Sri. G.V Mahesh Nath

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT : Sri. G. V. Mahesh Nath, II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda. Dated this the 16th day of October, 2024

SESSIONS CASE NO. 40 OF 2022

(OLD SESSIONS CASE NO. 196 OF 2018)

(PRC NO. 6/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD, AT L.B.

NAGAR)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S.Nacharam. 2Name and description of the accusedAccused No.1 : Smt.Rathlavath Lalitha W/o.R.Ravi, Age : 42 years, Occ : Labour, R/o.Behind Rajyalaxmi Theatre, Bharath Nagar, Uppal, R.R.District. Accused No.2 : Kethavath Ramulu S/o.Manja, Aged : 36 years, Occ : Mason, R/o.Indira Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Accused No.3 : Mohd.Mahaboob (not committed vide PRC No.6 of 2017)

Accused No.4: Momin S/o.Ali Hussan, aged : 32 years, Occ : cloth selling, R/o.Opp. Masid, L.B.Nagar X Roads, Hyderabad. N/o.Idris Pur Village, Badod Tana & Tq., Baghpath Dist. UP (Split up vide SC No.689 of 2023) Accused No.5 : Palapolam Vijay Kumar @ Vijay S/o.Late Venkatesh, Aged : 25 years, Occ : Plumber, R/o.Vaddara Basthi, 3rd Galli, Manikeshwara Nagar, OU, Hyderabad Accused No.6 : Abdul Ghani @ Sameer S/o.Mohd. Pasha, aged : 27 years, Occ : AC Technician, R/o.Raghavendra Nagar, Backside of Kamala School, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, R.R.District Accused No.7 :Ghouse Khan S/o.Rasheed Khan, Age : 36 years, Occ : Car Mechanic, R/o.Jai Javan Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Kapra, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Accused No.8 :Ramesh Singh S/o.Chinak Singh, Aged : 19 years, Occ : Welder R/o.Hema Nagar Road No.8,

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 2 of 15

Chilka Nagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District Accused No.9 :Bontha Suresh S/o.Yadagiri, Aged : 20 years, Occ : Plumber,R/o.H.No.1-114/32, Chandrababu Naidu Colony, Lalapet, Secunderabad Accused No.10 :Sivaratri Raju S/o.Uppalaiah, Aged : 19 years, Occ : Plumber, R/o.(Hut), H.No.45-535/3, Vasanthapur Colony, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District Accused No.11 :Manaly Sunder S/o.Ramulu, Aged : 24 years, Occ : Pvt Work, R/o.H.No.2-328/5, Street No.1, Habsiguda, Uppal Mandal, R.R.district Accused No.12 :Karla Rajireddy S/o.Ram Reddy, Aged : 55 years, Occ : Auto Driver, R/o.H.No.2-148, Chilkanagar, Uppal Mandal. Accused No.13 : Guddi Naveen Kumar S/o.Narsimha Rao, Aged : 26 years, Occ : Driver, R/o.H.No.17-119/63/A, Mallikarjun Nagar, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District 3Offence with which charged: U/sec.3, 4 and 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 and Section 370-A (2) IPC. 4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, accused no.1, 2 and 5 to 13 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 370-A (2) IPC and 3,4 and 7 PITA Act. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds stand canceled subject to U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. Ten (10) cell phones under MO1 shall be given to the custody of original owners after expiry of appeal time, MO2 is the FDR No.18738 shall be confiscated to state and condoms under MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 7Prosecution conducted by :S.Susheela Mayuri, APP 8Accused defended by :Sri K.Ravi Kanth, Learned counsel for the accused

This case is coming up before me on 09.10.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of S.Susheela Mayuri, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Ravi

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 3 of 15

Kanth, Learned counsel for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The prosecution allege that accused no.1 run prostitution business by engaging services of (6) victim women and accused no.2 to 13 are the customers. As such accused stand facing charges under Section 370-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 3, 4 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as PITA).

b) The Inspector of Police, Police Station Nacharam PW5/Sri N.Pravinder Rao received credible information that prostitution business being run at open place behind GVK Bio, IDA Nacharam. PW5/Pravinder Rao along with his staff visited the scene of offence. On reaching the scene of offence, police found one women outside in the open place and some women and men in the bushes in the compromised position. On enquiry the woman outside revealed her details as that of accused no.1 and the other persons revealed their details as that of accused no.2 to 13 and victims.

Police secured the presence of PW3/Mohd.Majeed and PW4/Mohd.Muneer and in their presence conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. Accused no.1 to 13 confessed that they were doing prostitution. Police seized (10) cell phones, cash of

Rs.10,940/- and condom packets under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. Thereafter, accused no.1 to 13 along with six victims were brought to the police station and on completion of investigation report was filed U/sec 173 (2) of

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C).

2. Based on the police report, the learned XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate

L.B.Nagar took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 370, 370 (A) of

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 4 of 15

IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 7 of PITA Act against the accused vide PRC No.6 of 2017.

Since the offences under Secton 370 IPC was exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar. With Orders of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, case was transmitted to Prl. Senior Civil Judge- cum- Assistant Session Judge at L. B. Nagar.

Due to bifurcation of Judicial Districts, the case is transmitted to this court for disposal in accordance with law.

3.On hearing both sides, charges under Sections 370 (A) IPC and Section 3, 4 and 7(b) of PITA Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined PW1 to

PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 documents and material objects are marked as

MO1 to MO3. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. NOW THE POINT THAT ARISE FOR DETERMINATION ARE:

I. Whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the

offence under Sections 370 (A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 7 of PITA Act on the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" principal?

II. To what findings?

6. POINT NO.1:

The investigating officer who has conducted search proceedings at the scene of offence along with his staff is examined as PW5. It is the evidence of PW5 that on

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 5 of 15

09.10.2016, he received credible information of prostitution business being run at open place behind GVK Bio, IDA Nacharam. As such PW5 along with PW1 and PW2 and two panch witnesses PW3 and PW4 went to the scene of offence. There they observed that one women was outside in the open place and some women and men were in the bushes in the compromised position. The woman waiting outside revealed her details as that of accused no.1 and confessed that she was running the prostitution business with the help of victims (6 nos.) While Accused no.2 to 13 confessed that they were customers. PW5 seized Ten (10) cell phones, cash of

Rs.10,940/- and condom packets which are marked as MO1 to MO3. Ex.P1 is marked portion in the confession leading to the recovery of material objects from possession of accused. It is evidence of PW5 that he brought accused no.1 to 13 and victim women to the police station along with the confession cum seizure panchanama proceedings.

7.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 went in lines with the evidence of PW5 testifying the facts that accused no.1 confessed that she was running prostitution business and on the date of incident she called accused no.2 to 13 who are customers and sent accused no.2 to 13 and victim women behind the bushes. These witnesses also testified the fact that MO1 to MO3 were seized from possession of accused no.1 to 13.

8.The panch witness to the confession cum recovery panchanama examined as

PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of prosecution. They deposed that they have never seen the accused and that they do not know the facts of the case. They

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 6 of 15

deposed that they never put their signatures on any papers in the presence of police.

They denied their signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama.

9.The prime witness to the case of prosecution are the victim women cited as

LW6 to LW11 but they did not turn up to adduce their evidence, as such their evidence was closed upon police report showing that their whereabouts are not known.

10.With the evidence as referred to above, the case of prosecution need to be divided into two parts, one dealing with liability of accused no.2 to 13 shown as customers and other dealing with liability of accused no.1 as an organizer of brothel and running prostitution business.

11.Coming to the discussion on first part, the prosecution case is that the accused no.2 to 13 are customers. Accused No.2 to 13 are neither organizers of brothel, nor they are living on the earning of prostitution as required under Sections 3 and 4 of

PITA Act, the elements of this section are not applicable to accused No.2 to 13.

12.The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in case of Arjun Rao Vs. State of AP, 2013(2)

ALD (Crl.) 337, held that in para no.11 as under:

“ From the definition, it is therefore obvious that the prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places mentioned under section 7(1) of the Act, has to be understood in the context of the definition of prostitution under section 2(f) of the

Act. Here, it can not be said that the petitioners indulged in any sexual exploitation or the abuse of persons for commercial purposes. The police have shown the prostitutes as witnesses and made the customers as accused. In any

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 7 of 15

event, mere having sexual intercourse by paying money does not attract prostitution as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act”

13. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High court of AP in the case of

Z.Lourdiah Naidu and another Vs. State of A.P., 2013(2) ALD (Crl) 393 (AP). In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case laws referred to above, that the customer does not fall within the purview of PITA Act, as such the case against accused no.2 to 13, cannot be prosecuted.

14. Coming to the discussion on second part, now the question is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the allegations levelled against accused no.1 for attributing that she engaged trafficked women (victims)/LW6 to LW11 for sexual exploitation by keeping or managing brothel and living on the earning of prostitution.

15.The PITA does not define the term ‘Prostitution”. But, it could be understood as an act of a female who offers her body for promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire.

The stated goal of PITA was to inhabit or abolish commercialized vice, namely the traffic in persons for the purpose of prostitution as an organized means of living.

Thus, prostitution per se is not an offence unless it is made as a commercialized activity run as an organized means of living. Therefore, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that accused no.1 was running commercial prostitution business by engaging services of trafficked women for sexual exploitation.

16.On perusal of entire prosecution evidence including oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are several lacunaes in the prosecution case, which goes to root of the prosecution version. These aspects are discussed as under:

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 8 of 15

17.As per Section 15 of PITA Act, it provide certain mandatory guideline at the time of investigation which need to be complied. But, the evidence on record show the breach of Section 15 of PITA Act, they are as follows:

(b)Sec. 15(2) of PITA Act state that whenever search is conducted by the special police officer or special trafficking officer two or more respective residents of the locality has to be called as a mediators to the search. Out of them, one must be a woman, provided woman need not to be ordinary resident of the locality. The mediators PW3 and PW4 both are male persons. Hence, it need to be held that search proceeding is not in proper compliance of mandate under Section 15 (2) PITA

Act.

(c)According to Sec.15(4) of PITA Act, after completing search, if special police officer or trafficking police officer found any person in brothel house or the place where search was carried on, then all the persons who were found in the place have to be removed and they have to be produced before nearest Magistrate for necessary action. Further before their production, medical examination of all the persons is imperative to say about whether the persons who were removed from the brothel house are sexually exploited or effected with any sexually transmitted diseases, this is also not followed by the investigating offcer.

(d) As per the prosecution victim women were rescued from the scene of offence on 09.10.2016 and though they were taken to police station on the same day, the medical examination was not carried out by a registered medical practitioner in terms of Sec.15(4) of PITA Act to find out whether they were having any sexual transmitted diseases.

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 9 of 15

(e) Further, there is violation of Sec.15(6) (A) PITA Act, which state that at the time of conducting search, atleast two women police officers have to be participated in the raids, but the prosecution has not complied this mandate under sec. 15(6)(A) of

PITA Act. The search took place in the presence of one woman constable (PW1) the same is not strict compliance of above Section. Thus, the police have not complied the mandatory provision under Section 15 PITA Act, as there is breach of Section 15 (2)(4)(6A) of PITA Act.

