Smt G. Swarna Latha

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri L.Sridhar, B.Sc., B.L.,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (FAC)Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Visakhapatnam.

MONDAY, THE 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2013

C.C.No.755/2009

This case coming oni 12.04.209 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P.Gr.II for the complainant and of Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate appointed under legal aid scheme to defend the accused, the same having stood over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. The serial No. of the case:CC 755/2009 b. The date of commission of offence:01.06.2008 c. Name of the complainant:State represented by the Inspec- tor of Police, Harbour Police

Station, Visakhapatnam

Cr.No.42/08 d. Name of the accused:

di. Guttikonda Srinivasarao, @ Butan Srinu, S/o.Late Subramanyam, aged 48 years, Telaga by caste, R/o.D.No.39-40-15, Chakaligedda, Visakhapatnam city.

dii.Botcha Appalanaidu, S/o.Late Tatabbaid, aged 39 years, Yadava, D.No.39- 60-35, rest as above.

diii.Vepada Simhachalam @ Ayya, S/o.Gangaraju, (died) div.Madeti Yesukumar, S/o.late Ramulu, aged 44 years.

dv.Surisetti Durga @ Durga Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, aged 19 years.

dvi.Nidadhana Bheemaraju @ Bheema, S/o.Pydiraju, aged 27 years.

dvii.Nidadhana Ramana, S/o.Pydiraju, aged 36 years dviii.Balaraju Anil Kumar Raju, S/o.Seetharamaraju, aed 29 years.

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 2

dix.Karri Pydiraju, S/o.Apparao, aged 25 years.

dx.Komatiilli Kanakaraju @ Kandipalli Kanakaraju, S/o.Appanna.

dxi.Sili Polaraju @ Sirli Polaraju, S/o.Late Ramulu, aged 28 years.

dxii.Vayyati Raju, S/o.Apparao, aged 48 years.

dxiii.Madavarau Sekhar @ Madavarapu Sankar, S/o.Late Damodara Rao, aged 38 years.

dxiv.Gunji Ganesh, S/o.Late Ramana, aged 19 years.

dxv.Yanamandula Appalaraju, S/o.Babji, aged 20 years.

dxvi.Nidadana Arun @ Nidadhana Arun Kumar, S/o.Pydiraju, aged 24 years.

dxvii.Petala Yesu @ Uppara Yesu, S/o.Hanumanthu, aged 19 years.

dxviii.Yenamodla Majji @ Yenmodula Majji Raju, S/o.Babji.

dxix.Jonnapilli Meeraswamy, S/o.late Simhachalam, aged 45 years, Dayananda nagar, Chakaligedda, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

e. The offences complained of or proved: U/s.411 IPC f. The plea of accused and his examination if any:Total denial.

g. The final order:

I.The above case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city in Cr.No.42/2008, for the offence u/s.379 or 411 IPC, against the accused.

II. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

It is a case relating to theft of diesel from Bottle Tanker Patrol Navigation Tankers, at the relevant time. On 01.06.2008 at about 9.45 p.m. When PW1, PW3 and other police personnel of CISF Unit, Port Trust, Visahkapatnam were on patrolling from Elephant Gate to Y-junction outside Port limits, noticed that loaded BTPN Tankers (48 in number) were stopped at Y-junction in front of Private Petrol Bunk by the driver of the Port Railway Loco. On suspicion, they immediately rushed there and noticed that some miscreants were filling the jerry cans with patrol/diesel by using the plastic hose-pipes after tampering the seals and removing

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 3

the tanker caps from other side of the railway line. On seeing the squad, the miscreants could manage to escape by taking advantage of darkness and bushes. On searching the Railway Line area, they noticed and recovered 70 Nos. of Jerry Cans (35 litres capacity) filled with petrol/diesel, 128 Nos. of empty jerry cans (35 litres capacity) and 5 Nos. of plastic hose-pipes (approximately 15 meters length each) at the spot and then they handed over the material at Harbour police station along with Ex.P1 report and requested for legal action.

The same was registered by PW16 as a case in Cr.No.42/2008 u/s.379 IPC and conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, PW 16 arrested A1 to A5 in the presence of mediators and recovered part of stolen property ie., 6 cans of diesel and auto bearing No.A 31 W 3856 in the presence of mediators ie., P.W.4 and P.W.7. Subsequently, on 10.11.2008, P.W.17 arrested A.14 and A.17 at Kancharapalem Bus stop in the presence of Pw5 and PW19 and recorded their confession statements. The same Investigating officer also arrested A6 at Harbour Police Station in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.6 and recorded his confession statement. On 30.12.2008 PW17 also arrested A.13 at Port Arch, Convent junction in the presence of P.W.s 10 and 11 and recorded his confession statement, and also on 12.02.2009 and PW 17 arrested A10, A12, A18 and A.19 at Gnanapuram in the presence of LW14 and P.W.13 under cover of mediators report and recorded their confession statements. On 16.02.2009 P.W.17 arrested A.7, A.8, A.15, A.16 and A.20 at C.W.C.Junction, Visakhapatnam in the presence of Pws 14 and 15 under cover of mediators report and recorded their confession statements and that on 24.02.2009 P.W.17 also arrested A.9 at Kancharapalem Bus stop in the presence of P.W.12 and L.W.17 under the cover of mediators report and recorded his confession statement. Therefore, all the accused were produced before the court and they were sent for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, L.W.22 filed charge sheet for the above offences against all the accused.

