J.Kishore Kumar

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 1 - JMFC Court, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS ::

BANAGANAPALLE.

Present :- J.KISHORE KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalle.

Dated Thursday, the 18 th day of April, 2024.

C.C.No.42 of 2018

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Banaganapalle Police

Station in Crime No.164 of 2017.

.... Complainant

- Versus -

1. Billa Thimmaiah, Aged 35 years, Son of B.Ramudu.

2. Billa Ramudu, Aged 70 years, Son of B.Thimmaiah.

3. Billa Madhu Sekhar, Aged 18 years, Son of Venkata Krishnaiah.

4. Billa Mallikarjuna, Aged 19 years, Son of Venkata Swamy.

All are residents of Meerapuram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal.

… Accused No.1 to 4

This Case was coming on 18-03-2024 for Arguments in the presence of the

Sri M.Madhava Rao, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri

T.Madhava Reddy and Sri T.R.Jagannatha Reddy, Counsel for the Accused and on hearing both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Banaganapalle Police Station has filed

Charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.164 of 2017, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, R/w 34 of Indain Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 2 - JMFC Court, BPL.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

That the Defacto Complainant, Yelamanchi Pullaiah [LW1] is living by grazing his Cattle Sheep, and that, he used to keep them infront of his house in his

Site by framing fencing. Besides his Site, the land of the Accused is also situated, and they also used to tie thier cattles in thier site and their cattle were used to come regularly to the house of the LW1/Yelamanchi Pullaiah, and as such, he informed same to the A1 to A4 as to their cattle properly, but the Accused paid deaf ears, and that on 20-07-2017 at about 19-00 hours, the Cattles of the Accused came to the house of the LW1 and informed the same to the A1 to A4, then, the A1 to A4 became angry by saying that “Yemi ra needi ekkuva ainidi, maa Mekalu Vastayee, neevu nee intloki Rakunda Kampa Pettuko” and then, the A1 took stick and beat the LW1 on his head, and then, the A2 to A4 also came and kicked him with their hands and legs, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury on his head and contusions over his body, and on hearing his cries, the LW2 to LW5 [

Yelamanchi Veeraiah, Yelamanchi Subbamma, Yalamanchi Punyavathi and

Yalamanchi Nageshwaramma respectively ] were came and resuced him from the hands of the Accused.

[b]Basing on the Report of the LW1/Yelamanchi Pullaiah, the

LW7/C.M.Rakesh [Sub Inspector of Police] had registered a Case as in Crime

No.164 of 2017 under sections 323, 324, Read with 34 of IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, he served Form 41-A Cr.P.C Notices to the

Accused, and accordingly, on 24-07-2017 they complied the same and obtained station bail. Subquently, the LW6/Dr.Ravi Kumar who treated the injured and opined that the injury occurred to the LW1/Yelamanchi Pullaiah is simple in nature and after completion of all legal formalities, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Banaganapalle P.S. has filed Charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of laws.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 3 - JMFC Court, BPL.

3. Cognizance of the offence Under Sections 323, 324, Read with 34 of

IPC against the A1 to A4 has taken by this Court and issued Summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 to 4 before this Court, Copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

5. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

The sum and substance of the Charges were read over and explained to them in their Vernacular, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the Prosecution has examined totally six [6] Witnesses as the PW1 to PW6 and Exhibits P1 to P5 were got marked on behalf of the Prosecution.

7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found in the evidence of

Prosecution Witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now, the Point for determination is :- “ Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 323, 324 R/w 34 of IPC, alleged or otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.To prove the Case, the Prosecution has examined the PW1 to PW6 in this case. The PW1 is the Defacto Complainant-cum-injured person. He deposed in his evidence that on 20-07-2017 at about 07-00 PM, the incident was occured.

He also deposed that the A1 to A4 were also living in the same locality by grazing the cattles, and their cattles were used to come to the house of the PW1 regularly,

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 4 - JMFC Court, BPL.

and as such, he informed the same to the A1 to A4, for which, they paid deaf ear.

He further deposed that, as the same manner, the cattle of the A1 to A4 came to his house on 20-07-2017 at 07-00 PM, then, he informed the same to the Accused, for which, the A1 became angry and beat him with a stick on his head, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury. Then, the A2 to A4 also came there and beat him with their hands and legs. He further deposed that, on hearing his cries, the

LW2 to LW5 [Yelamanchi Veeraiah, Yelamanchi Subbamma, Yalamanchi

Punyavathi and Yalamanchi Nageshwaramma respectively ] came and rescued him from the hands of the A1 to A4. He also deposed that, after the incident, immediately he was shifted to Banaganapalle Hospital for treatment, and on the next day of the incident, the Police came to the Hospital and recorded his

Statement marked as Ex.P1.