18.In these circumstances drawing of search and seizure panchanama by

Inspector of Police/PW5; non securing residents of the locality as mediators; at least one mediator to search and seizure is not woman; two women police officers were not participated in the raid; medical examination of accused and victims was not carried on in accordance with provisions of PITA Act. In view of these shortfalls in the prosecution case it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of raiding party officials examined as PW1, PW2 and PW5.

19.To prove the charge under section 370A(ii) IPC the evidence of LW6 to LW11 who are the victim women assume importance, but they were not produced before the court for giving evidence, as such their evidence was closed.

20. Further, accused no.1 is alleged to have been involved in trafficking of victims for sexual exploitation. The offence under 370 A-(ii) IPC and 3 to 5 of PITA act, are cognizable offences, the material investigation i.e., drawing of panchanama and seizure of MO1 to MO3 were done prior to registration of FIR-Ex.P2. Seizure panchanama Ex.P1 drawn earlier to FIR. As such the basis for the accused no.1

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 10 of 15

standing charged before this Court is conducting the confession-cum-seizure panchanama by Pw5 prior to registration of FIR under Ex.P2.

21.Now the discussion need to turn to the effect of drawing of panchanama, without any FIR, or General Dairy Entry.

22.Admittedly, Police has not filed any General Dairy extract recorded by PW5 (Inspector of police). It is settled law that on any information with regard to commission of cognizable offence FIR must be registered and Station House officer, is not supposed to verify the truthfulness of information, prior to registration of FIR. In the present case, the vital part of investigation vide Ex.P1 was done even before FIR was lodged and police have failed to file general dairy extract. It is not case of prosecution that there was any entry in general diary as required under Section 44 of

Police Act; 1861 as such proceedings under Ex.P1 has not contravened provisions of

Section 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the very basis for the registering the case is not in accordance with Law, once Ex.P1 is liable to be excluded from consideration, what is it effect need to be discussed.

23.In this regard one could find Constitutional Bench Judgment of Honourable

Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalitha Kumari versus State of UP Crl.

Appeal No 1410 of 2011 dated 12-11-2013, where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given directions as under:

24.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 11 of 15

I) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

II) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

III) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further

IV) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

V) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

VI) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

b) Commercial offences

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 12 of 15

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

VII) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

VIII) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

25.In the present case, admittedly FIR was registered on 09.10.2016. The word investigation which is defined under Section 2 (h) of Cr.P.C includes all proceedings for collection of evidence. Visiting place of offence for search and seizure of material found therein would fall within the ambit of investigation. The oral evidence of PW5 indicates that he has received information with regard to prostitution activities, the

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 13 of 15

information received by PW5 discloses commission of cognizable offence. Thus, for proceeding to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the information so received it was obligatory on the part of PW5 to inform the same to station house officer who in turn would have made a general diary entry as per Section 44 of Police Act 1861 so that the proceedings of search and seizure would be legalized. It is no more a disputed fact that a general diary which discloses commission of cognizable offence can be considered as FIR. As the information received by PW5 clearly makes out a cognizable offence and in view of guide line No.1 of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Lalitha Kumari, PW5 was left with no option but to record the FIR to proceed for investigation. But, it is not done so. Thus, the guideline in Lalitha Kumari case delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were not followed in the present case.

26.The question as to whether the action of PW5 recording panchanama without there being an FIR vide Ex.P2 has caused prejudice to the rights of the accused need be answered with reference to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafi

Hamad @ Rafi state of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2011 (8) SCC 300, where it is observed that the prejudice what is caused to accused in the course of investigation and every person including accused of a criminal charge irrespective of its seviourity is entitle for the protection by following rennoved principles of criminal justice. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafi had dealt with the aspect of prejudice

caused to accused in terms of non framing of charge. In the case on hand, the prejudice is caused to the accused by considering a material which cannot be considered as investigation was conducted prior to registration of cognizable offence.

Therefore, if Ex.P1 which was recorded earlier to the Ex.P2 is taken into consideration, the concept of investigation of cognizable offence starts from FIR, has

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 14 of 15

received a severe jolt. In such circumstances, if the court proceeds on Ex.P1 which forms core of the prosecution case it may cause serious prejudice to the rights of the accused, to have fair trial. Therefore, by following Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rafi wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if serious prejudice is caused to accused then he is entitled for benefit of doubt, need to be applied in present case by extending benefit of doubt in favor of accused.

27.For the discussion as taken up above, it is required to be held that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point on hand is answered against prosecution and in favour accused.

28. POINT NO.2:

In the result, accused no.1, 2 and 5 to 13 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 370-A (2) IPC and Section 3, 4 and 7 PITA Act.

Accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds stand canceled subject to U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. Ten (10) cell phones under MO1 shall be given to the custody of original owners after expiry of appeal time, FDR bearing

No.18738 shall be confiscated to State, condoms packets under MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of October, 2024.)

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1- K.Radha- NIL -

PW2- Ch.Sudhakar Rao

SC No.40 of 2022 (OLD SC.No.196 of 2018)Page 15 of 15

PW3- Mohd.Majeed

PW4- Mohd.Muneer

PW5- N.Pravinder Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : is marked portion in the confession leading to the recovery of material objects from possession of accused

Ex.P2: is the FIR

FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

MO1: are ten (10) cell phones

MO2: is FDR No.18738

MO3: are the condoms

FOR DEFENCE

- NIL -

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT : Sri. G. V. Mahesh Nath, II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda. Dated this the 16th day of October, 2024

SESSIONS CASE NO. 689 OF 2023

(OLD SESSIONS CASE NO. 40 OF 2022)

(PRC NO. 6/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD, AT L.B.

