Haseebullah, Detective Inspector of police,

Musheerabad PS registered a case in Cr.No. 54/2014 under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and handed over case file to LW.9- Sk. Osman Basha, Sub-Inspector of police. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police examined LWs.1 and 2 namely

Syed Moqtar Hussain and Syed Ilham Hussain and recorded their statements and also - 2 - examined LWs. 3 to 6 namely Mohd. Rizwan Quaraishi, Y. Yadagiir, Md. Taheer and

Kushal Kumar and recorded their statements.

That on 22.02.2014, A1 and A2 surrendered before court, later released on bail.

The investigation reveals that on 22.02.2014 at about 3 PM some quarrel was took place between two parties in that connection petty case was registered in Cr.No.

1164/2014 and 1165/2014 under section 70 (B) CP Act and 323 IPC. LWs.1 to 6 namely

Syed Moqtar Hussain, Syed Ilham Hussain, Mohd. Rizwan Quaraishi, Y. Yadagiir, Md.

Taheer and Kushal Kumar who were elders and local leaders of that colony came to police station and discussed matter and on 23.02.2014 at about 2.30 hours while they were standing infront of police station in order to go to their house meantime A1 and A2 came in civil dress on motorcycle, asked them as why they were standing infront of police station in that connection some discussion ensured and A1 and A2 assaulted

LW.1- Syed Moqtar Hussain and beat with hands and torn his shirt and that injured was taken to Gandhi hospital for treatment and doctor opined that injuries are simple in nature and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3. On perusal of the record, took the case into cognizance for the under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.PC, and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C., explained the accusation in their vernacular language, for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, accused denied the same, then, a charge under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P3 and P2 documents. Since there no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witness, hence examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record

7. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT - 3 -

8. According to the case of prosecution, the incident that was occurred on 23.02.2014 at 02.30 hours while injured and others were discussing infornt of police station, A1 and A2 came on motorcycle, questioned complainant and another as why there are standing infront of police station and picked up quarrel, assaulted and caused injuries but whereas evidence of PW.1 before court is that, PW.1 is a TDP leader and he know LWs. 2 to 6 namely Syed Ilham Hussain, Mohd. Rizwan Quaraishi, Y. Yadagiir,

Md. Taheer and Kushal Kumar. He do not know both that accused. Nearly 1 ½ years back at 2.30 AM there was a galata between one Hindu and one Muslim in that connection he went to police station to give solvency to the boys taken to police station.

After given solvency he came out of police station along with two boys. There are nearly 15 to 20 people outside the police station attacked Syed Ilham Hussain and caused injuries on his left side ribs. He gave report to the police and he was examined by police later injured was taken to Gandhi hospital for treatment. since witness did not support the case of prosecution, hence his evidence was treated as hostile.

9.PW.2 – Syed Ilham Hussain who is the injured in this case. His evidence goes to show that he know PW.1 and he do not know the accused. On 23.02.2014 at 2.30 AM he went to Musheerabad Police Station along with 15 others and the earlier disputes were settled in police station. When he was getting down the police station, police constables attacked him with hands on his ribs and caused injuries. PW.1 gave report to the police, he was sent to Gandhi hospital for treatment and he was not examined by police. since this witness did not support the case of prosecution, hence his evidence was treated as hostile by learned APP and with permission of court he was cross examined. Inspite of much effort made by learned APP nothing is elicited to prove the case or prosecution. The learned APP had given up evidence of LWs.3 to 10 namely

Mohd. Rizwan Quaraishi, Y. Yadagiir, Md. Taheer, Kushal Kumar, Dr.Laxmikanth, Md.

Haseebullah, Sk.Osman Basha and G. Rama Krishna. As there is no incriminating material against the accused, hence examination of the accused under section 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with. As it is already stated supra the specific case of prosecution is that A1 and A2 who are working as Police Constables in Musheerabad Police Station attacked PW.2 infront of police station on 23.02.2014 at about 2.30 PM and caused injuries. However PW.1 and 2 categorically deposed before court that A1 and A2 are not the persons assaulted PW.2 and caused injuries. Perused report which is marked under

Ex.P1 therein it is categorically mentioned that A1 and A2 are the persons who assaulted PW.2 and caused injuries, their names were also mentioned. Admittedly PW.1 is the person who gave report to the police and he deposed before court that he do not know the accused and the person who assaulted PW.2 was not present in court hall.

- 4 -

10.Having taken into consideration of evidence on record, I am of the opinion that there is no material against the accused to prove charge under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. hence accused are entitle for acquittal.

11. In the result, the accused No. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, they are, therefore acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six (6) months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 21st day of September, 2015.

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 : Syed Muqtar Hussain, Complainant

PW.2: Syed Ilham Hussain, Injured

For Defence: Nil

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Report

Ex.P2- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 - 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

For DEFENCE :

Nil NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri G. Srinivasulu, XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

CC No. 438 of 2014

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Golconda P.S., Hyderabad …. Complainant

And

Jabbar Khan, S/o: Dawood Khan, Age: 49 years, Occ: Videographer, R/o: H.N o. 9-10-223/A, Katora House, Golconda, Hyderabad…. Accused

This case is coming before me today, in the presence of learned APP appearing for State and of Sri.J. Shankar, Advocate for accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Station House Officer, Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 324 of IPC.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:

That on 14.05.2014 at about 14.00 hours LW.1- Abdul Khadeer came to police station and orally reported that the accused assaulted him with a crow bar and beat him on his back side due to petty quarrel. Police made GD entry and send him to Area hospital, Golconda for treatment and injured was treated by LW.4 –Dr. V. Dhananjay as outpatient and after treatment complainant gave his report to police stating that on 14.05.2014 at 10.30 hours accused digging a land infront of his neighbourhood house, which causes damage to the drainage line of complainant and when the complainant raised objection, accused abused him in filthy language and beat him with crow bar and request to take necessary action.

Basing on the report of complainant, a case in Cr.No. 221/2014 under section 324 of IPC was registered by police and investigation taken by LW.6- D. Jagadeshwar

Rao, Sub-Inspector of police.

- 2 - During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police visited scene of offence and it is situated at Devdasspura, Katora House, Golconda, Hyderabad and examined LWs.1 to 3 namely Abdul Khadeer, Abdul Khader and Abdul Rahaman and recorded their statements. On 15.05.2015 at about 9 AM accused himself surrendered

before the Sub-Inspector of police and voluntarily admitted his guilt for committing this

offence and stated that the crow bar which was used by him in commission of offence belongs to labour, and the labour taken away the same and that the same cannot be recovered. On the same day accused was send to Court for remand. On completion of investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3. On perusal of the record, took the case into cognizance for the under section 324 of IPC against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.PC, and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C., explained the accusation in his vernacular language, for the offence under section 324 of IPC, accused denied the same, then, charge under section 324 of IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 documents. Since there no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witness, hence examination of the accused under section 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record

7. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

8. PW.1 has deposed before Court that he is studying final year Engineering. LW.2-

Abdul Khader is his father. He do not know the accused. There is a drainage pipe line infront of his house and causing inconvenience to them, on that his father filed a civil suit against third party, after filing suit, drainage pipe line was shifted to another lane, as such the suit was decided.

- 3 -

9. While so, on 14.05.2014 at about 10.30 AM nearly 30 people came upon his house and entered into wordy duel with his father, somebody out of mob, assaulted on the back of PW.1 and caused injury, then he along with his father went to Golconda

Police Station and reported the matter to the police. Ex.P1 is his report. Police send them to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. since the witness did not support the case of prosecution, hence the learned APP had given up evidence of LWs.2 to 6 namely Abdul Khader, Abdul Rahaman, Dr. V. Dhananjay,P. Gopal Rao and D.

Jagadeeshwar Rao. In fact, present case is counter blast to CC 496/2014. In both the cases, witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, and that the learned APP put a suggestion that since the matter settle out of court, as such complainant did not support the case of prosecution.

10. According to the case of prosecution, on 14.05.2014 at 23.30 hours PW.1 lodged a report by saying that accused abused his father in filthy language infront of his neighbourhood house, and he was digging a land causing damage to drainage line on that PW.1 raised objection, then accused beat him with crow bar and caused injury on the spine of PW.1. but whereas PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution and he was turned hostile.

11. On my marshalling fact and circumstances, I do not find any material against the accused to prove charge under section 324 of IPC. Obviously it is the reason that, as the PW.1 who is the material witness did not up sport the case of prosecution, then the learned APP given up the evidence of other witnesses i.e LWs. 2 to 6 namely Abdul

Khader, Abdul Rahaman, Dr. V. Dhananjay,P. Gopal Rao and D. Jagadeeshwar Rao. On my perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no material to establish charge against the accused, as such accused is entitle for acquittal.

12. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC, he is, therefore acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six (6) months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 8th day of September, 2015.

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

- 4 -

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 :Abdul Khadeer, Complainant

For Defence:

Nil

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Report

Ex.P2- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

For DEFENCE :

Nil NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri G. Srinivasulu, XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

CC No. 496 of 2014

Between:

The State, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Golconda P.S., Hyderabad …. Complainant

And

Abdul Qudeer, S/o: Abdul Khader, Age: 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o: H.N o. 9-10-249, Risala Bazar, Golconda, Hyderabad…. Accused

This case is coming before me today, in the presence of learned APP appearing for State and of Sri.J. Shankar, Advocate for accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Station House Officer, Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 324 of IPC.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:

That on 14.05.2014 at about 14.00 hours LW.1- Jabbar Khan came to police station and orally reported that the accused assaulted him with hand and beat him with nickel duster and caused bleeding injury on his mouth due to petty quarrel. On that

Police made GD entry and send him to Area hospital, Golconda for treatment and injured was treated by LW.4 –Dr. Dr. Mujaid as outpatient and after treatment complainant gave his report to police on 14.05.2014 at 20.30 hours his nephew by name Ibrahim Khan repairing a house bearing H.No. 9-10-426/2/32, Katora House,

Goldconda Fort, meanwhile accused who is residing in the same locality came there and started quarreled with them to stop the work and when they tried to explain, the accused grew wild, abused them in filthy language and assaulted complainant with nickel punch (duster), due to which he received injury on his mouth and request to take necessary action.

- 2 - Basing on the report of complainant, a case in Cr.No. 220/2014 under section 324 of IPC was registered by police and investigation taken by LW.6- D. Jagadeshwar

Rao, Sub-Inspector of police.

During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police visited scene of offence and it is situated at Katora House, Golconda, Hyderabad and examined LWs.1 to 3 namely Jabbar Khan, Ibrahim Khan and Saleem Khan and recorded their statements. On 15.05.2015 accused himself surrendered before the Sub-Inspector of police and voluntarily admitted his guilt for committing this offence and stated that the nickel duster which was used by him in commission of offence was thrown in the bushes. On the same day accused was send to Court for remand. On completion of investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3. On perusal of the record, took the case into cognizance for the under section 324 of IPC against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

4. On the appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.PC, and examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C., explained the accusation in his vernacular language, for the offence under section 324 of IPC, accused denied the same, then, charge under section 324 of IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 documents. Since there no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witness, hence examination of the accused under section 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record

7. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

8. PW.1 has deposed before court that he know LW.2- Ibrahim Khan and LW.3-

Saleem Khan and he do not know the accused. In the year, 2014 at 9 or 9.30 AM while he was going from his house while so 30 to 40 people came upon him out of them one person assaulted him and caused injuries on his mouth. He sustained bleeding injury, - 3 - then his relatives took him to Golconda police station, there he gave Ex.P1 report. Since witness did not support the case of prosecution, hence learned APP treated the evidence of PW.1 as hostile. In view of hostile evidence of PW.1, learned APP had given up evidence of LWs.2 to 6 namely Ibrahim Khan, Saleem Khan, Dr. Mujaid, P.

Gopal Rao and D. Jagdeeshwar Rao.

9.According to the case of prosecution, on 14.05.2014 at 10.30 AM the nephew of complainant by name Ibrahim repairing house at Katora house while so,

M.A. Queer who is residing in their locality came there, picked up quarrel and beat him with nickel punch (Duster), as a result PW.1 sustained bleeding injury on his mouth.

10.The same is not spoken by PW.1 before the Court on oath. Obviously it is the reason that both the parties were settled the matter out of court when the matter ripe for trial, in fact there are case and counter case against each of them, that might be the reason that PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution.

11.On my perusal of evidence on record, I do not find any material to prove charge under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused, as such accused is entitle for acquittal.

12. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of

IPC, he is, therefore acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six (6) months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 8th day of September, 2015.

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 : Jabbar Khan, Complainant

For Defence:

Nil - 4 -

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Report

Ex.P2- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

For DEFENCE :

Nil NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.