11.The PW2 is the father of the PW1, who deposed in his evidence that at about five years ago, in the evening at 07-00 PM, the Cattles of the Accused came to the house of the PW1, and on that, the PW1 informed the same to all the

Accused persons, for which, all the Accused states to the PW1, as to lay a fencing on the land of the PW1. He also deposed that the A1 beat the PW1 with a stick on his head, due to which, he sustained bleeding injuries, then, the A2 to A4 also beat the PW1 with their hands and legs. He further deposed that, on hearing the cries of the PW1, he along with LW3 to LW5 [Yelamanchi Subbamma, Yalamanchi

Punyavathi and Yalamanchi Nageshwaramma respectively ] were came and rescued him from the hands of the Accused. He also deposed that he shifted the

PW1 to the Hospital for treatment.

12.The PW3 is the wife of the PW1. She deposed similar version as that of the PW1 with regard to the motive of the offence and act of the Accused persons against the PW1. She also deposed that the A1 beat the PW1 with a stick on his head, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury, and the A2 to A4 also beat him

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 5 - JMFC Court, BPL.

with their hands and legs. She also deposed that, no houses were situated around the scene of offence. She further deposed that, after the incident, they shifted the

PW1 to the Hospital for treatment.

13.The PW4 is the daughter of the PW1, who deposed the similar version as that of the PW3 and PW4 with regard to all the material aspects.

14.The PW5 is the Investigation Officer, who deposed in his evidence that on 20-07-2017 at 07-30 PM, he received Medico Legal Intimation from the

Government Hospital, Banaganapalle, and on that, he went there, but the injured person/PW1 was unable to give his Statement at that time, and as such, he went to the Hospital on the next day, wherein he examined and recorded his statement at the Hospital, and on that, he registered a Case as in Crime No.164 of 2017 under sections 323, 324 Read with 34 of IPC against the A1 to A4. He also deposed that he conducted material part of investigation and filed Charge sheet against the

Accused.

15.The PW6 is the Doctor who worked in Banaganapalle Hospital, deposed in his evidence that he can identified his signature of one Dr.Ravi Kumar who examined and treated the PW1. He deposed that on 20-07-2015 at 08-30 PM, one Dr.Ravi Kumar had examined the PW1 and accordingly, he issued Wound

Certificate of the PW1.

16.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued before this Court that the evidence of the PW1 to PW4 are corroborated with each other and the

Medical Officer evidence/PW6 evidence is also supported the version of the PW1 to

PW4 and hence prayed the Court to convict the Accused.

[b]On the other hand, the Defence Counsel for the Accused has argued before this Court that the PW1 to PW4 are the relatives to each other and

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 6 - JMFC Court, BPL.

they are belongs to one family, and the independent witnesses were not examined by the Investigation Officer and hence, requested the Court to acquit the Accused by giving benefit of doubt.

17.Heard on both sides.

18.Perused the material available on record. As seen from the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, it is revealed that the PW1 is the victim-cum-injured person. His evidence reveals that the Cattles of the Accused were used to come to his house, and as such, he informed the same to the Accused persons, for which, the Accused persons states him as to lay fencing on his site, and as usual, as on the date of offence, the cattles of the Accused were come to the house of the PW1, then, he informed the matter to the Accused persons, then, the A1 became angry and beat him with a stick on his head, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury on his head. His evidence also reveals that, as on the date of offence, the A2 to A4 also came to the scene of offence and beat him with their hands and legs, and on hearing the cries of the PW1, the PW2 to PW4 were came to the scene of offence and rescued the PW1 from the hands of the Accused.

19.As seen from the evidence of the PW2 to PW4, who are the crucial witnesses-cum – Circum stantial witnesses in this case, their evidence reveals that, the alleged incident was occured on 20-07-2017 at 07-00 PM, and at that time, they rescued the PW1 from the hands of the Accused and they also witnessed that the

Accused persons were beaten the PW1 with their hands and legs, due to which, the

PW1 sustain contusions. Moroever, their evidence is also reveals, as on the date of offence, there are no residential houses were situated around the scene of offence. So, the evidence of the PW2 to PW4 are clearly corroborated with the version of the PW1 with regard to all the material aspects.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 7 - JMFC Court, BPL.

20. As seen from the evidence of the PW6, who gave his evidence, as on the date of offence, one Mr.Ravi Kumar who treated the PW1 and accordingly, he issued Wound Certificate of the PW1. As seen from the evidence of the Wound

Certificate of the PW1, the injury is also corroborated with the evidence of the PW1 to PW4. So, it is also helpful for the case of the Prosecution.

21.As seen from the case record, it is reveals that, as on the date of offence, there are no residential houses were situated around the scene of offence.

So, there is no chance to other persons to witness the offence commited by the accused persons other than the family members of the PW1. Furthermore, as seen from the case record, it is also reveals that, there are no previous disputes or enmity in between the families of the Accused and PW1 prior to the date of offence.

So, this Court belives that the A1 beat the PW1 with a stick on the head of the PW1 and the A2 to A4 also beat the PW1 with their hands and legs at the time of offence and the same facts were corroborated with the evidence of the PW1 to PW4.