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 4

III.The above case is taken on filed for the offences u/s.411 IPC against all the accused.

IV. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On their examination u/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offence u/s.411 IPC, accused denied the offence. Charge u/s.411 IPC is framed, read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried the cased.

V. In support of the case of prosecution, they examined PW1 to PW17 and marked Ex.P1 to P14 and Mos 1 to 3 on their behalf.

VI. After closure of the trial, A1, A2, A4 to A20 are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material made against them and they reported no defence evidence.

VII.Heard arguments on both sides.

VIII.Now the point that arises for determination is: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of A1, A2, A4 to A20 for the offence u/s.411 IPC?

IX. The learned A.P.P has argued that though the independent mediators became hostile, he relied upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer, which could establish the guilt of all the accused and therefore, they are liable for conviction.

X. The learned defence counsel has argued that all the accused are falsely implicated in this case and therefore, there is no support from any of the independent mediators and hence they are entitled for clean acquittal.

XI. This is a case relating to theft of diesel from B T P N Tankers. The above incident took place on 01.06.2008 at 9.45PM by which time, PW1 along with other colleague C I S F constables of Port Trust, Visakhapatnam were on duty at that place and found B T P N Tankers at the petrol bunk at Y – junction and after reaching there, they found caps of the two tankers were opened and also found fixing of pipes for each tank to draw the content

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 5

from that tankers into the plastic cans. Then they came near that spot and found 83 cans filed with oil, 120 empty cans in the bushes. According to P.W.1, their Higher authorities gave report.

XII.P.W.2 is another CISF constable who accompanied P W 1 at that time and also supported the version of P W 1 on the same lines about the seizure of 83 cans filled with oil and 120 empty cans. P W 3 is another colleague CISF constable of Pws 1 and 2 and he also corroborated the evidence of Pws 1 and 2. According to P W 3, they found 4 or 5 persons were taking petrol from the tankers with the aid of hose pipes by removingi seals of the tankers, but they could not see the above people due to darkness. It is also his evidence that they found 70 cans filled with oil and 128 empty cans and 5 hose-pipes.

XIII.Therefore, the above evidence of Pws 1 to 3 who are the eye witnesses supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the finding the above cans out of which 128 cans are empty 83 cans filled with oil, besides five hose-pipes and the same are marked as Mos 1 to 3.

XIV.The prosecution also examined the Investigating Officers as Pws 16 and 17 who said to have arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazar by recording the confession statements. According to the evidence of PW 16, he arrested A1 to A5 on 09.06.2008 at Yenugula Railway Gate and seized 6 cans diesel, each containing 35 litres, under cover of Ex.P15 mahazar. PW 17 the then Inspector of Police who arrested the other accused on different dates in the presence of mediators and recorded their confession statements. PW 17 has admitted

before the court at the time of cross examination that they did not seize

anything from all the accused. But coming to the other witnesses who are the mediators, in whose presence the above accused were alleged to have been arrested, have not supported the case of the prosecution.

XV.Though the prosecution examined the mediators as Pws 4 to 15, all the said witnesses have completely turned hostile without supporting the case

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 6

fo the prosecution except admitting their signatures which are marked as Ex.P1 to P12. The learned A.P.P has cross examined the above mediators but could not elicit any incriminating material. It is also settled law that the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on the ground that it does not have any support from the independent witnesses. It is also settled law that it can be based upon the basis of the sole evidence of the defacto complainant, if it is free from any doubt. In this case, though all the mediators have not supported the case of the prosecution, but we have to verify the other material whether it is free from doubt before basing upon the same.

XVI.Pws 1 to 3 are the CISF constables who said to have present at the time of alleged incident and also at the time of seizure of the case property. They did not arrest any of the persons at that time. According to their evidence, nothing was seized from any of the persons and undisputedly they found Mos 1 to 3 at the place of incident and therefore, they have handed over the same before the Harbour Police. It also appears that the prosecution failed to exhibit the main complaint which set the law into motion. According to prosecution, L.W.1 P.Siddaraju, S/o.late Palanichami Setty, Inspector/Exe.No.9224480126, CISF Unit, Prt Trust, Visakhapatnam has given the report while handling over the case property, but he is not examined before the court and therefore, there is no report before the court.