NAGAR)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S.Nacharam. 2Name and description of the accusedAccused No.4: Momin S/o.Ali Hussan, aged : 32 years, Occ : cloth selling, R/o.Opp. Masid, L.B.Nagar X Roads, Hyderabad. N/o.Idris Pur Village, Badod Tana & Tq., Baghpath Dist. UP 3Offence with which charged: U/sec.3, 4 and 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 and Section 370-A (2) IPC. 4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, accused no.4 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 370-A (2) IPC and 3, 4 and 7 PITA Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds stand canceled subject to U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. Ten (10) cell phones under MO1 shall be given to the custody of original owners after expiry of appeal time, MO2 is the FDR No.18738 shall be confiscated to state and condoms under MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 7Prosecution conducted by :S.Susheela Mayuri, APP 8Accused defended by :Sri K.Ravi Kanth, Learned counsel for the accused no.4

This case is coming up before me on 09.10.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of S.Susheela Mayuri, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Ravi

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 2 of 7

Kanth, Learned counsel for the accused no.4, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The present case is spilt up from S.C.No. 40 of 2022. The prosecution allege that accused no.4 was the customer of prostitution activity. As such accused stand facing charges under Section 370-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 3, 4 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as PITA).

b)The Inspector of Police, Police Station Nacharam PW5/Sri N.Pravinder Rao received credible information that prostitution business being run at open place behind GVK Bio, IDA Nacharam. PW5/Pravinder Rao along with his staff visited the scene of offence. On reaching the scene of offence, police found one women outside in the open place and some women and men in the bushes in the compromised position. On enquiry the woman outside revealed her details as that of accused no.1 and the other persons revealed their details as that of accused and victims. Police secured the presence of PW3/Mohd.Majeed and PW4/Mohd.Muneer and in their presence conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. Accused no.1 to 13 confessed that they were doing prostitution. Police seized (10) cell phones, cash of

Rs.10,940/- and condom packets under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. Thereafter, accused no.1 to 13 along with six victims were brought to the police station and on completion of investigation report was filed U/sec 173 (2) of

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C).

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 3 of 7

2. Based on the police report, the learned XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate L. B.

Nagar took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 370, 370 (A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 7 of PITA Act against the accused vide PRC No.6 of 2017.

Since the offences were exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar.

With Orders of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, case was transmitted to Prl.

Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge at L. B. Nagar and with bifurcation

of Judicial Districts, the case is transmitted to this court for disposal in accordance with law.

3.On hearing both sides, charges under Sections 370 (A) IPC and Section 3, 4 and 7 of PITA Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined PW1 to

PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 documents and material objects are marked as

MO1 to MO3. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. NOW THE POINT THAT ARISE FOR DETERMINATION ARE:

I. Whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the

offence under Sections 370 (A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 7 of

PITA Act on the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" principal?

II. To what findings?

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 4 of 7

6. POINT NO.1:

The investigating officer who has conducted search proceedings at the scene of offence along with his staff is examined as PW5. It is the evidence of PW5 that on 09.10.2016, he received credible information of prostitution business being run at open place behind GVK Bio, IDA Nacharam. As such PW5 along with PW1 and PW2 and two panch witnesses PW3 and PW4 went to the scene of offence. There they observed that one women was outside in the open place and some women and men in the bushes in the compromised position. The woman waiting outside confessed that she was running the prostitution business with the help of victims (6 nos.) While

Accused no.2 to 13 confessed that they are customers. PW5 seized Ten (10) cell phones, cash of Rs.10,940/- and condom packets which are marked as MO1 to MO3.

Ex.P1 is marked portion in the confession leading to the recovery of material objects from possession of accused. It is evidence of PW5 that he brought accused no.1 to 13 and victim women to the police station along with the confession cum seizure panchanama proceedings.

7.The evidence of PW1 to PW2 went in lines with the evidence of PW5 testifying the facts that accused no.1 confessed that she was running prostitution business and on the date of incident she called accused no.2 to 13 who are customers and sent accused no.2 to 13 and victim women are behind the bushes. These witnesses also testified the fact that MO1 to MO3 were seized from possession of accused no.1 to 13.

8.The panch witness to the confession cum recovery panchanama examined as

PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of prosecution. They deposed that they have

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 5 of 7

never seen the accused and that they do not know the facts of the case. They deposed that they never put their signatures on any papers in the presence of police.

They denied their signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama.

9.The prime witness to the case of prosecution are the victim women cited as

LW6 to LW11 but they did not turn up to adduce their evidence, as such their evidence was closed upon police report showing that their whereabouts are not known.

10.With the evidence as referred to above, it is observed that accused no.4 herein along with accused no.2 to 3 and 5 to 13 in S.C.No. 40 of 2022 are shown as customers prostitution business.

11.Coming to the discussion, the prosecution case is that the accused no.2 to 13 are customers. Accused No.2 to 13 are neither organizers of brothel, nor they are living on the earning of prostitution as required under Sections 3 and 4 of PITA Act, the elements of this section are not applicable to accused No.2 to 13.

12.The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in case of Arjun Rao Vs. State of AP, 2013(2)

ALD (Crl.) 337, held that in para no.11 as under:

“ From the definition, it is therefore obvious that the prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places mentioned under section 7(1) of the Act, has to be understood in the context of the definition of prostitution under section 2(f) of the

Act. Here, it can not be said that the petitioners indulged in any sexual exploitation or the abuse of persons for commercial purposes. The police have shown the prostitutes as witnesses and made the customers as accused. In any

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 6 of 7

event, mere having sexual intercourse by paying money does not attract prostitution as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act”

13. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High court of AP in the case of

Z.Lourdiah Naidu and another Vs. State of A.P., 2013(2) ALD (Crl) 393 (AP). In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case laws referred to above, that the customer does not fall within the purview of PITA Act, as such the case against accused no.2 to 13, cannot be prosecuted.