22.At this juncture, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the

Accused that the PW1 to PW4 are the kith and kin and they are close-relatives, and that they are considered as interested witnesses and their evidence shall not be believable. But, this Court is not agreed with his contention because mere close relatives shall not be branded as interested witnesses. Our criminal jurisprudence makes clear distinction between a related witness and interested witness. A witness cannot be said to be an interested witness mere he or she having the relationship with the victim. The witness may be called as interested witness only when he derives some benefit from the result of litigation in seeing the Accused person punished.

23.In the present case in hand, the PW2 to PW4 may be relatives, but they cannot be labelled as interested witnesses for the victim/PW1. Because on

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 8 - JMFC Court, BPL.

scrutiny of their evidence, which has stood the rigour of the case of the

Prosecution, though they cross examined at lengthy, but corroborated the version of the Prosecution. Therefore, the PW2 to PW4 are considered as natural witnesses who were present at the spot at the time of occurence. There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be the witness to the occurence and they will always depose false evidence before the Court. Hence, their evidence also admissible and relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the circumstances, the evidence of the PW2 to PW4 cannot be discarded by labelling them as interested witnesses.

24.On persual of evidence of the PW1 to PW4, this Court feels that there are no discrepancies occured in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses. When the all witnesses categoarically deposed with one voice that they witnessed the incident. Therefore, as discussed supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Point is determined.

25. In the result, the A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324 Read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, and thereby they are convicted for the same under section 248 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III directly on System, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalle. 18-04-2024 :- 26.When the Court questioned the A1 to A4 regarding the quantum of

Sentence, for which, they submitted that they are suffering from ill health issues and also they are having having respective small childrens and requested the Court to take lenient view on them.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 9 - JMFC Court, BPL.

27.After hearing the A1 to A4 and after gone through the submissions made by them, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is opined that the imposition of fine on the Accused would meet the ends of justice.

28.Hence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are Sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under

Section 324 R/w 34 of IPC, in-default-of-payment-of-fine, the A1 to A4 shall suffer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The total fine amout of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand only] for the offence under section 324 Read with 34 of IPC.

[b]. Further, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are Sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under

Section 323 R/w 34 of IPC, in-default-of-payment-of-fine, the A1 to A4 shall suffer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The total fine amount of Rs.8,000/- [Rupees Eight Thousand only] for the offence under section 323 Read with 34 of IPC.

[c]The Total Amount of fine is Rs.20,000/- + Rs.8,000/- =

Rs.28,000/-.

[d]The Bail bonds of the above A1 to A4 and their sureties shall remain inforce for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The A1 to

A4 are hereby informed about their Right to Appeal before the Hon’ble Sessions

Court.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 10 - JMFC Court, BPL.

[e]The unmarked Case Property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalle. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For the Prosecution : For the Defence :

PW1: Y.Pullaiah.None.

PW2: Y.Veeraiah.

PW3: Y.Punyavathi.

PW4: Y.Nageswaramma.

PW5: D.M.Rakesh [Sub Inspector of Police]

PW6: Dr.C.H.Siva Sankarudu [Medical Officer]

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution : For the Defence :

Ex.P1 : Statement signed by the PW1. - N I L -

Ex.P2 : MLC Intimation.

Ex.P3 : First Information Report.

Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch.

Ex.P5 : Wound Certificate of the PW1.

Material Objects marked for :- Nil.

J.M.F.C.,

BPL.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 11 - JMFC Court, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS ::

BANAGANAPALLE .

Calendar Case No.42 of 2018

1.Date of offence: 20-07-2017

2.Date of report: 21-07-2017

3.Date of filing: 03-11-2017

4.Date of apprehension of the Accused: 24-07-2017

5.Date of commencement of trial: 27-02-2020

6.Date of completion of trial: 14-06-2023

7.Date of Judgment: 18-04-2024

8.Complainant: State represented by the Sub InspectorofPolice, Banaganapalle P.S. (Crime No.164 of 2017). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Billa Thimmaiah, Aged 35 years, Son of B.Ramudu.

2. Billa Ramudu, Aged 70 years, Son of B.Thimmaiah.

3. Billa Madhu Sekhar, Aged 18 years, Son of Venkata Krishnaiah.

4. Billa Mallikarjuna, Aged 19 years, Son of Venkata Swamy. All are residents of Meerapuram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : Volunarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons; Voluntarily causing hurt by using hands and legs.

U/ Sections : 324, 323 R/w 34 of I.P.C.

Finding : Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found guilty.

O R D E R : The A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324 Read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, and thereby they are convicted for the same under section 248 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

[b]When the Court questioned the A1 to A4 regarding the quantum of Sentence, for which, they submitted that they are suffering from ill health issues and also they are having having respective small childrens and requested the Court to take lenient view on them.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 12 - JMFC Court, BPL.

[c]After hearing the A1 to A4 and after gone through the submissions made by them, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is opined that the imposition of fine on the Accused would meet the ends of justice.

[d]Hence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under Section 324 R/w 34 of IPC, in-default-of-payment-of-fine, the A1 to A4 shall suffer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The total fine amout of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand only] for the offence under section 324 Read with 34 of IPC.

