Sri G V Mahesh Nath

1 C.C.129 OF 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROHIBITION AND

EXCISE OFFENCES COURT, SANGAREDDY

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017

Present:- Sri. G.V. Mahesh Nath, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

C.C.No.129 OF 2011 Between:-

The State through, Police Station, B.D.L. Bhanoor. … Complainant

AND

A1 Smt. Kammari Bharathamma, W/o: Narsimulu, Age: 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Nandigama A2 Kammari Bikshapathi, S/o: Narsimulu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Nandigama A3Smt. Kammari Ramulamma, W/o: Yadagiri, Age: 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Nandigama A4Chidruppa Mallesham, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Business, R/o: Edulanagulapally (Accused No.4 is died) A5Smt. Wadla Shusheela, W/o: Brahmaiah, Age: 68 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Nandigama A6(Not Charge Sheeted) A7Smt. Wadla Sujatha, W/o: Yadaiah, Age: 17 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Singapur, Shankarpalli Mandal A8Wadla Sreenivas, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o: Nandigama A9Wadla Venkatesh, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 27 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o: Nandigama A10 Wadla Shankaraiah, S/o: Venkanna, Age: 66 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o: Nandigama A11 Wadla Prabhu, S/o: Shankaraiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o: Nandigama A12 Wadla Nagaraju, S/o: Shankaraiah, Age: 27 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o: Nandigama A13 Smt. Wadla Prameela, W/o: Ramchandri, Age: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Bhanur A14 Smt. Wadla Jayamma, W/o: Anjaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Nandigama A15 Smt. Wadla Laxmamma, W/o: Eswaraiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Bakaram, Moinabad Mandal A16 Smt. Wadla Veeramani, W/o: Sreenivas Chary, Age: 32 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Bhanur A17 Smt. Wadla Swaroopa, W/o: Nanda Chary, Age: 29 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Sheerlingampalli A18 Wadla Vittalaiah, S/o: Venkanna, Age: 63 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o: Nandigama A19 Smt. Wadla Maheshwari, W/o: Hanmanthu, Age: 21 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Jinnaram A20 Chira Venkatesh, S/o: Mallaiah, Age about: 40 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Business, R/o: Edulanagulapalli A21 Peddapuram Murali, S/o: Kisthaiah, Aged about: 40 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Business, R/o: Edulanagulapalli (Case against A21 is abated)

... Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 25-09-2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri. N. Veeranna Patil, Advocate

for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1.The accused stand before the Court facing the charges under Section 420, 447, 427 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to 2 C.C.129 OF 2011 as IPC). It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused colluded with each other by making criminal conspiracy and sold the land in Sy.No.177/AA and 183/AA to an extent of Ac.2-17 guntas initially in favour of LW1/Raghavendra Verma and thereafter again registered the said land in favour of LW7/Kotolla Raju under the registered sale deed. As such it is the allegation of the prosecution that all the accused cheated

LW1/Raghavendra Verma and LW7/Kotolla Raju by making double registration of the land pertaining to the accused. Further it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused came to the land of LW1/Raghavendra Verma by trespassing and damaging the boundary stones, as such accused are said to have been committed offence under

Sections 420, 447, 427 and 120-B of I.P.C.

2.Based on the Police Report, the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class Court, Sangareddy took cognizance for the offences under Section 420, 447, 427 and 120-B of I.P.C., and numbered as C.C.No.161/2009. On appearance of accused case copies were furnished to accused as required under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) Later the case was transferred to this Court vide Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court,

Medak at Sangareddy Proceedings No.4194/2010 dated 17-08-2010 and numbered as C.C.No.129/2011.

3.The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusations leveled against them. Charges for the offences under Section 420, 447, 427 and 120-B of I.P.C., were framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove the prosecution allegation, PWs1 to 9 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P15 are marked. After the prosecution reported it’s evidence as closed, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for 3 C.C.129 OF 2011 the accused. Perused the record.

6.Now the points for determination are:-

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

offences under Section 420, 447, 427 and 120-B of I.P.C., of I.P.C.,

beyond reasonable doubt?

ii. To what findings?