XVII.At the same time, the evidence of Investigating officers ie., Pws 16 and 17 has no support from any other witnesses with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizure of the case property. The witnesses ie., Pws 1 to 3 are not clear before the court with regard to the particulars of the case property. It is also not made clear before the court as to the details of the contents of the above cans, whether it is petrol or diesel or any other lubricant. Therefore, in the absence of any such material before the court, it is not safe to base conviction on the accused as the prosecution

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 7

has completely failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

XVIII.In the result, I find A1, A2, A4 to A20 are not guilty for the charge u/s.411 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.411 IPC. A6 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds of other accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

XIX.Mos 1 to 3 are ordered to be confiscated to State after the appeal time is over.

XX.Date of such final order: 15.04.2013.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

I Addl. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

(FAC) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused : PW.1Gangaram Sahu None PW2S.Pamman Selvan PW3V.B.Dasan PW4V.Narasingarao PW5Y.Srinivasarao PW6T.Venkateswara Rao PW7S.Shanmukha Rao PW8 M.Eswara Appala Raju PW9 Y.Mani PW10D.Pydiraju

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 8

PW11 Y.Kanaka Raju PW12 K.Raminaidu PW13V.Narasinga Rao PW14 V.Narayana PW15R.Sanyasi Naidu PW16Y.V.Naidu PW17 K.Ranga Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 to P12Signatures of Pws 4 to 15 on mediators report Ex.P13FIR in Cr.No.42/2008 of Harbour P.S Ex.P14Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P15Mediators report dt.09.06.2008 Ex.P16Part of mediators report dt.10.11.2008

For Accused :Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : MO1 128 NO. Of Jerry (Empty) cans (each 35 liters capacity) -NIL- MO2 70 Nos. Of jerry can (35 liters capacity) filled with petrol/diesel MO35 Nos. Of plastic Hose pipes (apprx. 15 meters length each)

I ACMM/VSP (FAC) C M M/VSP

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 9

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.755/2009

Date of Offence01.06.2008 Date of Filing25.09.2009 Date of Appearance15.10.2009 Date of Release on bailA6 in custody Date of Commencement of trial07.04.2010 Date of Close of trial12.04.2013 Date of Sentence/Order15.04.2013 Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant. No witness is detained in court and Remarksbeyond three days.

C.C.No 755/2009 in Cr.No.42/2008 of Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused, parentage, age, Residence i.Guttikonda Srinivasarao, @ Butan Srinu, particularsS/o.Late Subramanyam, aged 48 years, Telaga by caste, R/o.D.No.39-40-15, Chakaligedda, Visakhapatnam city. ii.Botcha Appalanaidu, S/o.Late Tatabbaid, aged 39 years, Yadava, D.No.39-60-35, rest as above. iii.Vepada Simhachalam @ Ayya, S/o.Gangaraju, (died) iv.Madeti Yesukumar, S/o.late Ramulu, aged 44 years. v.Surisetti Durga @ Durga Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, aged 19 years. vi.Nidadhana Bheemaraju @ Bheema, S/o.Pydiraju, aged 27 years. vii. Nidadhana Ramana, S/o.Pydiraju, aged 36 years viii. Balaraju Anil Kumar Raju, S/o.Seetharamaraju, aed 29 years. ix.Karri Pydiraju, S/o.Apparao, aged 25 years. x.Komatiilli Kanakaraju @ Kandipalli

Cc755/2009 – CMM/VSP 10

Kanakaraju, S/o.Appanna. xi.Sili Polaraju @ Sirli Polaraju, S/o.Late Ramulu, aged 28 years. xii. Vayyati Raju, S/o.Apparao, aged 48 years. xiii. Madavarau Sekhar @ Madavarapu Sankar, S/o.Late Damodara Rao, aged 38 years. xiv. Gunji Ganesh, S/o.Late Ramana, aged 19 years. xv. Yanamandula Appalaraju, S/o.Babji, aged 20 years. xvi. Nidadana Arun @ Nidadhana Arun Kumar, S/o.Pydiraju, aged 24 years. xvii. Petala Yesu @ Uppara Yesu, S/o.Hanumanthu, aged 19 years. xviii.Yenamodla Majji @ Yenmodula Majji Raju, S/o.Babji. xix. JonnapilliMeeraswamy,S/o.late Simhachalam, aged 45 years, Dayananda nagar,Chakaligedda,Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. OffenceDishonestly retained or received stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, punishable Under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, I find A1, A2, A4 to A20 are not guilty for the charge u/s.411 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.411 IPC. A6 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds of other accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Mos 1 to 3 are ordered to be confiscated to State after the appeal time is over. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc257/2010 – CMM/VSP 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.G.Swarna Latha, B.A.L.L.B.,

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Visakhapatnam.

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013

C.C.No. 257/2010

State represented by the Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.Complainant..

Maddi Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Ammoru Naidu, aged 23 years, R/o.Dr.No.9-332/1/1, Ramalayam Street, Hanumanthawaka junction, Visakhapatnam. Accused....