[e]. Further, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand only] each for the offence punishable under Section 323 R/w 34 of IPC, in-default-of-payment-of-fine, the A1 to A4 shall suffer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The total fine amount of Rs.8,000/- [Rupees Eight Thousand only] for the offence under section 323 Read with 34 of IPC.

[f]The Total Amount of fine is Rs.20,000/- + Rs.8,000/- = Rs.28,000/-.

[g]The Bail bonds of the above A1 to A4 and their sureties shall remain inforce for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The A1 to A4 are hereby informed about their Right to Appeal before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court.

[h]The unmarked Case Property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy to the Accused.

CC. No.42 of 2018 - 13 - JMFC Court, BPL.

C.C.No.750 of 2023 1 JMFC, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANAGANAPALLE.

PRESENT :- J.KISHORE KUMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BANAGANAPALLE.

Thursday, this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

C.C.No.750 OF 2023

BETWEEN :

The State, represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Banaganapalle .

… COMPLAINANT AND :-

1. Talari Adi Sankar, Aged 36 years, Son of Late Krishna Murthy,

2. Boggula Mallikarjuna, Aged 33 Years, Son of Late Yellaiah,

Both are Resident of Palukuru Village, Banaganapalle Mandal.

… ACCUSED

* * * * *

This Case, coming before me on 12-04-2024 for Arguments in the presence of Sri M.Madhava Rao, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the

Prosecution and of Sri D. Raja Kullayee, Advocate for the Accused, and upon hearing both sides, and having been stood over consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Banaganapalle had laid

Charge-sheet in Cr.No.413 of 2021 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34[A] of A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act .

2. The contents of Charge-sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

On 05-12-2021 at about 18-00 hours, at YSR Circle, Palukuru

Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, wherein the Enforcement Sub Inspector of

C.C.No.750 of 2023 2 JMFC, BPL.

Police/P. Doulath Khan [LW4] along with his staff i.e., LW1/C. Leela Mohan –

Head Constable of Police, LW2/ S. Venkata Naidu and LW3/ M. Sivaiah –

Constables of Police were apprehended the Accused A1 and A2 and seized 17

Nibs of Original Choice Delux Whisky each 90 ML from the possession of the

Accused under cover of Special Report and took sample from the seized arrack and pasted label signed by the Police officer and the Accused.

[a]Basing on the Special Report, the Enforcement Sub Inspector , SEB

Banaganapalle [LW4] had registered a Case as in Crime No.413 of 2021 under

Section 34[A] of A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act. During the course of investigation, he arrested the Accused and thereafter, he sent sample to the Excise Lab,

Kurnool for analysis report, and concerned Authorities examined sample and opined the sample is Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of all legal formalities, he filed charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law.

3.The Case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(A) of

A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act, against Accused.

4.After receipt of summons, the Accused appeared before the Court, and the copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under

Section 207, Cr.P.C.

5.During the course of examination, the Accused is examined under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C, regarding the allegations of the Prosecution, and the

C.C.No.750 of 2023 3 JMFC, BPL.

Charge framed under Section 34(A) of A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act, against the

Accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PW1 and

PW2 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. M.O.1 got marked.

7.After closure of entire Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating material appear against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses in Telugu Language, for which, he denied the same, and stated that he had no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now, the Point arises for determination is whether the Prosecution

is able to establish the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 34(A)

of A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. P o i n t :In order to prove the same the Prosecution has examined the Police Officials i.e., P. Doulath Khan - Sub Inspector of Police and S. Venkata

Naidu – Police Constable were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively deposed that on 05-12-2021 at about 18-00 hours, at YSR Circle, palukuru Village,

Banaganapalle Mandal,, they found the Accused having 17 Nibs of Original

Choice Delux Whisky each 90 ML, and that PW1 sent the PW2 to secure mediators, but nobody came forward to act as Mediators, thereafter, the PW1 drafted the Special Report. Thereafter, the PW1 registered a case against the

Accused, and conducted material part of investigation and obtained FSL Report,

C.C.No.750 of 2023 4 JMFC, BPL.

and after completion of all legal formalities, the Inspector of Police/LW5/N.

Suhashini, has filed Charge sheet against the Accused.

11.In the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that the Place of offence is busy locality and that he did not secure any independent mediators for seizing the property. He further admitted that no Rough Sketch was prepared in this case, and that they did not follow the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C. He further admitted that all the witnesses were belongs to their same Department.

12.During the Cross Examination of the PW2, he denied the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.

13.After going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, this Court came to know that they are the Police Officials Witnesses and that the Investigation

Officer has failed to secure the panchayatdar, it is fatal to the case of the

Prosecution. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses shows that though they tried to get mediators from the scene of offence, nobody came forward to act as mediators. If any search or seizure is required to be in any case, the officer has to serve notices to the respectable inhabitants of the locality to asking them to stand as mediators which is mandatory as per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. But in the instant case, no notices were served by the police officials to any independent witnesses. It goes to show that they did not get any independent witnesses from

C.C.No.750 of 2023 5 JMFC, BPL.

the scene of offence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the case property from the possession of accused.

14.So, in this case, the Prosecution has mostly depended upon the

Confession Statement made by the Accused which is inadmissible and hit by

Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborative independent evidence to implicate and complicity of the Accused in the commission of offence.

15.In view of the above discussion, this Court concluded and holds that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34(A) of A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Point is determined against the Prosecution.

16. In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act, and hence, they are acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused and their sureties shall remain inforce for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 /Sample Bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

C.C.No.750 of 2023 6 JMFC, BPL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1: P. Doulath Khan [Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police]

PW2: S. Venkata Naidu [Police Constable]

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Special Report.

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: FSL Report.

Ex.P4: Destruction Proceedings.

Ex.P5: Signature of PW2 on Special Report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

M.O.1 – Sample Bottle.

J.M.F.C., Banaganapalle.

C.C.No.750 of 2023 7 JMFC, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

BANAGANAPALLE,

CALENDER IN C.C.No.750 of 2023

Date of Offence:05-12-2021 Date of Complaint:05-12-2021 Date of Apprehension of Accused:06-12-2021 Date of taking on file:29-09-2023 Date of Appearance of Accused:08-11-2023 Date of Commencement of trial:20-12-2023 Date of Closure of trial:17-01-2024 Date of Sentence / Order:18-04-2024 Explanation for delay:No delay. Complainant :The State, Represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Banaganapalle P.S. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence

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

1. Talari Adi Sankar, Aged 36 years, Son of Late Krishna Murthy,

2. Boggula Mallikarjuna, Aged 33 Years, Son of Late Yellaiah,

Both are Resident of Palukuru Village, Banaganapalle Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :Possession of Indian Made Liquor. Section of Law: Under Sec.34-A of A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act.

Finding of the Court : Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order :

In the result, the Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act, and hence, They are acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and their sureties shall remain inforce for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 /Sample Bottle, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate – cum – Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 1 JMFC, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANAGANAPALLE.

PRESENT :- J.KISHORE KUMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BANAGANAPALLE.

Thursday, this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

C.C.No.1005 OF 2023

BETWEEN :

The State, represented by Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB , Banaganapalle.

… COMPLAINANT AND :-

Gopalgari Suresh, S/o.Gopalgari Krishnamurthy, Aged 34 years, Resident of

Gaddamekalapalle, Owk Mandal, Nandyal District.

… ACCUSED

* * * * *

This Case, coming before me on 12-04-2024 for Arguments in the presence of Sri M.Madhava Rao, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the

Prosecution and of Sri S Jakir Hussain Basha, Advocate for the Accused, and upon hearing both sides, and having been stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Banaganapalle had laid

Charge-sheet in Cr.No.192/2022 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7[A] R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act .

2. The contents of Charge-sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

On 14-05-2022 at about 17.30 hours, at hillocks 1½ KM South- East distance to Gaddamekalapalle Village, Owk Mandal, wherein the Enforcement

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 2 JMFC, BPL.

Sub Inspector/S Jeelan Basha [LW3] along with his staff i.e., LW1/Y Venkata

Ramana and LW2/ S Venkata Naidu - Constables were apprehended the Accused and seized 100 liters of FS Wash and 05 liters of ID Liquid from the possession of the Accused under cover of Special Report and took sample from the seized FJ wash and pasted label signed by the Police officer and the Accused.

[a]Basing on the Special Report, Enforcement Sub Inspector/ Jeelan

Basha [LW3] had registered a Case as in Crime No.192/2022 under Section 7[A]

Read with 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, he arrested the Accused and thereafter, he sent sample to the Excise Lab, Kurnool for analysis report, and concerned Authorities examined sample and opined the sample is Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of all legal formalities, the LW4/ P.Doulath Khan,

Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Banaganapalle has filed charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law.

3.The Case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) of R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, against Accused.

4.After receipt of summons, the Accused appeared before the Court, and the copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under

Section 207, Cr.P.C.

5.During the course of examination, the Accused is examined under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C, regarding the allegations of the Prosecution, and the

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 3 JMFC, BPL.

Charge framed under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act, against the

Accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PW1 and

PW2 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. M.Os.1 and 2 are got marked.

7.After closure of entire Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating material appear against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses in Telugu Language, for which, he denied the same, and stated that he had no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now, the Point arises for determination is whether the Prosecution

is able to establish the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 7(A)

R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. P o i n t :In order to prove the same the Prosecution has examined the Police Officials i.e., S Jeelan Basha– Enforcement Sub Inspector and

S.Venkata Naidu - Constable were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively deposed that on 14-05-2022 at about 17.30 hours, at hillocks 1½ KM South-

East distance to Gaddamekalapalle Village, Owk Mandal, they found the Accused having 100 liters of FS Wash and 05 liters of ID Liquid, and that PW1 sent the

PW2 to secure mediators, but nobody came forward to act as Mediators, thereafter, the PW1 drafted the Special Report. Thereafter, the PW1 registered a case against the Accused, and conducted material part of investigation and

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 4 JMFC, BPL.

obtained FSL Report, and after completion of all legal formalities, the Inspector of

Police/LW4/P Doulath Khan has filed Charge sheet against the Accused.