7.Point No.1:-The defacto complainant who is said to be the victim in the present case is examined as PW1. He deposed that he along with his four partners jointly purchased land admeasuring Ac.12-22 guntas in Sy.No.177/A, 183/A, 177/AA, 183/AA,178, 179, 182, 185 and 181 of Nandigama Village under the registered sale deeds in the year 1996 from the accused and since the date of purchase PW1 and his partners are said to be in possession of the said property wherein watchman room is constructed and watchman by name Krishnaiah is looking after the property. It is deposed by PW1 that in the year 2006 accused No.1 to 3 re-sold the property to one

Raju and in the year 2008 other accused illegally trespassed into the land of PW1 and threatened the watchman. That PW1 made enquiries with the Registration Office,

Sangareddy and came to know that accused No.1 to 3 and their sons and daughters executed registered sale deeds in favour of one Mallesh who in turn sold the land in favour of Raju and such Raju sold the same in favour of one Venkatesh and Murali.

As such PW1 filed the complaint before the Court of Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Sangareddy. Ex.P1 is the complaint, the sale deeds of PW1 are marked

as Ex.P2 and P3 and the sale deeds where double registration is made are marked as

Ex.P4 to P6.

8.The other partners of PW1 are examined as PW2 and PW3. They deposed on the lines of PW1. The other cited witnesses are examined as PW4 and 5.

Both these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and through them their 161 Cr.P.C., statements are marked as Ex.P7 and P8. The scene of offence panch 4 C.C.129 OF 2011 witnesses are examined as PW6 and 7. Both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and their signatures on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch are marked as Ex.P9 to P12.

9.The person who purchased land from the accused and is also shown as victim by name K. Raju is examined as PW8. He deposed that in the year 2006 A1 to

A3 sold land admeasuring Ac.2-17 guntas in Sy.No.177 and 183 to A4 and from A4;

PW8 purchased the land. The sale deed of PW8 is Ex.P6. The Investigating Officer in the present case is examined as PW9. In the chief-examination PW9 deposed on the lines of the report filed by him under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Through PW9 Ex.P13 to

P15 are marked.

10.In the cross-examination of PW9 he admitted that there is civil dispute pending which is filed by the complainant against the accused. PW9 denied a suggestion that document pertaining to the year 1996 and 2006 are forged by PW1 and basing on that forged documents present case came to be instituted against the accused. PW9 denied a suggestion that accused were falsely implicated in the present case.

11.With the evidence as referred to above, in general it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused being owners of land in Sy.No.178, 179, 182 totally admeasuring Ac.6-37 guntas situated at Nandigama Village sold the same in favour of

PW1 to 3 and LW4/P. Vijaya under the registered sale deeds to an extent of Ac.6-37 guntas as shown under Ex.P2 document, so also the accused executed another registered sale deed in favour of PW1 to 3 and LW4/P. Vijaya in respect of land in

Sy.No.177/A admeasuring Ac.1-26 guntas and Sy.No.183/A admeasuring Ac.0-31 guntas in total Ac.2-17 guntas situated at Nandigama Village as seen under Ex.P3.

12.It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused having been sold the land under Ex.P2 and P3 to PW1 to 3 and LW4/P. Vijaya have again executed registered sale deed in respect of land which is sold under Ex.P2 and P3 under the 5 C.C.129 OF 2011 registered sale deed as in Ex.P4, P5 and P6 documents. It is required to be observed that the Investigating Officer examined as PW9 did not procure the original sale deeds from PW1 to 3 and LW4/P. Vijaya but only filed the certified copies as in Ex.P2 and P3.

The Investigating Officer PW9 even failed to secure the original sale deeds as in

Ex.P4 to P6 and send Ex.P2 to P6 to the Expert for comparison and opinion in order to concretely state that the sale deeds executed under Ex.P2 and P3 were in fact executed by the accused which are re-sold by the accused under Ex.P4 to P6.

Absolutely there is no scientific evidence in the present case secured by the

Investigating Officer in order to connect the accused in the present case for suggesting that accused have re-sold the land in favour of third parties under Ex.P4 to P6 documents having sold the same in favour of PW1 to 3 and LW4 under Ex.P2 and P3 documents. Primarily the prosecution failed to prove that any forgery is committed by way of impersonation and thereby all the accused cheated the PW1 to 3 and

LW4/P. Vijaya.