This case is coming on 19.03.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P., Counsel for Complainant and of Sri B.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. Sub Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.165/2010 for the offence 363 IPC alleging that accused is auto driver resident of Ramalayam street, Hanumanthawaka junction, Visakhapatnam city. The complainant is mother of victim girl, the accused is residing by the side of complainants house used to tease LW3 for past two years and parents of LW3 gave several warnings filed a complaint against him on 25.12.2008 and PM Palem police station and even after the complaint the accused used to follow lW3 by using trickery words in the name of love and tried to turn her attention towards him for which the complainant and her husband admonished LW3 frequently likewise on 16.04.2010 at 1.00PM the complainant LW1 admonished her daughter LW3 became anger went out bhakta tukaram temple near by their residence the accused came there took her away in his auto witnessed by the second daughter of complainant both went in search in another auto but invain and basing on a complaint a case was registered by LW5 SI investigated into recorded the statements visited the scene of offence arrested the accused on 19.04.2010 sent him to court for remand and on completion of investigation concluded accused committed the offence. Hence the charge.

Cc257/2010 – CMM/VSP 2

2. On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished u/s.207 Cr.P.C and examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges framed u/s.363 of IPC read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 and P2 marked.

4. On closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence available against him for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence.

5.The learned APP has argued the evidence of PW1 to 3 can be taken into consideration the accused committed the offence prayed for conviction.

6.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued there is a delay in reporting the matter prosecution not explained the delay and the evidence of PW1 to 3 cannot be taken into consideration about involvement of accused and no ingredients attracted against accused kidnapping victim girl prayed for acquittal.

7. On considering the arguments advanced by both counsels, the court would like to formulate the following points for determination:

I.Whether there is any delay in reporting the matter is fatal to prosecution case?

II. Whether the evidence of PW1 to 3 can be taken into consideration about role played by the accused which attracts u/s.363 IPC?

III. Whether the accused is liable for punishment?

8.Point 1.: AS seen from Ex.P1 is the complaint given by Aruna on 18.04.2010 that her daughter Lakshmi Sai studying 2nd Intermediate at Mega Junior College the accused Sekhar residing near by her house used to tease her daughter and a complaint given by her daughter on 25.12.2008 against accused even then the accused used to follow her that he was in love with her she warned her daughter several times not to speak to accused and again on 16.04.2010 at 1.00PM she warned her daughter to be careful then her daughter grew angry left the house went to Bhakta tukaram Ramalayam temple then accused came in an auto took her it was seen by her younger daughter informed to her both went in search later informed to Circle Office then reported the matter and PM Palem Police brought her daughter

Cc257/2010 – CMM/VSP 3

handed over to her prayed for taking action. Basing on the said report a case was registered by the concerned police FIR received by the court on 19.04.2010 marked as Ex.P2 through PW5 IO.

9. Coming to the evidence of PW1 she has corroborated the contents of Ex.p1 report further stated as usual she warned her daughter on 16.04.2010 her daughter went to Ramalayam temple at 1.30PM and while daughter crossing the road the accused came in an auto took her daughter forcibly her second daughter witnessed the same and both chased the accused auto but invain, she informed to her husband, they searched in beach and other places they informed to the police given Ex.P1 report and police handed over her daughter to her.

10. PW2 Babu Rao husband of PW1 and father of LW3 victim girl has corroborated the contents of PW1 the earlier incidents took place and came to know about the incident that his daughter taken away by the accused on 16.04.2010 at 1.30PM and he and his wife PW1 came to the police station reported the matter he was examined by the police.

11. PW3 Lakshmi also deposed on 16.04.2010 she went to ramalayam near by house accused came in auto forcibly took her to some other places kept her till evening in house of known person of accused and one Women PC came and took her to the police station and handed over her to her parents who were in police station.

12.Therefore, when we look into Ex.P1 and evidence of PW1 to 3 the offence took place on 16.04.2010 but the complaint was given on 18.04.2010, there was no explanation offered by the prosecution the delay of two days in reporting the matter. Further it is quite evident from Ex.P1 PW1 warned her daughter several times not to speak with accused and to be care ful and even on the date of incident ie., on 16.04.2010 she admonished her daughter PW3 Lakshmi SAi for that her daughter grew angry left the house from there she was taken by the accused. When considering Ex.P1 PW3 voluntarily left the house but coming to the evidence of PW1 she changed the version as if the accused forcibly taken her daughter PW3. PW2 is not eye witness to the incident, he only came to know through his wife PW1, but coming to the evidence of PW3 Lakshmi she was forcibly taken by the accused in an auto. When we look into the cross examination of PW3 she denied the suggestion she did not state to the police accused forcibly taken her in auto and dropped her in

Cc257/2010 – CMM/VSP 4

Hanumanthwaka junction, further admitted the contents in 161(3) Cr.P.C statement are correct and she stated to the police her mother scolded her she left home went to Hanumanthawaka junction accused came there in an auto took her after some time he dropped her at Hanumanthawaka, on the same day of offence she went to police station again on 18.04.2010 she went to police station on the date of Ex.P1.