11.In the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that the Place of offence is busy locality and that he did not secure any independent mediators for seizing the property. He further admitted that no Rough Sketch was prepared in this case, and that they did not follow the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C. He further admitted that all the witnesses were belongs to their same Department.

12.During the Cross Examination of the PW2, he denied the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.

13.After going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, this Court came to know that they are the Police Officials Witnesses and that the Prosecution has failed to examine any panchayatdar, it is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses shows that though they tried to get mediators from the scene of offence, nobody came forward to act as mediators. If any search or seizure is required to be in any case, the officer has to serve notices to the respectable inhabitants of the locality to asking them to stand as mediators which is mandatory as per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. But in the instant case, no notices were served by the police officials to any independent witnesses. It goes to show that they did not get any independent witnesses from the scene of offence.

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 5 JMFC, BPL.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the case property from the possession of accused.

14.So, in this case, the Prosecution has mostly depended upon the

Confession Statement made by the Accused which is inadmissible and hit by

Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborative independent evidence to implicate and complicity of the Accused in the commission of offence.

15.In view of the above discussion, this Court concluded and holds that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Point is determined against the Prosecution.

16. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, and hence, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused and his sureties shall remain inforce for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 and 2 /Sample Bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 6 JMFC, BPL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1: S. Jeelan Basha [Enforcement Sub Inspector]

PW2: S. Venkata Naidu [Police Constable]

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Special Report

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: FSL Report.

Ex.P4: Destruction Proceedings.

Ex.P5: Signature of PW2 on Special Report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

M.O.1 and 2 – Sample Bottles.

J.M.F.C., Banaganapalle.

Judgment C.C.No.1005 of 2023

Dt : 18-04-2024

C.C.No.1005 of 2023 7 JMFC, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

BANAGANAPALLE,

CALENDER IN C.C.No.1005 of 2023

Date of Offence:14-05-2022 Date of Complaint:14-05-2022 Date of Apprehension of Accused:30-01-2023 Date of taking on file:21-12-2023 Date of Appearance of Accused:02-02-2024 Date of Commencement of trial:19-02-2024 Date of Closure of trial:19-02-2024 Date of Sentence / Order:18-04-2024 Explanation for delay:The Prosecution took time.

Complainant :The State, represented by Enforcement Inspector, SEB , Banaganapalle -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gopalgari Suresh , S/o Gopalgari Krishnamurthy, Age 34yrs, Resident of

Gaddamekalapalle, Owk Mandal, Nandyal District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :Possession of Indian Made Liquor. Section of Law: Under Sec.7-A R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act, and hence, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain inforce for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 and 2/Sample Bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate – cum – Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

C.C.No.879 of 2023 1 JMFC, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANAGANAPALLE.

PRESENT :- J.KISHORE KUMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BANAGANAPALLE.

Thursday, this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

C.C.No.879 OF 2023

BETWEEN :

The State, represented by Enforcement Inspector, SEB , Banaganapalle.

… COMPLAINANT AND :-

K.Subbarayadu, S/o K Subbarayadu, Age 47 yrs, Resident of Rambhupal Nagar,

Banaganapalle Town, Nandyal District.

… ACCUSED

* * * * *

This Case, coming before me on 12-04-2024 for Arguments in the presence of Sri M.Madhava Rao, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the

Prosecution and of Sri S Jakir Hussain Basha, Advocate for the Accused, and upon hearing both sides, and having been stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Inspector, SEB, Banaganapalle had laid Charge- sheet in Cr.No.358/2021 against the Accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7[A] R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act .

2. The contents of Charge-sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

On 03-11-2021 at about 10.20 hours, at Rambhupal Nagar,

Banaganapalle Town, wherein the Enforcement Sub Inspector/Doulath Khan [LW3] along with his staff i.e., LW1/Y Venkata Ramana and LW2/ M Sivanna -

C.C.No.879 of 2023 2 JMFC, BPL.

Constables were apprehended the Accused and seized 05 liters of ID Liquid from the possession of the Accused under cover of Special Report and took sample from the seized ID Liquid and pasted label signed by the Police officer and the

Accused.

[a]Basing on the Special Report, Enforcement Sub Inspector/

P. Doulathkhan [LW3] had registered a Case as in Crime No.358/2021 under

Section 7[A] Read with 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, he arrested the Accused and thereafter, he sent sample to the

Excise Lab, Kurnool for analysis report, and concerned Authorities examined sample and opined the sample is Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of all legal formalities, the

LW4/ N Subashini, Enforcement Inspector SEB, Banaganapalle has filed charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law.

3.The Case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) of R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, against Accused.

4.After receipt of summons, the Accused appeared before the Court, and the copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under

Section 207, Cr.P.C.

5.During the course of examination, the Accused is examined under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C, regarding the allegations of the Prosecution, and the

Charge framed under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, against the

C.C.No.879 of 2023 3 JMFC, BPL.

Accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PW1 and

PW2 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. M.O.1 got marked.

7.After closure of entire Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating material appear against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses in Telugu Language, for which, he denied the same, and stated that he had no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now, the Point arises for determination is whether the Prosecution

is able to establish the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 7(A)

R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. P o i n t :In order to prove the same the Prosecution has examined the Police Officials i.e., P Doulathkhan – Enforcement Sub Inspector and

Y.Venkata Ramana - Constable of Police were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively deposed that on 03-11-2021 at about 10.20 hours, at Rambhupal

Nagar, Banaganapalle Town, they found the Accused having 05 liters of ID

Liquid, and that PW1 sent the PW2 to secure mediators, but nobody came forward to act as Mediators, thereafter, the PW1 drafted the Special Report.

Thereafter, the PW1 registered a case against the Accused, and conducted material part of investigation and obtained FSL Report, and after completion of all

C.C.No.879 of 2023 4 JMFC, BPL.

legal formalities, the Inspector of Police/LW4/N.Subhashini, has filed Charge sheet against the Accused.

11.In the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that the Place of offence is busy locality and that he did not secure any independent mediators for seizing the property. He further admitted that no Rough Sketch was prepared in this case, and that they did not follow the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C. He further admitted that all the witnesses were belongs to their same Department.

12.During the Cross Examination of the PW2, he denied the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.

13.After going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, this Court came to know that they are the Police Officials Witnesses and that the Prosecution has failed to examine any panchayatdar, it is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses shows that though they tried to get mediators from the scene of offence, nobody came forward to act as mediators. If any search or seizure is required to be in any case, the officer has to serve notices to the respectable inhabitants of the locality to asking them to stand as mediators which is mandatory as per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. But in the instant case, no notices were served by the police officials to any independent witnesses. It goes to show that they did not get any independent witnesses from the scene of offence.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the case property from the possession of accused.

C.C.No.879 of 2023 5 JMFC, BPL.

14.So, in this case, the Prosecution has mostly depended upon the

Confession Statement made by the Accused which is inadmissible and hit by

Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborative independent evidence to implicate and complicity of the Accused in the commission of offence.

15.In view of the above discussion, this Court concluded and holds that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Point is determined against the Prosecution.

16. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, and hence, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused and his sureties shall remain inforce for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 /Sample Bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1: P Doulath Khan [Enforcement Sub Inspector ]

C.C.No.879 of 2023 6 JMFC, BPL.

PW2: Y Venkata Ramana [Police Constable]

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Special Report

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: FSL Report.

Ex.P4: Destruction Proceedings.

Ex.P5: Signature of PW2 on Special Report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

M.O.1 – Sample Bottle.

J.M.F.C., Banaganapalle.

Judgment C.C.No.879 of 2023

Dt : 18-04-2024

C.C.No.879 of 2023 7 JMFC, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

BANAGANAPALLE,

CALENDER IN C.C.No.879 of 2023

Date of Offence:03-11-2021 Date of Complaint:03-11-2021 Date of Apprehension of Accused:05-11-2021 Date of taking on file:25-11-2023 Date of Appearance of Accused:03-01-2024 Date of Commencement of trial:17-01-2024 Date of Closure of trial:17-01-2024 Date of Sentence / Order:18-04-2024 Explanation for delay:The Prosecution took time.

Complainant :The State, represented by Enforcement Inspector, SEB , Banaganapalle -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.Subbarayadu, S/o. K Subbarayadu, Age 47 yrs, Resident of Rambhupal Nagar,

Banaganapalle Town, Nandyal District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :Possession of Indian Made Liquor. Section of Law: Under Sec.7-A R/w 8[e] of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) R/w 8[e] of A.P.Prohibition Act, and hence, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain inforce for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 /Sample Bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate – cum – Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

M.C.No.10 of 2019 1 - JFCM, BPL.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

BANAGANAPALLE

Present :- J.Kishore Kumar

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalle.

Monday, the 22 nd day of April, 2024.

M.C.No.1 0 of 2019

1. Kanasi Vindhya Lakshmi @ Chennuri Vindhya Vasani, Wife of Kanasi

Bala Sekhar @ Rama Subbaiah, Daughter of Chennuri Joseph, Aged about 33 years, Christian, Resident of Cement Nagar Village, Bethamcherla

Mandal, Nandyal District. Now residing at Gopal Nagar, Banaganapalle Town and Mandal.

2. Kanasi Rohi Viskyath, Son of Kanasi Bala Sekhar @ Rama Subbaiah,

Aged about 5 years, Christian, Minor, Resident of Cement Nagar Village,

Bethamcherla Mandal, Nandyal District. Now residing at Gopal Nagar,

Banaganapalle Town and Mandal.

Petitioner No.2 is being Minor, represented by his Mother as Natural

Guardian.

... Petitioners.