14.For the discussion as taken up above, it is required to be held that the prosectuion failed to prove guilt of accused no.2 for which he stood charged.

Accordingly, point on hand is answered against prosecution and in favour accused.

15. POINT NO.2:

In the result, accused no.4 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 370-A (2) IPC and Section 3, 4 and 7 PITA Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds stand canceled subject to

U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. Ten (10) cell phones under MO1 shall be given to the custody of original owners after expiry of appeal time, FDR bearing No.18738 shall be confiscated to State, condoms packets under MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of October, 2024.)

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1- K.Radha- NIL -

SC No.689 of 2023 (OLD SC.No.40 of 2022)Page 7 of 7

PW2- Ch.Sudhakar Rao

PW3- Mohd.Majeed

PW4- Mohd.Muneer

PW5- N.Pravinder Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : is marked portion in the confession leading to the recovery of material objects from possession of accused

Ex.P2: is the FIR

FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

MO1: are ten (10) cell phones

MO2: is FDR No.18738

MO3: are the condoms

FOR DEFENCE

- NIL -

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

OS No.221 of 2025 1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT NEREDMET

Present: Dr. G. V. MAHESH NATH,

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Neredmet.

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

OS. No. 221 OF 2025

Between :

1. Sri Teegala Kiron Kumar Parthasarathy S/o. Partha Sarathy Prasad Teegala, 54 Yrs, Private Service and R/0.308, D.Block Vazhra Nirman Pushpak, Behind Karur Vysya Bank, Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TG.

2. Sri Praveen Kumar Teegala, S/o.Partha Sarathy Prasad Teegala, 52 Yrs Occ: Private Service and R/o. Plot No.37, Metro Land Mark, Country Club, Medchal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, TG....Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Thahasildhar, Kapra Circle,

ECIL X Roads, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District....Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 17.10.2025 in the presence of Sri Ponnam Devaraju Goud, learned Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking a decree from the Court that declares their legal status as the legal heirs of the deceased, Late Teegala Partha

Sarathy Prasad, in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs request the

OS No.221 of 2025 2 of 9

Court to recognize their inheritance rights over the suit schedule property after the death of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad, and for a legal declaration of their heirship status.

Death of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad:

1.It is submitted by the plaintiffs that their father, Late Teegala Partha Sarathy

Prasad, passed away on 22.05.2023. During his lifetime, Late Teegala Partha Sarathy

Prasad had acquired certain property, which is referred to as the "suit schedule property." The plaintiffs assert that the property in question was acquired by their father through legal means and that it is now to be inherited by them, being the legal heirs of the deceased.

Succession of Property:

2.After the death of their father, the plaintiffs claim to have succeeded to the suit schedule property by virtue of being the legal heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy

Prasad. Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 are the immediate family members of the deceased and assert that they are the only rightful heirs entitled to inherit the property.

The plaintiffs approached the defendant for the issuance of a legal heir certificate which is required for formal recognition of their inheritance rights. However, the

OS No.221 of 2025 3 of 9

defendant refused to issue the certificate and advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent Civil Court for determination of their heirship status.

Defendant's Non-Cooperation:

3.In light of the defendant's refusal to issue the legal heir certificate, the plaintiffs have been left with no option but to approach the Civil Court to seek legal recognition of their status as the legal heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad. The plaintiffs assert that their entitlement to the property is clear, and they are seeking a judicial declaration to formally establish their legal heirship.

Proceedings in Court:

4.The suit proceedings were initiated, and it is noted that the defendant failed to participate in the case, leading to the proceedings going ex parte (in the absence of the defendant). Plaintiff No. 1, acting as the primary witness, was examined in Court as

PW1 (Plaintiff Witness 1). Plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW2. The plaintiffs submitted relevant documentary evidence in support of their claims, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A12.

5. After the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs presented arguments in support of their claim. Perused the record.

OS No.221 of 2025 4 of 9

6. NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION ARE:

1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree declaring the legal status as legal heir of deceased Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad in respect of suit schedule property?

2) To what findings?

POINT NO.1:

7.The plaintiffs have led both oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that they are the legal heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad and are entitled to succeed to the suit schedule property.

Ex.A1 – Identity Document of Plaintiffs: The identity documents of the plaintiffs, marked as Ex.A1, help to establish their identity as the rightful heirs and successors of the deceased.

Ex.A2 – PAN Cards: The PAN Cards (2) of the Plaintiffs, has been marked as Ex.A2.

Ex.A3 – SSC Certificates: The SSC Certificates (2) of the Plaintiffs, has been marked as Ex.A3.

Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 – Death Certificates: The original death certificates of Late Teegala

Partha Sarathy Prasad and Late Lalitha Prasad Teegala have been marked as Ex.A4

OS No.221 of 2025 5 of 9

and Ex.A5. These documents unequivocally establishes the date of death of the deceased.

Ex.A6, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 – Sale Deeds: The certified copies of the Sale Deed (Ex.A6, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11) further supports the claim that the suit schedule property was acquired by Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad.

Ex.A7 – EC: The Encumbrance Certificate, has been marked as Ex.A7.

Ex.A8 – Market Value Certificate: This document, namely the market value certificate, is related to the suit schedule property. This documents reflect that the deceased, Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad, was the sole owner of the property.

Ex.A9: Postal Receipts: The Postal Receipts of Registered Post to MRO, has been marked as Ex.A9.

Ex.A12: Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA: The Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, has been marked as Ex.A12.

Plaintiffs' Legal Position:

8.The plaintiffs have testified that Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad died intestate, meaning without leaving a will. As per the law, in such a case, the property of the deceased devolves upon the legal heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applicable to the deceased. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have claimed to be the sole legal

OS No.221 of 2025 6 of 9

heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad, and no other individuals have come forward to stake a claim for the inheritance.

Defendant's Position:

9.The defendant, despite being approached by the plaintiffs for the issuance of a legal heir certificate, refused to issue the same. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs should approach the competent Civil Court to obtain a declaration of their legal heir status. However, it is important to note that the refusal to issue a legal heir certificate by the defendant essentially challenges the plaintiffs' legal right to the suit schedule property and their status as legal heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad.

Legal Heirship and Intestate Succession:

10.It is well-established in law that in the absence of a will, the legal heirs of a deceased individual are determined according to the laws of inheritance applicable to that person. In the present case, the plaintiffs have established that they are the only legal heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad. This has been corroborated by their identity documents, the evidence of ownership of the suit schedule property, and the absence of any other legal claims.

Refusal of Defendant to Issue Legal Heir Certificate:

OS No.221 of 2025 7 of 9

11.The refusal of the defendant to issue a legal heir certificate without any valid legal justification is an act that challenges the plaintiffs' entitlement to inherit the property. The refusal to issue the certificate is unreasonable, especially considering that the plaintiffs have provided all necessary documents, including the death certificate of the deceased, evidence of ownership of the property, and identity proof.

The defendant’s stance was not supported by any substantial evidence or legal reason.

Conclusion of Findings:

12.The plaintiffs have succeeded in proving, both through oral and documentary evidence, that they are the legal heirs of Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad. The documents submitted (Ex.A1 to Ex.A12) clearly establish that the deceased passed away intestate, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only heirs. The property in question was acquired by Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad during his lifetime, and no transactions or transfers took place during his lifetime that would affect the plaintiffs' entitlement to the property.

13.Furthermore, the refusal of the defendant to issue a legal heir certificate is without merit. The defendant’s refusal essentially challenges the plaintiffs’ legal rights as heirs, which is unwarranted given the clear evidence presented by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have proved their case by establishing their legal heirship and the entitlement

OS No.221 of 2025 8 of 9

to inherit the suit schedule property. Accordingly, point on hand is answered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant.

POINT NO.2:

In the result,suit is decreed in favor of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 declaring them to be legal heirs of deceased Late Teegala Partha Sarathy Prasad in respect of suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to the costs.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected in soft copy and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22 nd day of October, 2025)

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, M.M. District at Neredmet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1- Teegala Kiron Kumar Parthasarathy -NIL-

PW2- Praveen Kumar Teegala

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1: Aadhar Cards (2)

Ex.A2: Pan Cards (2)

Ex.A3: SSC Certificates (2)

Ex.A4: Death Certificate of Late Parthasarathy Prasad Teegala

OS No.221 of 2025 9 of 9

Ex.A5: Death Certificate of Late Lalitha Prasad Teegala

Ex.A6: CC of Sale Deed No. 1446/2017, dt. 11.04.2017 Regd in SRO, Kapra

Ex.A7: Encumbrance Certificate Dt. 18.03.2025

Ex.A8: Market value Certificate Dt. 18.03.2025

Ex.A9: Postal Receipts of Regd Post to MRO

Ex.A10: CC of Sale Deed No. 380/2011, Dt. 14.03.2011

Ex.A11: CC of Sale Deed No. 3712/2002

Ex.A12: Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney Dt. 121/2002

For Defendants:

-NIL-

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, M.M. District at Neredmet.

l of 5

SOP No. 66 of 2022

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIR'DISTRICT, ATM MALKAJGIRI

IN THE COURT OF THE

W A 0 D L

WAHESH NA TH.

Present: Sri G. s e n i o r C i v l J u d g e . Civil. | Judge, I| Addl. Senior FAC I Ad at Malkajd M A R C H . 2024 DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF 2022 S.O.P. No. 66OF Between :

Gude Syamala Wio.Late Gude Ravikiran

1.

Aged about : 46 years, Occ : Private Seryce

2. Guda Jishnu S/o.Late Guda Ravikiran

Aged about : 16 years, Occ : Student,

Being minor, rep. by his mother and natural

Guardian Guda Syamala

Prasada Rao Guda Indira Devi W/o.Late Guda Durga Vara 3.

Aged about: 70 years, Occ : Senior Ciizen

Guda Durga Vara Prasada Rao Slo.G Venkata Subbaian 4 Aged abOut: 77 years, Occ: Senior Citizen (Died) (Amendment carried out as per docket order dated 28.03.2023)

(All are Rlo.H.No.30-1564, Ananthanagar Colony.

Safilguda, Near Krupa Complex, R.K.Puram,

..Petitioners

Hyderabad- 500 056)

AND 1 The Tahsildhar Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District 2 Bank of lndia Neredmet Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager 30-167/2, Neredmet, Opp.Kripa Complex, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District 3 The Post� Master Ramakista Puram, S.O.Post Office. Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

ICICI Bank 4 A.S.Rao Nagar Branch, Rep. by its Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Plot No.10, G-Block, Lakshmi Towers, A.S.Rao Nagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Hyderabad,

Telangana � 500 062

2 of 5

SOP No. 66 of 2022 5 The Sub Post Master

Sainikpuri S.0.,

Secunderabad - 500 094

6. All Concerned ...Respondents

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 21.02.2024 in the presence or

Sri P.Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for petitioners and defendants no.1 to o

remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, tnIs

Court made the following :

JUDG MENT

1. Ine present petition is filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act 1925 by the petitioners praying this court to issue Succession Certificate in favour the petioners by declar1ng them as Successors of Late Guda Ravi Kiran in respect of Petition Schedule movable property which is stated to be fixed term deposits, cash deposits, National Saving

Certificates lying, with respondent no.2 to 5 banks and post office.

2 It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is WiTe, petitioner no.2 is son, petitioner no.3 and 4 are parents of Late Guda Ravi Kiran who died on 30.05.2021 leaving behind petitioners as legal heirs to succeed his estate. It is submitted that during the ife time of Late Guda Ravi Kiran he has (1) deposited an amount of Rs.2,01,790.06/- as Fixed Term Deposit having maturity date 12.06.2021 and it has worked out to Rs.2,25,495/- with interest vide Fixed Deposit Account

No.864J451404302 dated 14.07.2020 with customer ID No.004644606 with respondent no.2 bank, (2) cash of Rs.2,04,331/- is lying with Postal Savings Bank Account No.4039494595 with

CIF ID No.356840289 with respondent no.3 post office (3) cash of Rs.1,32,283/- is lying vide

SBGEN Account No.000401545205 with respondent no.4 bank (4) Five years National Saving

Certificates (4 policies) each of Rs.10,000/- with maturity value of Rs.15,162/- vide 5NS

No.49EF 283105, 49EF 283106, 49EF 283107, 49EF 283108 lying with respondent no.5 Post

Office. The petitioners approached the respondent no.2 to 5 banks and post office for release / withdrawal of maturity amount from the term denosit accounts and amount accrued savings certificates of deceased but the respondent no2 to 5 bank and postal authorities directed the peiioners to obtain succession certificato 6eom competent court to claim and withdraw the 3 of 5

OP No. 66 of 2022

Guda Ravi Kiran lying in od Term deposit, cash and National

Savings

amount of Late Certificates. Hence, the present petition is filed,

The proceedings against respondent ho.1 and 6 which is Tahsildhar and all concerned 3. went in exparte as none appeared objecting the claim of petitioners on notice being published

Newspaper. Petition against respondent no.3 is settled, hence claim against through the respondent no.3 is dismissed as "not pressed" The respondent no.2, 4 and 5 banks and postal authorities also remained absent on service of inotice, n as such proceedings against respondent no.2, 4 & 5 went in exparte.

The petitioner no.1 is examined as PWI and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. After 4. the evidence of petitioners was reported closed, the learned counsel for petitioners was heard. Perused the record. During pendency of suit, petitioner no.4 died and his death certificato ie filed on 28.03.2023.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATICN ARE: 5.

1) Whether petitioners are entitled for certificate U/sec. 372 of Indian Succession

Act 1925 enabling them to withdraw amount deposited by the deceased in

respondent no.2,4 &5 bank and post office?

2) To what findings?

POINT NO.1: 6. The petitioner no.1 herself got examined as PW1 testifying the facts as appear in the petition stating that she and petitioner no.2 & are the resident of Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the deceased Late Guda Ravi Kiran Wino is ner husband was also resident of Medchal

Malkajgiri District. It is the evidence of Pw ial deceased (1) deposited an amount of

Rs.2,01,790.66/- as Fixed Term Deposit hav helturity dated 12.06.2021 and it has worked Out to Rs.2,25,495/-with interest vide Fixed Deposit Account No.864J451404302 dated 14.07.2020 with customer ID No.004644606 WIn respondent no.2 bank, (2) cash of 17) 16 OS/466/2025 OS/459/2025 4 of 5 SOP No. 66 of 2022

Rs.1,32,283/- is lying vide SBGEN Account NO.000401545205 with respondent no.4 Dank (a

Five years National Saving Certificates (4 pouCies) each of Rs.10,000/- with maturity value of

Rs.15,162/- vide 5NS No.49EF 283105, 49E C83106, 49EF 283107, 49EF 283108 lying with

Tespondent no.5 Post Office. It is deposed that petitioners alone are the legal heirs to the estate of the deceased as such they are entited to claim (1) an amount of Rs.2,01,790.66/- as

FXed Term Deposit having maturity dated 12.06.2021 and it has worked out to Rs.2,25,495/

Witn interest vide Fixed Deposit Account No.864J451404302 dated 14.07.2020 with customer

ID No.004644606 with respondent no.2 bank, (2) cash of Rs.1,32,283/- is lying vide SBGEN

ACCUont No.000401545205 with respondent no.4 bank (3) Five years National Saving

Cerincates (4 policies) each of Rs. 10.000/- with maturity value of Rs.15,162/- vide 5NS No.49EF 283105, 49EF 283106. 49EF 283107. 49EF 283108 Iying with respondent no.5 Post

Ofice. The death certificate of the deceased is marked as Ex.P1 document. The Fixed

Deposit Bond, pass book of postal account and original copies of National Savings Certificates (4 nos.) are marked as Ex.P3 to 8 documents, The Aadhar cards of petitioners no.1 and 2 are marked as Ex.P2.

7 With the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, it is observed that the reguirements U/sec. 372 of lndian SuCcession Act 1925 have been fulfilled by the petitioners and there appears no restriction tor grant of certificate in favor of the petitioners.

The petitioners being legal heirs of late Guda Ravi Kiran are entitled to claim and withdraw maturity amount from respondent no.2 bank., cash from respondent no.4 bank and maturity amount accrued from National Savings Certificates from respondent no.5 post office.

Accordingly, point on hand is answered in favor of petitioners and against the respondents.

POINT NO.2: 8.

In the result, the petition is allowed with no costs. The petitioners no.1 to 3 are declared as successors of Late Guda Ravi Kiran. Issue Succession Certificate in favor of the petitioners permitting them to claim and withdraW maturity amount from respondent no.2 bank, cash from 5 of 5 DP NO. 66 of 2022 respondent no,4 bank and maturity amount accrued kom National Savings Certificates from respondent no.5 pOst office,

pronounced | by me in open COurt, on this the

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the System, corrected and 14m day of March, 2024,)

I| Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge.,

M.M. District at Malkajgiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Respondents:

-NIL

For Petitioners:

PW1- Guda Syamala

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1: is the original death certificate of Guda Ravi Kiran dated 30.05.2013

For Petitioners:

Ex.P2: is the original Aadhar card of petitioners no.1 and 2 Ex.P3: is the original fixed deposit bond lying with Bank of India, Neredmet Branch Ex.P4: is the Original pass book of postal account at R.K.Puram Post Office Ex.P5: is the original copy of5 years National Saving Certificate no.5NS No.49EF283105 Ex.P6: is the original copy of 5 years National Saving Certificate no.5NS No.49EF283106 Ex.P7: is the original copy of 5 years National Saving Certificate no.5NS No.49EF283107 Ex.P8: is the original copy of5 years National Saving Certificate no.5NS No.49EF283108

For Respondents:

-NIL

Il Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

FACI Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

M.M. District at Malkajgiri.

OS No.139 of 2024 1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA

Present: Sri G. V. MAHESH NATH,

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, at Kushaiguda.

DATED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

OS. No. 139 OF 2024

Between :

1.Smt.Sistla Mangatayaru W/o.Late S.V.S.Varaprasad Aged about : 70 years, Occ : Housewife

2.Sistla Venkata Chandra Sekhar S/o.Late S.V.S.Varaprasad Aged about : 53 years, Occ : Pvt Employee

3.Sistla Bhanu Prakash S/o.Late S.V.S.Varaprasad Aged about : 48 years, Occ : Pvt Employee

The plaintiff no.1 to 3 are residing at : H.No.9-145, Street No.5, H.M.T.Nagar,

Nacharam, Hyderabad – 76...Plaintiffs

AND

1.The Tahsildhar (MRO) Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

2.The Tahsildhar (MRO)

Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District ...Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 26.09.2024 in the presence of M/s.V.Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiffs instituted present suit seeking for decree declaring their legal status as legal heirs of deceased late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad in respect of the suit schedule “A” and “B” properties.

OS No.139 of 2024 2 of 4

2.It is submitted that husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiffs no.2 and 3 by name late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad died on 28.12.2021. It is submitted that during his life time, he has acquired open plot No.260, Btye “B” admeasuring about 300 Sq.

yards situated at Nacharam village, Hyderabad by virtue of registered sale deed document no.3952 of 1978 dated 30.09.1978. It is submitted that Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara

Varaprasad has constructed house over the above said plot vide H.No.9-145. (herein referred to as suit schedule “A” property). It is submitted that Late Sistla Venkata

Somasundara Varaprasad purchased Flat No.2, MIC Block No.27, (Ground Floor), at

Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of registered sale deed document no.3438 of 2003 dated 17.05.2003 (herein referred to as suit schedule “B” property).

3.It is submitted after the death of Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad, plaintiff no.1 to 3 succeeded the suit schedule “A” and “B” properties being the legal heirs of

Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad. The plaintiffs intend to mutate their names in the concerned revenue records as well as municipal records in respect of the suit schedule “A” and “B” properties, but the concerned authorities are insisting for legal heir certificate. As such the plaintiffs approached the defendants for issuance of legal heir certificate but defendants refused to issue the same and requested them to approach the competent Civil Court for the same. Therefore, in these circumstances, the present suit is instituted by the plaintiffs.

4.The proceedings against defendants no.1 and 2 went in exparte. The plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW1. The documents under Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. After the evidence of plaintiffs was reported closed, the learned counsel for plaintiffs was heard. Perused the record.

OS No.139 of 2024 3 of 4

5. NOW THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:

1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree declaring their legal status as legal heir of deceased Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad in respect of suit schedule “A” and “B” properties?

2) To what findings?

6. POINT NO.1:

The plaint pleadings are testified in the evidence of PW1. The original death certificate of Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad is marked as Ex.A1 showing the death of the said Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad on 28.12.2021. The certified copy of the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule “A” and “B” properties standing in the name of Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad are marked as Ex.A2 and A3 documents. The identity document of Late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad and plaintiffs no.1 to 3 are marked as Ex.A4 and A5 documents.

7.Withthe oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are able to establish that late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad purchased suit schedule “A” and “B” properties and there are no sale transactions during his life time. The late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad died intestate leaving behind plaintiffs no.1 to 3 as the only legal heirs to succeed the suit schedule “A” and “B” properties. The refusal of defendants no.1 and 2 to issue legal heir certificate in essence question the legal right and legal status of plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased. Hence, in these circumstances it is required to be held that plaintiffs are able to prove the plaint pleading showing that they are the legal heirs of the deceased late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad in respect of

OS No.139 of 2024 4 of 4

suit schedule “A” and “B” properties. Accordingly, point on hand is answered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant.

8. POINT NO.2:

In the result,suit is decreed in favor of plaintiffs no.1 to 3 declaring them to be legal heirs of deceased late Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad in respect of suit schedule “A” and “B” properties. There shall be no order as to the costs.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of October, 2024)

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, M.M. District at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1- Sistla Mangatayaru-NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1: is the original death certificate of Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad dated 20.04.2022 Ex.A2: is the certified copy of sale deed no.3952 of 1978 dated 30.09.1978 Ex.A3: is the certified copy of sale deed no.3438 of 2003 dated 17.05.2003 Ex.A4: is the original Aadhar card of Sri Sistla Venkata Somasundara Varaprasad Ex.A5: is the original Aadhar cards of plaintiff no.1 to 3

For Defendants:

-NIL-

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, M.M. District at Kushaiguda.