13.Therefore, when considering the cross examination of PW3 no allegations made against the accused he kidnapped her but stated she went to Hanumanthwaka junction accused came in an auto took her after some time he dropped her at Hanumanthawaka junction on the same day she went to police station and also on 18.04.2010. When PW3 left the house voluntarily after she was admonished by her mother went to Hanumanthawaka junction where the acused has taken her in an auto and after some time she was dropped at Hanumanthawaka junction which does not come into the purview of kidnapping PW3 by accused from lawful custody of her parents. Therefore, the allegations made against the accused by the prosecution the accused kidnapped PW3 is quite unbelievable. Since there is delay of two days in reporting the matter it leads to a conclusion that Ex.P1 has come out with due deliberations and consultations and thereby the prosecution version against accused cannot be accepted.

14.Point NO.3: As discussed in Point NO.1 and 2 prosecution failed to explain the delay in reporting the matter and also failed to establish the ingredients that attracts u/s.363 IPC thereby the accused is not liable for punishment.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.363 IPC and he is acquitted for the same u/s.248.1 Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Personal Assistant typed directly on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of April, 2013..

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc257/2010 – CMM/VSP 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE - WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

PW1/25.01.2011ArunaNone

PW2/25.01.2011Y.Babu Rao

PW3/14.02.2011Y.Lakshmi Sai

PW4/14.02.2011N.Rama Raju

PW5/10.03.2011Md.Sanalluah

PW6/05.03.2013G.R.K.Tulasi Das

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

Ex.P1/25.01.2011Report of PW1 in Cr.No.165/2010 dt.18.04.2010 Nil

Ex.P2/10.03.2011FIR in Cr.NO.165/2010

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

Nil

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc257/2010 – CMM/VSP 6

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.257/2010

Date of Offence16.04.2010 Date of Filing30.06.2010 Date of Appearance09.07.2010 Date of Apprehension19.04.2010 Date of Release on bail19.04.2010 Date of Commencement of trial25.01.2011 Date of Close of trial07.03.2013 Date of Sentence/Order02.04.2013 Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant. No witness is detained in court and Remarksbeyond three days.

C.C.No 257/2010 in Cr.No.165/2010 of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police P Ṁ Ṗalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused, parentage, age, Residence Maddi Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Ammoru particularsNaidu, aged 23 years, R/o.Dr.No.9- 332/1/1,RamalayamStreet, Hanumanthawakajunction, Visakhapatnam.

OffenceUnder Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. FindingFound not guilty. Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.363 IPC and he is acquitted for the same u/s.248.1 Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc147/2010 – CMM/VSP 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.G.Swarna Latha, B.A.L.L.B.,

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Visakhapatnam.

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013

C.C.No.147/2010

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Complainant..

Borra Durga prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana murthy, aged 24 years, Kapu, R/o.D.No.9-9-46, Near Kalabharathi, Pithapuram colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. Accused...

This case is coming on 07.03.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P., Counsel for Complainant and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, counsel for the Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police P.M.Palem police Station filed 1. charge sheet against Accused in Crime 43/2010, for the Offences

U/304-A IPC and 181 of MV Act alleging that accused is driver of

Maruti suzuki car AP 31 T/C AL 0035 working as a sales executive in

Avnash Automobiles P.Ltd., Isukathota and the offence took place at 04.02.2010 at 11.30AM while the deceased pedestrian crossing the NH-5 road from Hanumanthwak towards Kailasagiri park foot steps the accused being driver of the car drove the car in the same direction without having any valid driving licence at high speed in a rash and negligent manner proceeding from Avinash automobiledashed against the pedestrain caused instantaneous death and basing on a report of LW1 B.PRasad a case was registered by LW14 Kondala Rao, investigated into visited the scene of offence prepared rough sketch, examined witnesses, recorded the statements arrested the accused at 10.00AM on 11.02.2010 when he surrendered in the police station and sent him to court for remand conducted inquest in the presence of mediators handed over to hospital for post mortem and given requisition to MVI and

Cc147/2010 – CMM/VSP 2

on completion of investigation collected PM report and MVI report concluded accused committed the offence. Hence the charge.

On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished u/s.207 2. Cr.P.C and accused examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.304-A IPC, denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the Prosecution case, Prosecution examined PW1 3. to PW8 and exhibits P1 to P7 marked.

On closure of prosecution evidence evidence, accused examined 4. examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material evidence against him denied the evidence reported no defence.

The Learned APP has argued the evidence on irecord may be 5. considered about rash and negligent manner on part of the accused driver prayed for conviction.

On the other hand, the learned defence vehemently argued the 6. evidence of PW5 alone cannot be taken into consideration about rash and negligent manner on part of the accused driver prayed for acquittal.

The point arises for determination : 7.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.304-A IPC resulting death of a person?

Point : As seen from Ex.P1 report given by one Prasad 8. dt.04.02.2010 his mother in law went to Hanumanthwaka on work while returning reached Akkayyapalem opposite to Sheepyard crossing the road the vehicle bearing NO.AP 31 T/C AL 0035 driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his mother in law received head injury died on the spot prayed for taking action. Basing on the said report the concerned police have registered the case on the same day of offence and FIR received by the court on 05.02.2010 marked as Ex.P6 through PW8.