Versus

Kanasi Bala Sekhar @ Rama Subbaiah, Son of K.Subbarayudu, Aged about 34 years, Converted Christian, Resident of Kondajuturu Village, working as Junior

Executive Officer, KAPL Government of India, Bangalore, Karnataka State.

.... Respondent

******

This Petition was coming on 19-04-2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri T.R.Rama

M.C.No.10 of 2019 2 - JFCM, BPL.

Gopal Reddy, Sri Y.Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Sri S.Ganga Sada Sivudu, Miss/Smt.

S.Vijaya Nirmala and Sri S.Mahaboob Jailan, Advocates for the Respondent, and upon hearing and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.The Petitioners are filed a Petition under Section 125 [1][a] of Criminal

Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C) against the Respondent for seeking the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand only] to the 1st Petitioner, and Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] to the Petitioner No.2 from the

Respondent and for costs of the Petition.

2. The contents of Petition are as follows:-

The 1st Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 12-05-2013 in accordance with the Rites and

Customs of their Christian community in Kondajuturu Village, Panyam Mandal.

During their wedlock, they blessed one children who is the 2nd Petitioner herein.

[a]Subsequently, the Respondent neglected the Petitioners and he [Respondent] intentionally refused even to have cohabitation with the 1st petitioner and harassed her by physically and mentally for want of additional dowry from her parents. There are several mediation held in between, but no use. In the above circumstances, she went to her parents house and stayed there itself. Since then, the Respondent did not evince any interest towards the Petitioners and never pay any single rupee for their requirements.

[b]The Petitioners further pleaded that the Respondent has been working as Junior Executive Officer, KAPL Government of India, Bangalore,

Karnataka State and getting monthly income of Rs.80,000/- and having Rs.10 lakhs

M.C.No.10 of 2019 3 - JFCM, BPL.

bank balance and having the lands also. The 1st Petitioner has been suffering from health problems and she has been spending nearly Rs.10,000/- for her medical health issues. In view of above, the Petitioners made oral requests to the

Respondent, for seeking monthly maintenance to them, for which, the Respondent did not give any reply to them.

[c].The Petitioners further pleaded in his Petition that the

Respondent is having sufficient income, but refused to pay the maintenance amount to the Petitioners, and thus, they prayed the Court to award maintenance amount to the Petitioners from the Respondent.

03.The Respondent filed Counter and contending as follows :-

He admitted that the Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the

Respondent. He denied the Petition Averments as Para wise and category wise.

He further contending that the allegations in the present petition are reproduced earlier Petition in M.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Dhone and the said M.C.No.11 of 2014 was dismissed as not pressed by the

Petitioners on 28-09-2015 as they are compromised with the Respondent and they both entered into Stamp Agreement, Dt.14-09-2015 for settled their dispute.

[b]The Respondent further contending that the 1st Petitioner and her parents are cruel mentality and the 1st Petitoner is in habit of filing criminal cases against the Respondent and his family members. The 1st Petitioner filed

Complaint under section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and the same was numbered as in C.C.No.495 of 2014 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Dhone.

M.C.No.10 of 2019 4 - JFCM, BPL.

[c]The Respondent further contending that the 1st petitioner herself neglected the Respondent and did not join with him to lead marital life and she voluntarily deserted the marital company of the Respondent. The claim of the

Petitioners are not maintainable under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Petition.

04.On behalf of the Petitioners, the 1st Petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 marked on their behalf.

05.On behalf of the Respondent, no witnesses and exhibits got marked.

06.Heard the Counsel for the Petitioners.

07.The Point for consideration is “W hether the Petitioners are entitled for Award of Maintenance amount as prayed for ?

08. P o i n t :- [a]To establish their contentions, the 1st Petitioner had examined herself as the PW1. She deposed in Chief Examination in accordance with her

Petition contentions. As the evidence of the Respondent has been closed since no representation, it can be said that the evidence of the PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged.

[b]Since the Respondent has remained no representation in the

Petition, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he had admitted the case of the Petitioners. Hence, it can be said that the Petitioners are able to establish that the Respondent has to pay the maintenance amount to the Petitioners.

M.C.No.10 of 2019 5 - JFCM, BPL.

[c]Therefore, by virtue of the unrebutted evidence of the PW1 and coupled with the Ex.P1, this Court concludes that the Petitioners prove their case.

After discussing the above and perusal of the material placed in the record, the

Petitioners are entitled to get the maintenance from the Respondent.

Hence, the Point is answered accordingly.

08. In the result, the Petition is Partly allowed, directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the 1st Petitioner and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] to the 2nd Petitioner per month, towards the maintenance of the Petitioners, on or before 10th day of every succeeding month, from the date of this Order.

The Respondent is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only) towards the costs of the present Petition, failing which, the

Petitioners are at liberty to get the same through Process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

PW1 : K.Vindhya Vasini.

M.C.No.10 of 2019 6 - JFCM, BPL.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Ex.P1 : Wedding Card, Dt.12-05-2013.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

NIL.

J.M.F.C.,

BANAGANAPALLE.

O R D E R

M.C.No.10 of 2019

Dt. 22-04-2024

Part – I