13.It is also required to be observed that PW1 has instituted a civil suit against the accused seeking for declaration of subsequent sale deeds as in Ex.P4 to

P6 to be declared as null and void as such civil rights are to be adjudicated before the

Civil Court. In the present case the evidence on record is not sufficient to allege that accused have committed for the offences of which they are charged. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14.Point No.2:-In the result, accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420, 447, 427 and 120-B of IPC and acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused are stands cancelled subject to Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of September, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy 6 C.C.129 OF 2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence:

PW-1: P. Raghavendra Varma- NIL- PW-2: Muppala Madhavi PW-3: N. Sudhamani PW-4: Kammari Narsimulu PW-5: Begari Kistaiah PW-6: P. Srisailam PW-7: Md. Goremiah PW-8: K. Raju PW-9: B. Gangadhar

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P-1: Complaint-NIL- Ex.P-2: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.5121/1996 Ex.P-3: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.4034/1996 Ex.P-4: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.27350/2006 Ex.P-5: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.21922/2006 Ex.P-6: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.24932/2006 Ex.P-7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4 Ex.P-8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5 Ex.P-9: Portion of signature on scene of offence panchanama by PW6 Ex.P-10: Portion of signature on rough sketch by PW6 Ex.P-11: Portion of signature on scene of offence panchanama by PW7 Ex.P-12: Portion of signature on rough sketch by PW7 Ex.P-13: FIR Ex.P-14: Carbon copy of letter addressed to Sub-Registrar for requisition of Certified copies of sale deeds pertaining to this case Ex.P-15: Letter received by PW9 from Assistant Sub-Registrar

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy 7 C.C.129 OF 2011

TSSN040003092016

Presented on : 17-03-2016 Registered on : 22-03-2016 Decided on : 30-10-2017 Duration : 1 years, 7 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

CC/200148/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

P.S.R.C.PURAM

Through Police Station Officer RC Puram PS 58, P.S.R.C.PURAM

SANGAREDDYSANGAREDDY

P.S.R.C.PURAM

VERSUS : Gadde Sweekar Age: 0 Occupation : age, 24 yrs, Caste, Padmashali, Occ, Pvt.Employee, Ro Flat No. 84, Saikrupa colony, Beeramguda, Ameenpur of Patancheru Mandal 2:Gadde Yadagiri Age: 58 Occupation : Caste Padmashali Occ Govt Employee Ro flat No. 84

Saikrupa Colony Beeramguda Ameenpur of Patancheru Mandal 3:Gadde Sharanya Age: 26 Occupation : Caste Padmashali Occ Student Ro flat No. 84 Saikrupa colony Beeramguda Ameenpur of Patancheru Mandal 4:Govindolla Manoher Age: 24 Occupation : Caste Goud Occ Student Ro H.No. 236G BHEL Ts R.C.Pura ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for G.Ravindar Goud appearing for Gadde Sweekar Advocate , , appearing for , , , 2, 3, 4 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 354(D),506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of ,

ORDER

Petition filed 216 Cr.Pc by prosecution and allowed. vide Crl. MP No.823/2016. All accused called present LW1/victim called present joint memo filed. heard both sides mater referred to Lok Adalath. 30-10-2017. Accused and the defacto complainant are present. counsel for the accused and the identified the parties and obtained their signature in my presence. As per the judgment of Hon\''ble Supreme Court rendered in Nallajerla Murali Krishna @ Murali Vs. State of Telangana, in Crl.P.No.9567 of 2014 Dt.09-10-2014 the offence U/s 354 IPC is compoundable. the matter is compromised between the parties on due conciliations before Lok Adalat. The complainant represented that, he has no grievance against the accused, and that, the accused may be relieved. Hence, the accused is discharged of the offence U/s 354, 506 IPC and are acquitted U/Sec. 320(8) Cr.PC. Accordingly award is passed (vide separate one)

Date : 30-10-2017

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN040010522015

Presented on : 22-07-2015 Registered on : 29-08-2015 Decided on : 09-10-2017 Duration : 2 years, 2 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