Coming to the evidence of complainant Prasad examined as PW1 9. corroborated the contents of his earliest report and on coming to know about the accident they all went to place of occurence foung his mother in

Cc147/2010 – CMM/VSP 3

law's dead body they also found one car and presented a report and the dead body was shifted to K G H on completion of all formalities dead body was handed over to them, Ex.P2 the contents in 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement marked. By going through Ex.P1 report given by PW1 he is not eye witness to the occurence he came to know about the accident and his evidence also he stated he came to know about the accident. Therefore, his evidence can be taken into consideration as a hear say about factum of accident. PW3 Sattibabu husband of deceased Venkatalakshmi has deposed they came to know about the death of Venkatalakshmi.

10.The prosecution examined PW4 and 5 eye witnesses to the occurence. PW4 Yerribabu has not supported to the prosecution case he depsed in the court he didnot know the deceased Varalakshmi and did not know the manner of the accident he was not examined by the Police his 161(3) Cr.P.C statement marked as Ex.P3.

11.Accordfing to the evidence of PW5 Poornachandra Rao he has seen the accused while driving the vehicle at that time he was proceeding from PM Palem from TB hospital in a car before his vehicle a lorry was proceeding accused driver of the car in high speed from right side dashed against one unknown middle aged lady who was crossing the lorry she fell down he did not observe due to fear, he admitted in the cross examination there is no possibility of seeing the car driver proceeding ahead. PW8 is the Sub Inspector Kondalrao has deposed on receiving Ex.P1 report he registered the FIR. Ex.P6 is the FIR he visited scene of offence prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch conducted inquest Ex.P4 in the presence of panchayatdars he also examined other witnesses, he categorically admitted in the cross examination the place of accident is NH – 5 road there is an open place for selling meat on the other side of the road and place of accident is a busy road he didnot secure any witnesses at the scene of offence and he didnot examine any of the witnesses, there is a signal point at a distance of 200mts. from the place of accident and there are no zebra lines the width of the road is 30ft. each on both sides.

Cc147/2010 – CMM/VSP 4

12.Threfore, on considering PW5 only eye witness to the accident has deposed about the accident and when considering the evidence of PW8 there is a signal point at a distance of 200 mts and it is NH-5 road and also there is no zebra lines for the by-passers to cross the road. When it is a national high way out skirts to the Visakhapatnam and we cannot expect a person to drive the vehicle in certain speed. If a vehicle proceeding on a national high way if a person crossed the road it is very difficult to control the vehicles and merely because PW5 has stated that accused drove the in a high speed which admittedly national high way cannot be termed negligence or rash on part of the accused. In the above situation it is not possible for any person to stop the vehicle suddently and every possibility of accident and therefore, basing on the sole testimony of PW5 the prosecution case cannot be accepted aboaut rash and negligent manner on part of the accused driver thereby accused is given acquittal.

13.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.304-AIPC he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1)cr.pc his bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled.

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

by me in the open court, this the 25th day of March, 2013.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE - WITNESSES EXA MINED

For Prosecution : For Accused : PW1/13.07.2010B.PRasadNone PW2/27.07.2010B.Satyavathi PW3/10.05.2011B.Sattibabu PW4/19.03.2012G.Yerribabu PW5/03.07.2012R.Poornachandra Rao PW6/03.07.2012P.Srinivasa Rao PW7/11.09.2012K.Srinivasa RAo PW8/02.01.2013D.KOndala Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : Ex.P1/13.07.2010Report of PW1Nil

Cc147/2010 – CMM/VSP 5

Ex.P2/13.07.2010statement of PW1 Ex.P3/19.03.2012161 statement of PW4 Ex.P4/03.07.2012Inquest report Ex.P5/11.09.2012MVI report Ex.P6/02.01.2013Original FIR Ex.P7/02.01.2013rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : Nil

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc147/2010 – CMM/VSP 6

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.147/2010

Date of Offence04.02.2010

Date of Filing17.04.2010

Date of Appearance06.05.2010

Date of Apprehension11.02.2010

Date of Release on bail11.02.2010

Date of Commencement of trial13.07.2010

Date of Close of trial07.03.2013

Date of Sentence/Order25.03.2013

Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant. No witness and Remarksis detained in court beyond three days.

C.C.No.147/2010 in Cr.No.7432010 of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. ComplainantState represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.M.PalemPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused Borra Durga prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana murthy, aged 24 years, Kapu, R/o.D.No.9- 9-46, Near Kalabharathi, Pithapuram colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

OffenceUnder Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

FindingFound not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 304-A IPC and he is acquitted for the same u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall be cancelled.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.G.Swarna Latha, B.A.L.L.B., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Visakhapatnam. WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 C.C.No.203/2010

Adari Puspa Latha, W/o.Venkata Ramana, D.No.1-3-1, Kotta Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. Complainant..

P.V.Ravinder, S/o.Late Srirama Rao, D.No.16-2-23, Official colony, Maharanipet, Viakhapatnam-2. Accused...

This case is coming on 29.08.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Ramesh Babu, Counsel for Complainant and of Sri N.SAnni Babu, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. This complaint is filed for the offence u/s.138 NI Act alleging that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 09.10.2008 executed a promissory note with an interest 24% per annum for the purpose of clearing sundry debts and domestic expenses and inspite of her request the accused post poned and later issued account payee cheque 278997 dt.05.03.2010 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya

Bank Ltd., Dabagardens branch, Visakhapatnam towards part payment of debt amount she has presented the same in her bank Bank of India, MVP

Colony branch on 18.03.2010 it was returned with an endorsement insufficient funds then got issued legal notice on 31.03.2010 and it was received by the accused not paid any amount and not given any reply notice. Hence she is constrained to file the case.

2.On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished u/s.207

Cr.P.C examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/s.138 NI Act denied the offence claimed to be tried.

3.On behalf of the complainant herself examined as PW1 exhibits P1 to

P5 marked.

4.On closure of complainant side evidence, accused examined u/s.313

Cr.P.C denied the evidence reported no defence.

2

5.Heard arguments on both sides:

6.Now the point for determination:

1.Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against accused for the offence u/s.138 NI Act?

7.Point. 1: According to the evidence of PW1 Pushpalatha the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.10.2008 to clear sundry debts and domestic expenses executed a promissory note with an interest @ 24% per annum on her several requests he got issued account payee cheque 278997 on 05.03.2010 for s.1,50,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank

LTd., Dabagardens, She presented the same in her bank Bank of India,

MVP Colony and the same was returned with an endorsement “insufficient

Funds” and she got issued legal notice on 31.03.2010 received by the accused but not paid amount and mainly relied upon Ex.P1 to P5.

8.As seen from Ex.P1 is the promissory note dt.09.10.2008 for

Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the accused with an interest @ 24% per annum for his family necessities and to clear sundry debts, and Ex.P2 is the cheque issued by the accused on 05.03.2010 for Rs.1,50,000/-, It is account payee cheque which was drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., thereafter, she presented the cheque in her bank Bank of India, which was returned as “Insufficient Funds” evident under Ex.P3 return memo.

9.Therefore, on considering the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Ex.P1, Ex.P1 is the pronote executed by the accused for

Rs.2,00,000/- subsequently issued Ex.P2 cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment which was returned as “Insufficient Funds”. It is pertinent to note PW1 was not cross examined by the defence counsel, and the evidence of PW1 is unchallenged. Therefore, as on the date of issuance of

Ex.P2 cheque there was legal enforceable debt existing evident under

Ex.P1, thereby, arguments advanced by the defence counsel there was no legal enforceable debt is untenable.

3

10.Further it is evident from Ex.P4 office copy of legal notice issued to the accused put forth execution of Ex.P1 pronote and also issuance of cheque towards part payment and returned the cheque by bank authorities with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”, said legal notice received by the accused evident under Ex.P5 acknowledgment. Having received ex.P4 legal notice the accused not even chose to give any reply notice denying the execution of pronote as well as cheque. It is sufficient to conclude that the accused being an employee having executed Ex.P1 pronote and subsequently issued Ex.P2 cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment having known the fact no amount lying in his account is nothing but dishonest intention which attracts the ingredients u/s.138 NI Act.

11.In foregoing reasons and discussion, the complainant has proved her case that accused had executed Ex.P1 pronote and subsequently issued

Ex.P2 cheque which was dishonoured under Ex.P3 memo and she also complied the mandatory provision by issuing legal notice to the accused within stipulated time, thereby accused is liable for punishment. According I answered the point in favour of the complainant.

12.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act and he is convicted for the same u/s.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated directly to Personal Assistant on system and corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, this the 2nd day of April, 2013

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence accused submitted he has two daughters, elder daughter is mentally retarded second daughter marraige has to be performed his wife is suffering with ill health he is going to retire in the month of February 2014 and they have paid an amount of 1,25,000-00 to the complainant prayed for mercy. Learned counsel for accused submitted out of Rs.1,50,000-00 accused paid Rs.1,25,000-00 prayed for lenient view. On considering the submission of the accused and his counsel, court has taken lenient view by sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 in default SI for four months.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE - WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

PW1/24.08.2012A.PushpalathaNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

Ex.P1/24.08.2012Pronote Ex.P2/24.08.2012Cheque dt.05.03.2010 Ex.P3/24.08.2012 Cheque return memo dt.18.03.2010 Ex.P4/24.08.2012o/c copy legal notice dt 31.03.2010 Ex.P5/24.08.2012Ack. dt.10.04.2010

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : Nil

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

5

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.203/2010 Date of Offence05.03.2010

Date of Filing07.05.2010

Date of Appearance16.07.2010

Date of Apprehension

Date of Release on bail

Date of Commencement of trial24.08.2012

Date of Close of trial29.08.2012

Date of Sentence/Order02.04.2013

Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of and Remarkswitnesses by the Complainant. No witness is detained in court beyond three days.

ComplainantAdari Puspa Latha, W/o.Venkata Ramana, D.No.1-3-1, Kotta Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam

Nam of the Accused P.V.Ravinder, S/o.Late Srirama Rao, D.No.16-2- 23, Official colony, Maharanipet, Viakhapatnam- 2.

OffenceUnder Section 138 NI Act

FindingFound guilty.

Sentence In the result, Accused found guilty for the offence u.s.138 NI Act ad he is convicted for the same u.s.255.2 Cr.P.C. When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence accused submitted he has two daughters, elder daughter is mentally retarded second daughter marraige has to be performed his wife is suffering with ill health he is going to retire in the month of February 2014 and they have paid an amount of 1,25,000-00 to the complainant prayed for mercy. Learned counsel for accused submitted out of Rs.1,50,000-00 accused paid Rs.1,25,000-00 prayed for lenient view. On considering the submission of the accused and his counsel, court has taken lenient view by sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 in default SI for four months.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

6 .

Cc128/2011 – CMM/VSP 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.G.Swarna Latha, B.A.L.L.B.,

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Visakhapatnam.

MONDAY, THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2013

C.C.No.128/2011

State represented by the Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Complainant..

1.Varadi Apparao @ Gopi S/o.Late Mallayya, aged 45 years, caste Yadava, Labour commissioner driver, office at Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, R/o.D.No.2.4.15/1, Sector 9, MVP colony, Visakhapatnam.

2.Nammi Venkata Ramana, S/o.Pothuraju, aged 43 years, Yadava, labour, D.No.2.3.10, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. Accused....

This case is coming on 25.03.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P., Counsel for Complainant and of Sri G.Nanaji, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.Sub Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.129/2011 for the offence u/s.324 IPC alleging that A1 and A2 are residents of MVP colony and on 12.04.2011 at 10.00PM was taking soda at kirana shop of LW3 at Jodugullapalem both the accused picked up quarrel with LW1 and A1 picked up a cool drink bottle broke the same tried to stab LW1 and caused injury and also beat him twice on his head caused bleeding injury and the near by persons rescued LW1 basing on a report a case was registered by the concerned police, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded the statements sent the injured to the hospital arrested the accused on 18.04.2011 sent them to court for remand on collecting wound certificate, concluded accused committed the offence. Hence the charge.

2.On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished u/s.207 Cr.P.C and examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges framed u/s. 324 of IPC read

Cc128/2011 – CMM/VSP 2

over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 and Exs.P1 to P3 marked.

4.As the material witness injured PW1 not supported the prosecution case, the learned APP has given up evidence of LW2 to 7.

5.As there is no incriminating evidence against accused examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Though the prosecution alleges the accused on 12.04.2011 attacked with a cool drink bottle at kirana shop, caused injuries to PW1 but PW1 not even staetd anything against accused he deposed in the court about 4 years back while he was taking soda, there was a galata taken place between some other persons he intervened received injuries and he did not observe who caused inuries to him some persons obtained his signature which is marked as Ex.P1 and ex.P2 contents in the report, Ex.P3 cnotents in 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement marked and he denied the suggestion that he received injuries in the hands of accused.

7. Therefore, the injured PW1 did not come forward to speak anything against accused, and he might have compromised the matter with accused. Since the material witness not even staetd anything against accused it cannot be said accused committed the offence thereby accused is entitled to acquittal.

8. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.324 IPC and they are acquitted for the same u/s.248(1) and their bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled.

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

by me in the open court, this the 25th day of March, 2013.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc128/2011 – CMM/VSP 3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE - WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

PW1/25.03.2013M.Pola Rao None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

Ex.P1/25.03.2013Signature on report of PW1 Nil

Ex.P2/25.03.2013contents in report of PW1

Ex.P3/25.03.2013contents in 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Nil For Accused : Nil

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Cc128/2011 – CMM/VSP 4

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.128/2011

Date of Offence12.04.2011 Date of Filing21.08.2011 Date of Appearance29.09.2011 Date of Apprehension18.04.2011 Date of Release on bail18.04.2011 Date of Commencement of trial25.03.2013 Date of Close of trial25.03.2013 Date of Sentence/Order25.03.2013 Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant. No witness is detained in court and Remarksbeyond three days.

C.C.No 128/2011 in Cr.No.129/2011 of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused, parentage, age, 1.Varadi Apparao @ Gopi S/o.Late Mallayya, aged 45 years, caste Yadava, Labour Residence particulars commissioner driver, office at Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, R/o.D.No.2.4.15/1, Sector 9, MVP colony, Visakhapatnam.

2.Nammi Venkata Ramana, S/o.Pothuraju, aged 43 years, Yadava, labour, D.No.2.3.10, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. OffenceUnder Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

FindingFound not guilty.

Sentence In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.324 IPC and they are acquitted for the same u/s.248(1) and their bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/VISAKHAPATNAM.