CC/200147/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

P.S.R.C.PURAM

Through Police Station Officer RC Puram PS 108, P.S.R.C.PURAM

SANGAREDDYSANGAREDDY

P.S.R.C.PURAM

VERSUS : Kanakam Thirupathi Age: 0 Occupation : age, 35 yrs, Caste, Christain, Occ, Pvt.Employee, Ro H.No. 104, Varma Layout, Nagapur of Maharastra state 2:Sourum Venkateshwarlu Age: 60 Occupation : Caste SC Madiga Occ Rtd EMP Ro H.No. 46-1-130 Enamamula

Deshaipet of Warangal town 3:Dopudu Vijaya Rao Age: 50 Occupation : Caste SC Madiga Occ Business Ro H.No. 22-1-382 Deshaipet of Warangal town 4:Marapilli Srinivas Age: 41 Occupation : Caste SC Madiga Ro H.No. 21-34 Gandhinager Hurabad Karimnagar District 5:Potharam Bhasakar Age: 47 Occupation : Caste SC Madiga Occ Agriculture Ro H.No. 2-17 Thumannapally village Huzurabad Mandal Karimnagar Distric ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for P.Ravi appearing for Kanakam Thirupathi Advocate , , , appearing for , , , , 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 498(A) of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 3,4 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,

ORDER

Accused 1 to 4 called absent petition filed and allowed Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separately). In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offeses punishable u/s 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 if DP Act and acquitted u/s 248 (1) CRPC. The bail bonds of accused are stands canceled subject to section 437- A of CRPC

Date : 09-10-2017

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN040003702015

Presented on : 29-06-2015 Registered on : 29-06-2015 Decided on : 06-10-2017 Duration : 2 years, 3 months, 7 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

CC/200235/2015

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Sangareddy Women P.S. Through Police Station Officer AMMENPUR 08, Women P.S. Sangareddy

SANGAREDDYSANGAREDDY

Sangareddy Women P.S. VERSUS : Shakeel Ahmed Khan Age: 0 Occupation : Age 38, Occ Auto Driver, Ro Sangareddy 2:Gousiya Begum Age: 0 Occupation : Age 50 Occ House Hold Ro Sangaredd ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for M.Sudhakar appearing for Shakeel Ahmed Khan Advocate M.Sudhakar appearing for M.Sudhakar , 2 respectively.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 498-A,324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 3and4 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,

ORDER

Accused and the defacto complainant are present. Counsel for the accused and the Police concerned are present and identified the parties and obtained their signatures in my presence. The offence alleged punishable U/Sec. 498-A 324 IPC are compoundable. The matter is compromised between the parties on due conciliations before Lok Adalat. The complainant represented that, he/she has no grievance against the accused, and that, the accused may be relieved. Hence, the accused is discharged of the offences U/Sec. 498-A, 324 IPC and is acquitted U/Sec 320-8 Cr.PC. Accordingly award is passed vide separate one.

Date : 06-10-2017

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana

Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana

Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN030001872013

Presented on : 04-01-2013 Registered on : 06-02-2013 Decided on : 24-04-2018 Duration : 5 years, 3 months, 20 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by

OS/7/2013

Exhibit No.:

: Kummari mogulamma Age: 0 Occupation : Address: RO Naltoor village jinnaram mandal

VERSUS : Kummari nagaiah Age: 0 Occupation : Address: RO pashamailaram patancehru 2:K.Veeresham Age: 0 Occupation :

3:Chandraiah Age: 0 Occupation :

4:K.Sathaiah

Age: 0 Occupation :

5:K.Chandraiah Age: 0 Occupation :

6:K.Ramesh Age: 0 Occupation :

7:K.Balaiah Age: 0 Occupation :

8:Anthamma Age: 0 Occupation :

9:K.Suvamma Age: 0 Occupation :

10:L.Manoharamma Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : T.Vishvanatham Advocate for : appearing for Kummari nagaiah: Advocate , , , , , , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 24-04-2018 )

ORDER

Plaintiff and D10 present. Suit is not pressed against Defendants No.1 to 9. Perused record. Place before Lok Adalath Bench. LOK ADALATH BENCH Plaintiff and Defendants are present. Counsel for both sides also present. At the intervention and upon advice by the Members of the Lok Adalat Bench and the Learned Counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. Accordingly an award is passed(vide separate one) as per the terms of compromise mentioned in the award.

Date : 24-04-2018 Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

{JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS