Sri J.Sravan Kumar

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 196/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

ONGOLE

01.Date of offences: 02-03-2013

02.Date of report/complaint: 02-03-2013

03.Date of appearance of accused: 04-03-2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: 07-03-2013

05.Date of commencement of trial: 25-11-2014

06.Date of close of trial: 18-01-2016

07.Date of Judgment: 04-02-2016

08.Complainant:- State Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole I-Town Police Station.

09.Description of Accused:

Gokanakonda Srinivasa Rao s/o Venkaiah, Aged 41 years, Kamma of Gokanakonda Srinivasa Rao s/o Venkaiah, Aged 41 years, Kamma of Paleti Paeu (V), Jarugumalli mandalPrakasam DistrictPaleti Paeu (V), Jarugumalli mandalPrakasam District AdvocateAdvocate

10.Offence: U/s.290,292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, 509 of IPC

11.Plea of Accused: guilt

12.Finding of the Court: Found guilty

13.Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sec.290,292,-A, 323, 341, 351, 509, of IPC 290,292,-A, 323, 341, 351, 509, of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. And the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 506 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Considering the submissions of accused and the facts and circumstances of the case this court feels that instead of sentencing the accused at once to any punishment Sec.4(1) of Probation of

Offenders Act is extended to the accused and accused is released on his entering into a bond to appear and to receive sentence whenever called upon during such period no exceeding ONE YEAR, with a direction to keep peace and good behaviour.

The accused is informed that he is having right to file appeal in

District Court, on the Judgment passed by this court and he is entitled to free legal aid provided by the Government in appeal stage if he needed.

14.Fine amount:-- NIL

Explanation for the delay:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole I-Town P.S filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.48/2013 of his station under

Secs.290,292-A, 323, 351, 506, 509 of IPC. 29-4-2013 this case was taken on file. On 27-6-2013 copies of documents were furnished to the accused. On 24-10-2013 accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C.

and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec.290, 292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, and 509 of IPC and has been read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial i.e., 25-11-2014 to 18-1-2016

P.Ws 1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs. P1 to P2 are marked.

On 18-1-2016 accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, defense side evidence is closed. On 1-2-2016 arguments heard and posted for Judgment. On 04-2-2016 Judgment was pronounced.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole,

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole.

Copy to:

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist.,

Copy to Copy to

Sri P.V.Raghavulu Advocate for AccusedSri P.V.Raghavulu Advocate for Accused // True copy //// True copy //

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class,FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, OngoleOngole

3

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ONGOLEONGOLE

Present : Sri.J.Sravan Kumar,Present : Sri.J.Sravan Kumar, III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, OngoleIII-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, OngoleFAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole Thursday, this the fourth (4th ) day of February, 2016Thursday, this the fourth (4th ) day of February, 2016 C.C.No.196/2013C.C.No.196/2013

Between: Between:

STATE:Sub- Inspector of Police,STATE:Sub- Inspector of Police, Ongole I- Town Police Station, OngoleOngole I- Town Police Station, Ongole … Complainant … Complainant

AndAnd

Gokanakonda Srinivasa Rao s/o Venkaiah, Aged 41 years, Kamma of Gokanakonda Srinivasa Rao s/o Venkaiah, Aged 41 years, Kamma of Paleti Paeu (V), Jarugumalli mandalPrakasam DistrictPaleti Paeu (V), Jarugumalli mandalPrakasam District AdvocateAdvocate… Accused… Accused

This case is coming on 20-1-2016 for final hearing before me in theThis case is coming on 20-1-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutorpresence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for defacto for defacto complainant and of Sri.P.V.RaghavuluAdvocate for Accused. Uponcomplainant and of Sri.P.V.RaghavuluAdvocate for Accused. Upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over forperusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J J U // U D D G G M M E E N N T T // //

1.1.The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police of Ongole I TownThe State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police of Ongole I Town laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.48/2013 for thelaid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.48/2013 for the offence u/sec. 290,292,-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, 509 of IPCoffence u/sec. 290,292,-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, 509 of IPC

2.2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows :-The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows :-

3.3.The accused and Pw1-K.Uma Devi are husband and wife. AfterThe accused and Pw1-K.Uma Devi are husband and wife. After marriage, disputes were cropped out between them. Hence, theymarriage, disputes were cropped out between them. Hence, they separated from each other and obtained divorce. Pw1 and the accusedseparated from each other and obtained divorce. Pw1 and the accused are advocates by profession. The accused practicing at Ongole and Pw1are advocates by profession. The accused practicing at Ongole and Pw1 practicing at Nellore.practicing at Nellore.

4.4.After obtaining divorce, Pw1 got re-married with Pw3. While stoodAfter obtaining divorce, Pw1 got re-married with Pw3. While stood so, the accused grew wild on Pw1 about her second marriage, went andso, the accused grew wild on Pw1 about her second marriage, went and abused in filthy language. The prosecution further alleged that, theabused in filthy language. The prosecution further alleged that, the accused used to send obscene messages to Pw1 and Pw3 and the accusedaccused used to send obscene messages to Pw1 and Pw3 and the accused used to propaganda about character of Pw1 in and around society.used to propaganda about character of Pw1 in and around society.

Hence, she forced to made report against him.Hence, she forced to made report against him.

4

On the specific day, the accused bet Pw1 in public placeOn the specific day, the accused bet Pw1 in public place indiscriminately and abused in filthy language. Hence, she constrained toindiscriminately and abused in filthy language. Hence, she constrained to lodged report against the accused. Basing on her report the policelodged report against the accused. Basing on her report the police registered the present case for the offence u/s 290-292-A, 323, 341, 351,registered the present case for the offence u/s 290-292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, and 509 of Indian Penal Code.506, and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

5.5.This court took cognizance of offence u/secs.290-292-A, 323, 341,This court took cognizance of offence u/secs.290-292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, and 509 of IPC against the accused. After appearance copies of351, 506, and 509 of IPC against the accused. After appearance copies of documents were furnished as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.documents were furnished as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.6.The accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance ofThe accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec.290-292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, and 509accusation for the offence U/sec.290-292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, and 509 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to him inof Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.7.In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecutionIn order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined altogether 6 witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1examined altogether 6 witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 and Ex.P2 and Ex.P2

8.8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused wasAfter closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposedexamined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against the accused was read over andby prosecution witnesses against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defenceexplained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. evidence.

9.9.Heard both sides. Heard both sides.

10.10.Now the point for determination is :-Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ? beyond reasonable doubt ?

11.11.In order to substantiate the same, the prosecution examined PWs-1In order to substantiate the same, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 & P2.to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 & P2.

12.12.During examination of P.W1, she categorically stated that theDuring examination of P.W1, she categorically stated that the accused used to harass her for additional dowry and tortured mentallyaccused used to harass her for additional dowry and tortured mentally

5

and physically. Pw1 unable to bear the harassment of the accusedand physically. Pw1 unable to bear the harassment of the accused obtained divorce. She further stated that, after obtaining divorce, she re-obtained divorce. She further stated that, after obtaining divorce, she re- married Pw3 who is LIC agent by profession. She further stated that, frommarried Pw3 who is LIC agent by profession. She further stated that, from the day of her separation, the accused used to sent her obscenethe day of her separation, the accused used to sent her obscene massages and started abusing in filthy languages by calling to hermassages and started abusing in filthy languages by calling to her phones. She further alleged that, accused not only made calls but alsophones. She further alleged that, accused not only made calls but also send letters all the senior advocates practicing at Ongole and madesend letters all the senior advocates practicing at Ongole and made propaganda that she was not possessed good character. She furtherpropaganda that she was not possessed good character. She further alleged that the accused made phone calls to her employer startedalleged that the accused made phone calls to her employer started propaganda that she is bad women.propaganda that she is bad women.

13.13.Pw1 further stated that accused is not only spread allegationsPw1 further stated that accused is not only spread allegations against her and he also tried to outraged modesty in many ways, finallyagainst her and he also tried to outraged modesty in many ways, finally she was unable to bear the harassment of the accused and lodged reportshe was unable to bear the harassment of the accused and lodged report to the police station.to the police station.

14.14.Coming to the evidence of P.W2 who is an eye witnesses to the caseComing to the evidence of P.W2 who is an eye witnesses to the case of persecution categorically stated that, P.w1 came to his lab for givingof persecution categorically stated that, P.w1 came to his lab for giving blood sample, she was being advised that, come on the very next day inblood sample, she was being advised that, come on the very next day in fasting, so that blood reports will be tested authentically. When she leftfasting, so that blood reports will be tested authentically. When she left the said place, after some time, he heard some crises. On seeing, thethe said place, after some time, he heard some crises. On seeing, the accused beating P.W1 by caught hold of her tuft and abusing her in filthyaccused beating P.W1 by caught hold of her tuft and abusing her in filthy language. Meanwhile, he intervened and rescued P.W1. He further statedlanguage. Meanwhile, he intervened and rescued P.W1. He further stated that he advised the accused not to tortured her in further. On his advice,that he advised the accused not to tortured her in further. On his advice, both were went away from the said place. He stated that he wasboth were went away from the said place. He stated that he was examined by the police and recorded his statement.examined by the police and recorded his statement.

15.15.Coming to the evidence of P.W3 who is husband of P.W1 stated thatComing to the evidence of P.W3 who is husband of P.W1 stated that accused used to send him obscene messages by abusing his character. Heaccused used to send him obscene messages by abusing his character. He had advised the accused in many times, not to do such things, in spite ofhad advised the accused in many times, not to do such things, in spite of his requests, the accused continued of sending obscene messages to him.his requests, the accused continued of sending obscene messages to him.

He also admitted that he was examined by the police. He categoricallyHe also admitted that he was examined by the police. He categorically admitted during cross examination that he was not made any complaintadmitted during cross examination that he was not made any complaint against the accused even though he sent obscene messages. But theagainst the accused even though he sent obscene messages. But the witness stated that, he informed to the accused colleague lawyers, thatwitness stated that, he informed to the accused colleague lawyers, that doing such things are not good his profession.doing such things are not good his profession.

6

16.16.Coming to the evidence of P.W4 who is working as LIC Agent atComing to the evidence of P.W4 who is working as LIC Agent at

Addanki categorically stated that, on one day P.W3 & 4 were discussingAddanki categorically stated that, on one day P.W3 & 4 were discussing among each other, meanwhile the accused called to PW3 and warned thatamong each other, meanwhile the accused called to PW3 and warned that

P.W1 did not possess good character hence leave her. He further statedP.W1 did not possess good character hence leave her. He further stated that on the day, the accused warned Pw3, if he was not leave Pw1, he willthat on the day, the accused warned Pw3, if he was not leave Pw1, he will do away his life. During cross examination he categorically stated that ondo away his life. During cross examination he categorically stated that on 27-1-2013 he was examined by the police at LIC office.27-1-2013 he was examined by the police at LIC office.

17.17.Coming to the evidence of P.W5 who is cousin of P.W1 stated that,Coming to the evidence of P.W5 who is cousin of P.W1 stated that,

P.W1 is his sister. The accused married Pw1 in the year of 2005,P.W1 is his sister. The accused married Pw1 in the year of 2005, thereafter they obtained divorced in the year 2009. Even after obtainingthereafter they obtained divorced in the year 2009. Even after obtaining divorce, the accused used harass his sister through phone and habituateddivorce, the accused used harass his sister through phone and habituated of sending messages. During cross examination he was being suggestedof sending messages. During cross examination he was being suggested since he is brother of P.W1 he is stating false evidence.since he is brother of P.W1 he is stating false evidence.

18.18.P.W6 who is SI of Police stated in his evidence, that basing onP.W6 who is SI of Police stated in his evidence, that basing on report of Pw2 he registered FIR and the same is marked as Ex.P2. Hereport of Pw2 he registered FIR and the same is marked as Ex.P2. He stated that P.W1, P.W3 were examined on the same day and recordedstated that P.W1, P.W3 were examined on the same day and recorded their statements. He further stated that he visited scene of offence andtheir statements. He further stated that he visited scene of offence and drawn it. On 4-3-2013 he arrested the accused and send him for remand.drawn it. On 4-3-2013 he arrested the accused and send him for remand.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against theAfter completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 290,292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, 509 ofaccused for the offence U/sec. 290,292-A, 323, 341, 351, 506, 509 of

IPC.IPC.

19.19. This is case of prosecution in detail. The prosecution examined Pw1 This is case of prosecution in detail. The prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw6. Pw1 is de facto complainant and Pw2 is an eye witnesses to theto Pw6. Pw1 is de facto complainant and Pw2 is an eye witnesses to the case of prosecution. Pw3 is husband of Pw1. Pw4 is another eye witnessescase of prosecution. Pw3 is husband of Pw1. Pw4 is another eye witnesses to the case of prosecution. Pw5 is brother of Pw1 who supports theto the case of prosecution. Pw5 is brother of Pw1 who supports the allegation of prosecution. Pw6 is investigation officer.allegation of prosecution. Pw6 is investigation officer.

20.20.After completion of prosecution evidence learned APP argued that,After completion of prosecution evidence learned APP argued that, the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt andthe prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be punished for the offenses leveled by them.the accused is liable to be punished for the offenses leveled by them.

21.21.During arguments learned defence counsel vehemently argued thatDuring arguments learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the accused never committed any offence as Pw1 made false reportthe accused never committed any offence as Pw1 made false report against him. He further submitted that Pw1 and accused are advocates byagainst him. He further submitted that Pw1 and accused are advocates by

7

profession and the accused is respectable person in the society. Heprofession and the accused is respectable person in the society. He further submitted that, the accused is having professional rivalry withfurther submitted that, the accused is having professional rivalry with many advocates in and around Ongole town, and the present case foistedmany advocates in and around Ongole town, and the present case foisted by the police with their active support. He further argued that Pw1 madeby the police with their active support. He further argued that Pw1 made dowry harassment case against the accused and the case is now pendingdowry harassment case against the accused and the case is now pending

before Kandukur Court. He further argued that the accused facedbefore Kandukur Court. He further argued that the accused faced

harassment in the hands of Pw1 and he never committed any offence asharassment in the hands of Pw1 and he never committed any offence as alleged by prosecution. Hence, he prayed the court to acquit the accusedalleged by prosecution. Hence, he prayed the court to acquit the accused as he is innocent.as he is innocent.

22.Learned defence counsel further argued that there are many contradictions and omissions were recorded in the evidence of PW1 to 6 and their evidence not at all believable, and their evidence shall be discarded. His point was not noted down. The case of prosecution is, accused outraged modesty against women. The offence alleged to be committed by the husband of defacto complainant. It is also evident form the evidence of PW1 to 6, there are disputes between Pw1 and accused for so long time.

23.As alleged by the prosecution they failed to prove, that the accused sent obscene messages to Pw1 and PW3. The prosecution further alleged that the accused threatened Pw3 by making phone calls that he will do away his life if Pw3 not leave Pw1. This court observed that, the prosecution failed to produce any piece document to show that the accused made a phone call to PW3 and threatened him.

24.The prosecution failed to seize mobile phone nor produce messages list alleged to sent by the accused. The point was argued by the defence counsel. This court agreeing with the argument of the learned defence counsel. Non seizing of mobile phone or non producing messages list is fatal to the case of prosecution.

25However, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme court, “ in criminal cases normal discrepancies are bound occur in the deposition of witness.

The same was discussed by the Hon;'ble Supreme court in the below case

In the case of A.Shankar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC

2302, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

“In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such

8

as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.

However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier.

"Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions."

26.The same principle discussed in the cases of State of Rajasthan v.

Rajendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC 2554; State Represented by Inspector of

Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152; Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11

SCC 334; Vijay alias Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191; State of

U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324; Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of

U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v.

State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657).

27. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.Sankar (Supra), minor contradictions are bound to occur due to time lapse and normal observation. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in any case minor contradictions are bound to occur due to time lapse, its human nature. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh (Supra), while evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the court should not only see the independent witness if the “evidence of interested witnesses is not infirm. It would be good to have corroboration to their evidence as a matter of prudence. But corroboration is not always a must. If the evidence of interested witnesses is intrinsically good, it can be accepted without corroboration. Therefore, in the present case on hand, prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the accused in all possible

9

ways. As seen the case of prosecution, the accused charged for the offence of 509 also.

28.In the present case the prosecution fails to prove the charges level against the accused. However, PW2 an eye witness to the incident occurred against PW1 categorically stated that, in his presence the accused beat PW1 and abused her in filthy language.

29.Though PW1 is wife of the accused on the date of alleged incident sh is not his legally wedded wife by the date of incident. Both were separated legally and no more husband and wife relationship exist.

30.In the present case the prosecution is proved the accused committed on assault on PW1 and abused her in public place. The definition is very clear that who ever committed offence are liable to be punished even husband commit the said offence. Hence, this court feels the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is found guilty. For the offence

U/sec. 506 and he is acquitted for the rest of the offences.

31.31.Upon perusal of the entire evidence on record the evidence is veryUpon perusal of the entire evidence on record the evidence is very clear that the accused is harassed P.W1 and he was caught hold of herclear that the accused is harassed P.W1 and he was caught hold of her tuft in public place and beat her accordingly Sec. 506 of Cr.P.C accused istuft in public place and beat her accordingly Sec. 506 of Cr.P.C accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 506 accordingly he is found guilty.found guilty for the offence U/sec. 506 accordingly he is found guilty.

32.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sec.290,292,-A, 323, 341, 351, 509, of IPC 290,292,-A, 323, 341, 351, 509, of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. And the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 506 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Considering the submissions of accused and the facts and circumstances of the case this court feels that instead of sentencing the accused at once to any punishment Sec.4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act is extended to the accused and accused is released on his entering into a bond to appear and to receive sentence whenever called upon during such period no exceeding ONE YEAR, with a direction to keep peace and good behaviour.

10

The accused is informed that he is having right to file appeal in

District Court, on the Judgment passed by this court and he is entitled to free legal aid provided by the Government in appeal stage if he needed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of February, 2016.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar

III- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC:II- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

When accused is questioned about quantum of sentence to be imposed against them, he applied to the court to take lenient view in imposing punishment as he is having an old aged parents and he has to look after by them. He further submitted that, his father and mother are aged 90 years and suffering with paralysis. Hence, he is only person to take about their health. Therefore, he begs the court to take lenient view in imposing replenishment. He further prayed the court that he is an advocate by profession and assured that he will never commit any further offence.

Considering his pleas and nature of the offence this court intended to invoke Sec. 4 of Probationary of offenders Act. The accused is ordered to maintain peace and good character and ordered not to commit any offence for a period of one year. He also informed that, when ever he commits any offence and creating nuisance in and around society, his probationary will stand recalled and the punishment proposed to impose against the accused will come into force.

The D.P.O. is direct to submit monthly report about the behavior of the accused in a sealed cover to this court. Further the D.P.O. is ordered to submit compliance report on or before 5th of every month.

Accordingly, an opportunity is being giving to the accused to maintain peace and good behavior in the society.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar

III- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC:II- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

11

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Uma Devi-NIL-

P.W.2: E.Ramesh

P.W.3: Ch. Narasimha Rao

P.W.4: M.Purshothama Rao

P.W5 : K.Raghunatha Rao

P.W6: Sk.Mohd Gouse / / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/ – : report given by P.W1

Ex.P2/ – : FIR

For Defence :Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

Sd/- J.S.K

III-AJMFC

FAC::II-AJFCM Ongole // True copy //

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole

12

they had three children to be looked after by him and hence to take lenient view in punishing him. However in view of allegations proved against the accused this court is not inclined to take lenient view in punishing him as well as not inclined to apply provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act

13

14

// True Copy //// True Copy //

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class,III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class,

FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class,FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class,

OngoleOngole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ONGOLE

Present : Sri J. Sravan Kumar,

III-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole FAC/II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Friday, the Fifth (5th) day of February, 2016

C.C.No. 500/2012

Between:

Lingareddy Venkareddy Bhavani Financiers, represented by Managing Parter, S/o. Sankar Reddy, aged 48 years, Hindu, Shop No.1247, Sri Bapuji Market Complex, Ongole, Prakasam District … Complainant

And

Pottisiri Prameela, D/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Lambadi Donka, opp: Sirichandana Scanning center, Near Lakshmidurga opticals, Ongole, Prakasam District … Accused

This case is coming on 01-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.L. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri

M. Raja Ram,Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This is a Complaint filed against the accused alleging that she committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: -

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) from the complainant's finance company on 16- 06-2010 to meet her family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant's finance company, on the same day, agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 24% per annum.

Thereafter, on demand made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.961495 dt.10-02-2012, to be drawn on Bank of

Baroda, Ongole. The complainant presented the said cheque, in the State 2

Bank of India, town Branch, Ongole, and the same was returned with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant received Bank memo on 13-02-2012. On receipt of the said memo from the banker, the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused on 24-02-2012 intimating the fact, that the cheque was returned as unpaid for want of funds and demanded to pay the debt. The accused did not receive the notice, hence it was returned as unserved. Hence, as no other option the complainant presented the complaint before this Court to punish the accused under Sec.138 of N.I. Act and to pass necessary orders.

3.On service of summons the accused, appeared before this court and copies served as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure

Code.

4.The accused was examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure

Code. The substance of accusation leveled against her under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was read over and explained to her in

Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 Marked

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. One Pothuri Sateesh Babu, who is alleged to have been scribed Ex.P1 promissory note, is examined as PW.2 to support the contention of the P.W.1.

6.After closer of complainant side evidence, the accused examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evidence found against her was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which she denied the same as false and reported defence evidence. In spite of given an opportunity, she did not adduce any evidence. Hence, her evidence is closed.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :- 3

Whether the complainant is proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Before answering the first point Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

observations are very important to note down here. Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed in the case of “ Prem Chand Vijay Kumar

Vs Yashpal Singh and another, (2005) 4 SCC 417...

“ For deciding the cases under Sec 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act, following facts required to be prove successfully to prosecute the drawer for an offence 138 of NI Act”

a) The complainant has to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt,

b) The cheque issued by the accused towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt,

c) The said cheque presented for collection within the period of its validity and the same was dishonored by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,

d) The complainant shall issued a legal notice as contemplated Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period and the accused received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within the stipulated time as mentioned in Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

e) The complaint has to file within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.

9.If all the above ingredients are proved by the complainant or in other words, if all the above points are answered positively, the presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play and then the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption by preponderance of probability.

10.Coming to the present case on hand, first, the complainant has to prove, there is a legal enforceable debt. In order to prove the first ingredient, the complainant himself examined as Pw1 and one Mr. P.Satish

Babu (scribe of ExP1) examined as Pw2.

4 11.Ex.P1 is the promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant, Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.961495 alleged to be given by the accused, Ex.P3 is the return memo issued by Bank of Baroda with an endorsement of “funds insufficient”, Ex.P4 is the office copy of the legal notice issued to the accused, Ex.P5 is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 is the returned postal cover with an endorsement that the “ addressee left without instructions”

12.PW-1 was cross-examined at length. Admittedly, PW-1 is a Director of

Bhavani Financiers. As seen the Ex.P2, the cheque issued in favour of

Bhavani Financiers. The case of Pw1 is that, he is proprietor and one of the

Director of the Bhavani finance company. Pw1 admitted that, he did not shown the company as a party in this case. He is also made a very important admission during his cross-examination that, the company of is a registered and they used to maintain accounts for every transaction.

13.Pw1 further admitted that, he did not mention either in his complaint or in his chief affidavit that, the cheque is given towards part satisfaction of the debt. But he improved his version that, initially the accused issued

Rs.1,50,000/- cheque towards principal amount and assured that the rest of the amount will be paid later, hence he accepted the present cheque.

He also admitted that, on the date of transaction, he did not have any proof to show that he is having cash of Rs.1,50,000/-.

14.During cross-examination, learned defence counsel admitted that accused owe an amount of Rs 20,000/- only, and thereby admitted his part liability. He suggested the witness that, the accused is due only of

Rs.20,000/- of previous transactions and she did not issue any cheque of

Rs.1,50,000/- as mentioned in Ex.P2. During cross-examination, PW-1 made another important admission that, he was not addressed the statutory notice to the address mentioned in the promissory note. The witness voluntarily says the accused is changed her address, hence he issued statutory notice to her new address. He also made another 5 admission that, he did not make any effort to ascertain the accused address. Finally, PW-1 made admission that, he did not file any piece of document to show in supporting of his alleged transaction between the accused and him.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW-2, who is witness to the Ex.P1 document, he categorically stated that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the PW-1 and executed promissory note on 16-06- 2010. Admittedly, he is the scribe of Ex.P1. During cross-examination, he admitted that, he donot have any personal knowledge about the transaction held between PW-1 and accused.

16.To prove the defence, the accused not examined, in spite of given plenty of opportunities. Hence, defence evidence closed.

17.During arguments, learned defence counsel vehemently argued that, the complainant is a registered firm and PW-1 is a Managing Director by capacity. Ex.P2 issued in favour of the firm, whereas the firm was not shown as party in the present case. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. During arguments he raised another point that, since the

PW-1 company is a registered one and doing business legally, he did not file a piece of document before this Court to show Ex.P1 was executed for consideration and there is a legally enforceable document existed between complainant and accused. He raised another point that PW-1, failed to exhibit the documents connected in supporting to the present debt before this Court though the complainant is registered company. He further argued that as per version of Pw1, every piece of transaction held in Pw1's company used maintain record and the same are simultaneously entered in accounts book. Since Pw1's company is registered company, and he himself gave an admission that every piece of financial transaction will be recorded but he fails to produce any piece of document before this court to support his version.

6

18.Learned defence counsel further pointed out that, except Ex P1 promissory note, there are no other documents filed before this Court to support the contention of Pw1. Hence, it can be presumed that Ex.P1 is not executed for consideration and Ex P2 is not issued towards discharge of Ex

P1. Hence, he prayed the court that accused may be given benefit of doubt.

19.As seen the Ex.P1, it is issued for Rs.1,50,000/- and Ex.P2 is also issued for Rs.1,50,000/- and there is no endorsement on the backside of

Ex.P1 that Ex.P2 is issued towards discharge of Ex.P1 part liability. The fact of part liability is question, his admission was brought in the cross- examination. PW-1 admitted that he did not mention in his statutory notice nor in his complaint that Ex.P2 is issued for part liability. This is the very important aspect raised by the learned defence counsel.

20.On perusal of evidence it could understand that, PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination, that he did not support any document to show that the Ex.P1 is issued for discharge of legal liability. This court wanted to make it clear that, Pw1 is not a person here. It is a registered company.

Pw1 should come out with facts, that, what is the nature of business of the finance company ? And what was the debt indebted by the accused ? What is nature of the debt ? Whether hand loan or finance on pledge ? How much amount she received ? What amount she had paid ? Is there any account statement to pertain to the accused to support the version of

Pw1 ? Is there any agreement exist ? All issues shall have to be answered affirmatively.

21.Admittedly except Ex.P1, there is no piece of document filed before this court. Admittedly the transaction held between one individual and company. The transactions are not held between two individuals. If the transactions are held between two individuals, there would not be any document to support the legal enforceability. But admittedly, this is not a case of transaction held between two individuals. Because the transaction 7 held between the company and a person. If a company is stood in the capacity of the complainant, invariably, it should come out with the complete documentation, in what way the accused borrowed the amount, whether she executed agreement, or she due under any legal enforceable liability, and how the amount was disbursed to the accused, these are all shall have to be considered. In every company if it is registered, every financial transaction shall be disbursed through cheque or DD. But in the said case, Pw1 alleged that, the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- but he fails to prove how the amount was disbursed to the accused.

22.Being a registered finance company, every piece of transaction shall be disbursed through cheque /D.D. Whether the accused received amount from PW-1 through cheque or cash shall be proved. It is the duty of the complainant to prove, the debt covered under Ex P1 is legal enforceable debt. Except Ex.P1, there is no piece of document to consider that the accused is borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- amount. Though the complainant is individual and he represented the company being the capacity of the

Managing Director, his case may be accepted. But being a registered company, they should maintain accounts and they should show before the

Court how the accused availed loan, what amount she had paid and what are left to paid and what are the amount left to be paid and they should come out with the facts by filing the account copy as well as statement copy.

23.In view of the lacunas on the part of the complainant, this Court is did not believe the version of Pw1 that, the complainant is a registered company and failed to prove that the amount was given to the accused.

Finally, this court made it clear that, Pw1 failed to prove that, there is no legally enforceable liability between Pw1 and accused. As mentioned in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar ( supra ) this court feels that, the complainant failed to prove that Ex P2 issued towards discharge of legal 8 enforcible debt cover under Ex P1. Hence, the issue is answered in favor of accused.

24.Coming to the another point whether, the cheque issued by the accused towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt ?

25.In view of the first ingredient decided in favor of accused, the complainant failed to prove that the cheque is issued towards discharge of legal enforceable debt. Hence, this point is also answered in favor of accused.

26. Coming to the another ingredient is concern, the said cheque presented for collection within the period of its validity and the same was dishonored by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

27.As seen ExP2 it was issued on dt. 10-2-2012 and ExP3 returned memo depicting that the cheque was returned for want of funds on 11-2- 2012. As seen ExP2 and EXP3 its giving an impression immediately on issuance of cheque the complainant was presented in the bank and it was returned as reasons mentioned in Negotiable Instrument act. Hence, this court made it clear the compliant successfully meet out the third ingredient.

28.Coming to the fourth ingredient is concerned, the complainant shall issued a legal notice as contemplated Under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period and the accused received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonored cheque within the stipulated time as mentioned in Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

29.PW1 exhibited ExP6 i.e return postal cover with an endorsement of addressee left without instructions. Learned defence counsel categorically argued in the point that, the complainant did not address statutory notice to the original address of the accused and he sent notice to the wrong 9 address. Hence, he prayed the court that, the case Is not maintainable as the notice was not served to the accused. PW1 also categorically admitted during his cross examination that, he was not addressed statutory notice to the address mentioned in the ExP1. He also admitted that, the statutory notice was not served to the accused.

30.In this regard this court feels that, it is an important element in

Negotiable Instrument Act, that statuary notice shall be issued to the accused invaluable. If the notice was not served to the accused, there is no question of 138 of NI Act.

31.In the present case, PW1 himself admitted that he did not address statutory notice to the accused and he did not make any efforts to ascertain her address.

32.In view of the above admissions of PW1 this court feels that the notice can not be considered as deemed service. Hence, PW1 failed to comply the very important provision envisaged in 138 of NI Act. Hence, this issue also answered in favour of the accused.

33.In view of the above discussion this court made it very clear that,

PW1 being a registered company failed to produce any piece of document

before this court. Without support of any document, legal enforceable

liability can not be proved. Further ExP2, issued towards discharge of ExP1

Liability also not proved. Further more, PW1 failed to issue statutory notice to the accused as contemplated in 138 of NI Act.

34.In the result, the accused is found not guiltyIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence for the offence u/sec.138 of N.I. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 255 (1)u/sec.138 of N.I. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment. months as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 5 th day of February, 2016.

10

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC/II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ongole

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Lingareddy Venkareddy - NIL - P.W.2: Pothuri Sateesh Babu

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/16-06-2010 : Promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the accused in favour of the complainant. Ex.P2/10-02-2012 : Cheque bearing No.961495 issued by the accused in favour of complainant to be drawn at Bank of Baroda, Ongole for Rs.1,50,000/-. Ex.P3/11-02-2012 : Cheque return memo by the Bank of Baroda, Ongole with an endorsement of funds insufficient. Ex.P4/24-02-2012 : Office copy of legal notice issued to the accused. Ex.P5/24-02-2012 : Postal receipt. Ex.P6/ – : Returned postal cover with an endorsement that addressee left without instructions. For Defence :Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

Sd/- J.S.K

III-AJMFC, Ongole FAC/II-AJMFC, Ongole FAC/II-AJMFC, Ongole // True copy//

III-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC:II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole Ongole 11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT in C.C.No. 500/2012.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ONGOLE.

01.Date of offence: 16-6-2010

02.Date of report/complaint: 11-4-2012

03.Date of appearance of accused: 4-4-2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: ---

05.Date of commencement of trial: 16-11-2014

06.Date of close of trial: 18-11-2015

07.Date of Judgment: 05-02-2016

08.Lingareddy Venkareddy Bhavani Financiers, represented by Managing Parter, S/o. Sankar Reddy, aged 48 years, Hindu, Shop No.1247, Sri Bapuji Market Complex, Ongole, Prakasam District … Complainant

09.Pottisiri Prameela, D/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Lambadi Donka, opp: Sirichandana Scanning center, Near Lakshmidurga opticals, Ongole, Prakasam District … Accused

10.Offence: U/s.138 of NI Act.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guiltyIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence for the offence u/sec.138 of N.I. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 255 (1)u/sec.138 of N.I. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment. months as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment.

14.Fine amount: NIL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 4-4-2012.

On 4-4-2013 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required

U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 4-2-2013 accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act and he denied the offence and claimed to be tried and case posted for trial. On 17-9-2014 Chief affidavit of P.w.1 filed and on 26-11- 2014 P.w.1 examined in chief and Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked. At this stage the case is adjourned from time to time due to unreadiness of accused and at last on 18-2-2015 P.w.1 was examined in cross was concluded. On 11-3-2015 Chief affidavit of P.w.2 filed and on 18-11-2015 P.w.2 was cross examined and as 12 complainant reported no further evidence hence case is posted for examination of accused. On 21-12-2015 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him and reported defence evidence and on 11-1-2016 defense side evidence is treated as nil and closed.

And on 12-1-2016 heard arguments for complainants side counsel and on 1-2- 2016 heard arguments for defense side counsel and posted the matter for

Judgment. On 5-2-2016 Judgment pronounced in open Court. Hence the delay.

Sd/- J.Sravn Kumar

III Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC::II-Addl Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

Copy to the Accused.

// True copy//

III-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-

CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present: Sri J.Sravan Kumar,

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole. FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

Thursday, this the 4th day of February, 2016.

Calendar Case No.484/2012. Between:

Kuttuboina Mala Kondaiah S/o Kamaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, R/o by the side of Durga Nursing Home, Anjaiah road, Ongole, Prakasam District. ....… Complainant

And

Kunda Krishna Reddy S/o Brahma Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, business, R/o Thumadu village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District … Accused

This case coming on 03-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Venkata Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri

P.V.Raghava Rao, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act:

Brief Contents of the complaint is as follows:

2.The allegation of the complainant is that, the accused who is business man by profession, borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him to meet his business necessities and executed promissory note on 9- 8-2010. Thereafter, on 10-2-2011, the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- rupees to meet his business necessities and executed another promissory note. When the complainant requested his money back, the accused did not turn up to repay the amount and postponed by saying frivolous 2 reasons. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 002126 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- payable to the Central Bank of India on 12-9-2011.

The complainant further submit that, in between on 21-9-2011, the accused issued legal notice, to him, demanding to return the promissory notes along with other papers and documents, as he paid entire amount to him. The accused received the said legal notice and replied to the accused that, he made false allegations. In spite of many approaches, the accused did not re-payed the borrowed amount. Hence, the complainant constrained to present the cheque in his banker for collection. Unfortunately the said cheque was returned with an endorsement of funds insufficient. The said cheque was returned on 1-3- 2012. The complainant further stated that, he received return memo on 9-3-2012 from the banker, after receipt of the returned memo from the bank, he issued a statutory notice to the accused on 20-3-2012 and demanding for payment of amount due under promissory notes. The accused received the notice and replied on 28-3-2012. The despite of statutory period the accused did not come forward to pay the said amount. Hence, the complainant constrained to file the present complaint against the accused for the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act.

3.This complaint taken cognizance for the offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On appearance, copies furnished to the accused to enable him to know substance of accusation. He was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, has been read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. He further examined regarding 3 the means of engagement of counsel to defend the case on his behalf, he reported that he has sufficient means to engage counsel.

4.To prove the case of the prosecution P.W1, 2,and 3 were examined and got marked Exs. P1 to P10.

P.W1 is the Defacto complainant during examination of P.W1Exs.P1 to P10 are marked.

Ex.P1 is the Promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant on 9-8-2010 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.P2 :Another promissory note alleged to be executed by the accused in favour of the P.W1 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dt. 10-2-2011

Ex.P3: is the cheque issued by the accused infavour of the P.W1 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dt. 12-9-2011

Ex.P4: Legal notice issued by the accused on 21-9-2011

Ex.P5: reply notice issued by P.W1

Ex.P6: is the payment slip issued by corporation bank

Ex.P7:Cheque return memo dt. 1-3-2012

Ex.P8 is the memo of corporation bank dt. 9-3-2012

Ex.P9: is the legal notice issued to the accused by P.W1

Ex.P10: reply notice issue by the accused on 23-3-2012

5.The above documents are filed by P.W1 to support his version.

During chief examination the accused re-iterated the facts mentioned in his complainant.

6.Upon closure of the complainant's evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and explained about the incriminating material recorded against him from the evidence of P.W.1. Accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard from the learned counsels for complainant and accused.

4

8. Now the points for determination are:-

1) Whether the complainant is proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.138 of NI Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

Before answering the first point Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

observations are very important to note down here. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case of “Premchand Vijay Kumar V/s Yashpal Singh and another , 2005 4 Sec. 417...

“For deciding the cases under Sec.138 of N.I Act, following facts required to be prove successfully to prosecute the drawer for an offence 138 of NI Act”

a). The complainant has to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt

b) The cheque issued by the accused towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt

c) The said cheque presented for collection with in the period of its validity and the same was dishonored by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under Sec.138 of NI Act, 1881

d) The complainant shall issued a legal notice as contemplated U/sec.138 of NI Act, 1881 within the statutory period and the accused received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonored cheque within the stipulated time as mentioned in 138 of NI Act .

e) The complainant has to file within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.

9.As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant shall proved that, there is legal enforceable liability exists between the complainant and the accused and further the cheque was given for the discharge of legal enforceable liability. The fact of legal enforceable liability shall be proved by the complainant initially. Thereafter, the burden shifts to accused to rebut the presumptions envisaged in Sec.138 of NI Act.

Point No 1:-

9.To prove for the contention of P.W1 there are two documents crucial i.e., Ex.P1 & P2. Ex.P1 is the promissory note, alleged to executed by accused on 9-8-2010, Ex.P2 is another promissory note alleged to executed by accused on 10-2-2011. During cross examination P.W1 5 categorically admitted that, he is retired RTC employee and getting pension of Rs.353/- But he stated that, his wife is Government employee and arranged money, in turn he arranged money to the accused. He also made further admission that, Ex.P1 & P2 transactions are held at the same time. Admittedly Ex.P1 & P2 scribed by one Mr. Nayanala Vijay

Kumar. During cross-examination, P.W1 made further admission that, he did not possess any financial capacity to lend money to the accused.

But he improved his version that, he was being assisted by his wife in lending money. He also further made an admission that he did not whisper anything about existence of Ex P1 in Ex.P2.

10.Coming to the evidence of P.W2 who is attester of Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is executed for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the document was executed on 9-8-2010. During his evidence, Pw2 categorically stated that, he was first attester of Ex.P1 and supported the version of Pw1 that the alleged transaction was held in his presence. He further stated that, upon execution of Ex.P1, the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and executed Ex.P1. During cross examination he admitted that, he do not know the contents of the chief affidavit, upon his instructions the same was prepared. He was being suggested that, since he is friend of Pw1 deposing false evidence against the accused.

The witness denied the learned defense counsel suggestion and stood on his version.

11.Coming to the evidence of P.W3 who is first attester and 2nd promissory note that is Ex.P2. He categorically stated in his chief examination that, on 10-2-2011, the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- in his presence, accordingly Ex.P2 was executed. He supported the P.W1 version. During cross examination, he categorically admitted that, Ex.P2 contain different writings and different inks and 6 there are mis-matching of signature parts. He also made very important admission that Ex.P3 ( Cheque) was also obtained on the same day in his presence that is on 10-2-2011. This is the brief evidence of the complainant.

12.Coming to the evidence of defense, the accused himself examined as D.W1 and one Mr.Kalyana Rao is examined as D.W2.

13.The contention of the accused is that, occasionally he used to borrow money from P.W1 and in that process, he borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/-, he further contended that, Pw1 obtained four blank cheques and pro-notes from him but did not return in spite of repeated requests.

He further contended that he re-paid the said amount in the presence of

D.W2 who is Mr. Kalyana Rao and requested P.W1 to return his promissory notes. The accused further stated that, Pw1 postponed, in returning empty pronote and cheques hold by him on saying that, the same were misplaced and will return upon found. Due to non return of cheques and promissory notes, the accused issued a legal notice, to return the promissory notes and cheques. P.W1 received the said notice and replied that, on made counter allegations, that I have not paid any amount to him. Dw1 availed another defence that, when he was traveling on his bike from Nirmal Nagar to Bhagya Nagar some cheques were misplaced to that effect he made a report to the police station about the misplacement of cheques. He produced certificates given by the Ongole P.S that is, On 7-7-2010 about the misplacement of cheques.

14.Coming to the evidence of D.W2 who is an eye witnesses to the transaction stated that, on 12-9-2011, the Dw1 re-paid an amount of

Rs.72,500/- at Udipi Hotel, Ongole in his presence and upon receipt of cash, P.W1 requested some time to return back promissory notes and cheques. He was being suggested by the learned complainant counsel 7 that, he is good friend of accused and hence deposing false evidence this is the brief defense evidence.

15.Coming to that fact, whether the complainant is initially discharged his burden that the cheque is being given for discharge of legal enforceable liability or not?

16.Certainly, to decide the above said fact, Ex.P1 & P2 are crucial documents. Ex.P1 is promissory note and Ex.P2 is also another promissory notes. Ex.P1 is issued for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and

Ex,.P2 as issued an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- P.W2 is attester of Ex.P1 and P.W3 is another attester of Ex.P3. Admittedly both the transactions held in the same time and one Mr. Nayanala Vijay Kumar is the scribe of

Ex.P1 & P2. Since the accused, denied execution of Exs.P1 & P2 and it was not supported by the consideration. P.W2 categorically stated that he was attester for Ex.P1. Coming to the evidence of P.W3 who is an attester of Ex.P3 stated that the cheque also taken on the same day of

Ex.P2 transaction. Ex P2(promissory note ) was executed on 10.02.2011.

But as seen the Ex.P3 cheque, it shown that it was issued dated 12-9- 2011. As per the version of P.W1, he demanded the accused for so long time and thereafter the accused issued Ex.P3, and the same was presented in the bank. But as seen the P.W3 evidence, Ex.P3 was received on the same date of Ex.P3 transactions. It seems P.W1 and

P.W3 version is different with regard to acceptance of Ex.P3.

17.Coming to the evidence of P.W1, he made an admission at the time of cross examination that, he is a pensioner and drawing pension of

Rs.352/-. When a person is drawing Rs.352/- pension per month, how could lend money of Rs.4,00,000/-. This is very important question for consideration. More over, he himself admitted that he do not possessed any financial capacity to lend such huge amount. As seen P.W2 evidence 8 he is only attester of Ex.P1 and he did not whisper anything about Ex.P2.

And furthermore there is no endorsement about Ex.P1 in ExP2. On pursuant of evidence its giving an impression that the complainant did not possess financial capacity to lend such huge amount. As per the case of the complainant, the accused issued Ex.P4 notice on 21-9-2011 to return the promissory notes and cheques as he had paid Rs.50,000/-.

Admittedly the said cheque has given on 12-9-2011 and Ex.P4 is issued on 21-9-2011. As seen the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 the case of the complainant is clear. Once, P.W1 is admitting he possessed any financial capacity and the amount was not shown in the income tax return of his wife and necessity. P.W3 is saying cheques were obtained on the same date of execution of Ex.P3. When P.W1 is saying P.W3 are the attester of Ex.P2. P.W3 evidence is very much crucial to prove the transaction held between the accused and P.W1 is genuine. In the present case the complainant failed to prove that Ex,P3 issued towards discharge of Ex.,P1 & P2 liability.

18. Hence, in view of the first ingredient decided in favour of accused the complainant failed to prove that the cheque is issued towards discharge of legal enforceable debt. Hence, this point is answered in favour of accused.

19.Coming to the another ingredient is concern the said cheque presented for collection within the period of its validity and the same was dishonored by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of NI Act, 1881. As seen the Ex P3 it was issued on 12.09.2011. Ex P6, cheque deposited memo depicting that,

Pw1 presented the cheque for collection on 21.2.2012, hence it is proved that he presented for collection with in period. Hence, this issue is answered in favor of complainant.

9

20.Coming to the fourth ingredient is concerned the complainant shall issued a legal notice as contemplated U/sec. 138 of NI Act, 1881 within the statutory period and the accused received the said notice but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonored cheque with in the stipulated time as mentioned in 138 of NI Act. As seen Ex P7 bank return memo, its depicting that the cheque returned as unpaid with an endorsement of “ Insufficient Funds “ hence, the reason mentioned for dishonored is one of the reason mentioned in 138 of NI Act. In view of the above discussion, this issue is also answered in favor of Pw1.

21.As seen Ex P9, Pw1 issued statutory Legal Notice on 20.03.2012, where in the cheque returned as unpaid on 1.03.2012, hence, complainant has complied statutory waiting period for issuance of notice.

This issue also answered in favor of Pw1. Since Dw1 replied to the statutory notice issue under Ex P9 and the same was marked as Ex P10 no much discussion is needed to answer the said issue. In view of the above discussion this court feels that the issue is also answered in favor of Pw1.

22.In view of the above discussion this court feels that, though Pw1 proved all the ingredients envisaged in 138 of NI Act, he failed to prove very important ingredient that the cheque is issued towards discharge of legal enforceable liability. Therefore, though he successfully crossed the four stages of steeps he failed to claim very important element in the NI

Act. Hence, this court feels that Ex P3 is not issued towards discharge of legal enforceable liability.

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore, he is acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months as 10 per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of February, 2015

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-class, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution For Defence: P.W.1 : Kalluri Venkata Rao, D.W1:K.KrishnaReddy P.W.2:B.Venkata RaoD.W2:KalyanaRao P.W3:Y.Chandrasekhara Rao / / DOCUMENTS MARKED / / For Prosecution: Ex.P1: is the Promissory note issued by the accused in favour in my favour for Rs.1,00,000/- dt. 9-8-2010

Ex.P2 :Another promissory note executed by accused in his favour for

Rs.3,00,000/- dt. 10-2-2011

Ex.P3: is the cheque issued by the accused infavour of the P.W1 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dt. 12-9-2011

Ex.P4: Legal notice issued by the accused on 21-9-2011

Ex.P5: reply notice issued by P.W1

Ex.P6: is the payment slip issued by corporation bank dt. 21-1-2012

Ex.P7:Cheque return memo by CBI, Ongole dt. 1-3-2012

Ex.P8 is the memo of corporation bank dt. 9-3-2012

Ex.P9: is the legal notice issued to the accused by P.W1 dt. 20-3-2012

Ex.P10: reply notice issue by the accused on 23-3-2012

For Defence : -NIL- // MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED // NIL

Sd/- J.S.K

III-A.J.F.C.M.

FAC::II-AJFCM Ongole // True copy//

III-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-class, Ongole FAC::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-class, Ongole 11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT in C.C.No. 484/2012.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ONGOLE.

01.Date of offence: 9-8-2010, 10-2-2011

02.Date of report/complaint: 12-2-2012

03.Date of appearance of accused: 19-7-2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: ---

05.Date of commencement of trial: 01-05-2014

06.Date of close of trial: 01-04-2015

07.Date of Judgment: 4-2-2016

08.Kuttuboina Mala Kondaiah S/o Kamaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Retired Employee, R/o by the side of Durga Nursing Home, Anjaiah road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

09.Description of Accused: Kunda Krishna Reddy S/o Brahma Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, business, R/o Thumadu village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District

10.Offence: U/s.138 of NI Act.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

13.Sentence or Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore, he is acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

14.Fine amount: NIL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 20-9- 2012. On 19-7-2013 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 19-7-2013 accused was examined

U/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act and he denied the offence and claimed to be tried and case posted for trial. On 1-5-2014

Chief affidavit of P.w.1 filed and on 3-7-2014 P.w.1 examined in chief 12 and Exs.P.1 to P.10 are marked. At this stage the case is adjourned from time to time due to unreadiness of accused and at last on 26-11-2014

P.w.1 was cross examined and on 3-9-2014 chief affidavits of P.W2,3 filed and on 24-9-2014 P.W2 was cross examined. On 15-10-2014 P.W3 cross examined. And as complainant reported no further evidence hence case is posted for examination of accused. On 10-12-214 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him and reported defence evidence and on 11-2-2015

D.W1 was examined in chief in part and on 26-2-2015 D.W1 was further cross examined and Ex.D1 is marked. On 12-3-2015 D.W1 was cross examined. On 1-4-2015 D.W2 was examined in chief and on 5-11-2015

D.W2 was cross examined. On 5-1-2016 heard arguments of both sides and posted the matter for Judgment. On 4-2-2016 Judgment

pronounced in open Court. Hence the delay.

Sd/- J.Sravan kumar

III Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC::II-Addl Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

// True copy //

III-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Fac::II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present : Sri J. Sravan Kumar

II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2015.

C.C.No. 469 of 2010. Between:

Bandaru Srinivasa Rao s/o late Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Advocate, Door No.40-16-18(1), 4th Lane, Gopal Nagar, Ongole. … Complainant

And

1. P.Prakash s/o note known, 50 years, Montessori Public School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Montessori Nagar, R.R.Tank, Ongole, Prakasam District.

2. P.Sucharitha w/o Not known, aged 48 years, Principal of Montessori Public School, Montessori Nagar, Near R.R. Tank, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case is coming up on 13.04.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Piduguralla Subba Rao, Advocate for

Complainant and Sri K.Sia Nageswara Rao,Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1. This is a private complaint filed by the complainant by name

Bandaru Srinivasa Rao under Sec.190 and 200 of Criminal Procedure code against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.420 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the complaint in nut shell is as follows :-

The accused is running a school under the roof of

Montessori Public School, at Ongole for the last 20 years. The complainant's daughter by name B.Siresha appeared S.S.C examinations in the year of March 2010 through the accused running school vide Hall ticket number 1016200620. After completion of her 2 examination, the complainant approached accused for obtaining Marks list, Transfer certificate and conduct certificate. While so, the staff of the accused institution categorically informed him that, his daughter had appeared S.S.C examination as a private candidate, hence they can not provide T.C. and C.C. Immediately, first complainant had approached the 1st accused who is correspondent of the said school for further clarification. The accused instead of giving proper reply threaten the complainant with dire consequences and adamantly answered to the queries raised by the complainant by stating that, if he questioned him he would spoil the carrier of his daughter.

The complainant further alleged that, her daughter studied in the said school from L.K.G to X class, as the accused made him believe that, his daughter would be sent as a regular candidate for

S.S.C examinations, instead of that, she was being sent as a private candidate. As a result, her daughter did not have an opportunity to get T.C. and C.C., which is useful to her further higher studies. He further alleged that, TC and CC are very much useful to any of the students who wish to appear for the examinations of EAM-CET, IIT,

AIEEE, Passport and for residential proof. Hence the complainant alleged that the accused are cheated him by believing that his daughter would sent as a regular student for the SSC examination.

Therefore, the complainant constrained to file a private complainant against the accused for the offence u/s.420 of IPC.

3.This complaint was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC against accused. After appearance of A1 and A2 copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207

Cr.P.C and accused were examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C., and charge 3 u/s.420 of IPC has been framed, read over over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of complainant, the complainant himself examined as P.w.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 26.

The complainant also examined his daughter Sirisha as P.w.2 and complainant side evidence closed.

5.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, and they denied the incriminating evidence recorded against them and reported defence evidence on their behalf. On behalf of accused, the 1st accused himself examined as D.w.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2 documents.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether the ingredients u/s.420 of IPC would attracts the present case on hand ?

2. Whether the complainant could able to establish his case ?

3. To what relief ?

Point Nos.1 & 2 :-

8.The contention of the complainant is that, his daughter by name

Bandaru Sireesha (P.w.2) studied in accused school (Montessori Public

School, Ongole) from L.K.G. to X class as regular student and paid entire fees to the accused and after completion of X Class the complainant approached the accused school authorities for getting

Marks Memorandum, Transfer Certificate, Study Certificate and

Conduct Certificate, but they issued only Marks Memorandum and did not give Transfer Certificate, Conduct Certificate and Study Certificate 4 stating that his daughter studied as private student, but not as regular student, on that the complainant approached 1st accused and questioned him for not issuing Transfer Certificate and Study

Certificate, for which he gave evasive reply and threatened him with dire consequences. He further contended that though he joined his daughter as a regular student and paid the entire fee to the accused institution, the accused have sent his daughter to the S.S.C examination as a private candidate by suppressing the facts and thereby cheated the complainant and spoiled the career of his daughter.

9.The contention of accused is that, P.w.2 is studied in their school from 1st class to IX Class and as she is not up to the marks and not regular in payment of fees, they called for her parents and advised them to change the school, accordingly they agreed for the suggestion and took away the Transfer Certificate, thereafter when the academic year commenced, again P.w.1 approached them and requested to re- admit P.w.2 in their school as she did not get admission in any school as she is not good at studies. Then they advised P.w.1 and P.w.2 to appear P.w.2 as a private candidate, as it is not possible to attempt as regular since the academic year was already started and they send counter copy of filled application to P.w.1 for cross-verification of details filled in, accordingly the application form was attested by P.w.1, therefore P.w.1 is well aware that P.w.2 is appearing as private candidate. Accused further contended that after completion of SSC examination P.w.1 came to their school for collection of his daughter's certificate, at that time the staff members raised objection, since 5 pending fee was not cleared, then P.w.1 threatened them and lodged complainant.

8.Before going into the merits of the case, here it is necessary to mention the admitted facts. The accused is running a school under the name and style Montessori Public School at Ongole. The daughter of the complainant by name Sireesha is studied from L.K.G. to X class in the accused school.

9.P.w.1 who is the defacto complainant stated in his evidence that his daughter P.w.2-B.Sirisha studied in Montessori Public School,

Ongole from LKG to X-Class and his daughter attended the X Class examination in the month of March, 2010 vide Hall ticket

No.1016200620 and completed her 10th class studies. He further stated that on 01.08.2010 he along with his daughter (P.w.2) went to the school at 07-30 P.M. and asked the clerk one Rajesh for Marks lists, T.C and other relevant certificates of his daughter, for which the said Rajesh replied that his daughter studied 10th class as private candidate and so she will not get transfer certificate. Immediately he replied that his daughter studied as regular student from LKG to X, why he should not get the transfer certificate regularly, but the clerk replied that P.w.1 may approach the correspondent. P.w.1 further stated that then he approached A1 and asked about the T.C. of his daughter as she studied regular student in the school, for which A1 gave evasive reply stating that he has got political influence in town and he can do anything. A2 also informed to him that the said school is recognized by Govt. of A.P. they will give only marks lists of his daughter P.w.2 and failed to give transfer certificate to join her in 6 Intermediate, EMCET, IIT and passport. He further stated that A1 and

A2 by saying that the said school is recognized by Govt. of A.P. got admitted P.w.2 as regular candidate and collected fees from P.w.1 from LKG to X, but failed to give Transfer certificate to her saying that she studied as Private Candidate. Then he gave report to police and as police failed to take any action against the accused, he filed private complaint before the Court

During cross-examination P.w.1 categorically admitted that the application form issued by Board of Secondary Education, A.P. contains her daughter's signature, but he denied his signature in the bottom of application. He further stated that he observed Ex.P.25 Original copy of X Class Hall ticket on 01.08.2010 while he was inquiring about his daughter's certificates with the school authorities. He further admitted that Ex.P.25 was in her daughter's possession and he voluntarily says that it was kept in file. He further stated that after completion of

S.S.C. she joined intermediate at Chaitanya College and afterwards she obtained EAMCET and now she is studying Engineering.

10.Coming to the evidence of P.w.2 who is daughter of P.w.1 stated in her evidence that she studied in Montessori Public School, Ongole from LKG to X Class and she passed X Class in Montessori School.

There are no dues pending by them to pay to Montessori School. After completion of X Class, on 01.08.2010 she along with her father went to Montessori Public School for obtaining necessary certificates i.e.,

T.C., C.C., Study Certificate and Marks Lists, then the principal/ correspondent replied that he will not give said certificates, they abused her father and threatened him. Later the principal has given only marks list, but failed to give any other certificates for her further 7 studies. Thereafter on 02.08.2010 her father lodged report, but the police expressed their inability

During cross-examination, P.w.2 categorically admitted that, now she is studying B.Tech III year without having any interruption in her academic carrier. She further admitted that, in the year of 2010 she had appeared for SSC examinations. During cross-examination

Pw2 further admitted that, she herself filled the columns of Ex.D.1 (Application for appearing private candidate). It is also admitted by

P.w.2 that, at the time of actual examination for S.S.C, there is separate examination center was placed for the candidates who appeared for private study.

11.Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that, both the accused cheated the complainant by believing that P.w.2 would be sent as regular candidate but against the trust and faith of complainant the accused sent her through private candidate. Due to which P.w.2 lost valuable right of having T.C. and C.C. as both the documents are very much useful to any student's academic carrier.

Hence he prayed that both accused are liable to punish. In other side defence counsel argued that, accused are not denying that P.w.2 is their student and she studied up to X class in their school. But P.w.2 is average student in studies and not regular in paying fee from the inception. However, they bear the all regularities of payments considering her carrier. Learned defence counsel further argued that

P.w.2 was sent through private candidate with prior consent of her parents and they themselves sighed on Ex.D.1. Hence, the accused never committed any offence as alleged by the complainant counsel.

He further argued that in fact, the accused had considered P.w.2 8 parents request and offered seat in mid of the academic year, hence

P.w.2 is forced to sent as a private candidate.

12.As seen the definition of cheating, it depicts that

Sec.420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of

property:-

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished.

13.As seen the ingredients of cheating as enumerated in definition to constitute an offence of cheating there are some elements has to be established. The first ingredient is there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person.

14.As seen the evidence on record and upon perusal of Ex.D.1 (O.M.R Application Form) which depicts that, the complainant's daughter (P.w.2) herself filled the columns. It is further observed that the complainant was inscribed his signature on the bottom of the application Form in a column provided for parents signature. It's giving an impression to the court that both the complainant and his daughter are aware the fact that she appearing as a private candidate.

P.w.2 categorically stated that, she did not keenly observed Ex.D.1 at the time of filling the columns. She further admitted that EX.D.1 clearly depicts that the application Form is meant for only private candidate. It is very important to observed from the evidence of P.w.2 that she categorically admitted, around twenty candidates were 9 appeared for private study along with her and all of them were being allocated separate examination center.

15.But the contention of the P.W.1 and P.w.2 are that, they are not aware about the fact that P.w.2 is going to appear for private candidate as they were under impression that school management is sending her through regular candidate. P.w.1 categorically denied his signature in Ex.D.1. He took contention that he did not inscribe his signature in Ex.D.1 as it was forged by the school management.

Admittedly, the complainant did not choose to send for his alleged signature on Ex.D1 with that of his admitted signatures to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, to sustain his contention of forgery.

16.P.w.1 is an advocate by profession and P.w.2 is her daughter studying S.S.C at the time of alleged offence. Both the complainants are not an illiterates. As contented by P.w.2 that, she was not aware about the fact of appearing for private candidate, how could she knows the facts that all the privates candidates were allocated separate examination center and around 20 people were appeared along with her. At least the students who are appearing along with her would have discussed among themselves that they are appearing as a private candidates. Moreover, P.w.1 is not a lay man. He is practicing as an advocate and he must know the fact that whether his daughter is appearing as a private candidate or regular candidate. In the light of the above discussion, this court feels that both the complainant and his daughter are categorically signed in the application form and hall ticket and aware the fact that P.w.2 is appearing as a private 10 candidate. Hence, this court feels that the allegations of the complainant doesn't constitute an offence of cheating.

17.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

18.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC; and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of April, 2015.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar.

II Addl. Judl Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: Bandaru Srinivasa Rao,D.w.1 : P.Prakash. P.W.2: Bandaru Sireesha,

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: L.K.G. Group Photo. Ex.P2: U.K.G. Group Photo Ex.P3: III Class Sports Certificate. Ex.P4: IV Class Sports Certificate. Ex.P5: V Class Fees Receipt dt.19.04.2015 Ex.P6: VI Class Fees Receipt dt.23.02.2006 Ex.P7: VI Class Fees Receipt dt.15.02.2006. Ex.P8: VII Cass Fees Receipt dt.16.04.2007. Ex.P9: VIII Class Fees Receipt (3 in numbers) Ex.P10: VIII Class Society participation dt.28.01.2008. Ex.P11: IX Class Sports Certificate. Ex.P12: IX Class Fees Receipts (7 in numbers).

11 Ex.P13: X class fees receipts (6 in Nos.) Ex.P14: X Cass Group Photo. Ex.P15: Original Copy of Assignment and Question Papers. Ex.P16: Original copy of Unit test examination question papers. Ex.P17: Quarterly examination answer sheets. Ex.P18: Half Yearly examination answer sheets. Ex.P19: Pre-Public Examination question papers and answer sheets. Ex.P20: Pre-Public Revision Unit Test Question papers. Ex.P21: Xerox copy of report dt.02.08.2010 to Ongole I-Town. Ex.P22: News paper Sakshi Clippings dt.05.08.2010. Ex.P23: News Paper Eeenadu clippings, dt.05.08.2010. Ex.P24: Andhra Jyothi Paper Clippings, dt.05.08.2010. Ex.P25: Original copy of X class hall ticket. Ex.P26: Certified copy of docket order in PLC No.214/2010.

For Defence: Ex.D1. Application of P.w.2 for appearing Board of Secondary Education duly attested by complainant. Ex.D2: Electronic Railway ticket by IRCTC.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

- NIL -

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar.

II Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class,

Ongole.

12

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 469 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

ONGOLE

01.Date of offences: Prior to 02.08.2010.

02.Date of report/complaint: 20.09.2010

03.Date of appearance of accused: 23.11.2012

04.Date of release of accused on bail: --

05.Date of commencement of trial: 24.09.2011

06.Date of close of trial: 19.02.2015

07.Date of Judgment: 17-04-2015

08.Complainant:- Bandaru Srinivasa Rao s/o late Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Advocate, Door No.40-16-18(1), 4th Lane, Gopal Nagar, Ongole.

09.Description of Accused: Bandaru Srinivasa Rao s/o late Subba Rao, aged 43 years, Advocate, Door No.40-16-18(1), 4th Lane, Gopal Nagar, Ongole.

10.Offence: U/s.420 of IPC.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilt

12.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC; and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

14.Fine amount:-- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 23.11.2010. On 20.12.2010 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 21.03.2013 accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and charge u/s.420 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and as accused denied the same and claimed to be tried, the case is posted for trial. On 24.09.2011 the trial was commenced by examining P.w.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.25 and posted the matter for cross-examination of P.w.1. At this stage the case is went on for several adjournments due to unreadiness of both parties. At last on 19.09.2014 cross-examination of P.w.1 completed. On 09.12.2014 P.w.2 examined and prosecution side evidence was closed and posted the matter for accused examination. On 17.10.2014 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and as accused reported defence evidence, this court posted the matter for defence evidence. On 09.12.2014 1st accused examined as D.w.1 and Exs.D1 and D are marked. On 19.09.2014 P.w.1 and P.w.2 further recalled and cross- examined them and then prosecution side evidence closed and posted the matter for arguments. On 13.04.2015 heard arguments of both sides. On 17.04.2015 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar.

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

ONGOLE. Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present : Sri J. Sravan Kumar

II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2015.

C.C.No. 234 of 2013. Between:

STATE: Inspector of Police, Ongole I-Town Police Station. … Complainant

And

Gokathoti Naresh s/o Kotaiah, 26 years, Mala by caste, Mamidipalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case is coming up on 13.04.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri B.Papa Rao, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1. The Inspector of Police, Ongole I-Town Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused by clubbing three crimes of Ongole I-Town police station vide Cr.Nos.145/2012, 224/2012 and 03/2013, for the offences u/s.457, 454, 380 of I.P.C. or alternatively u/s.411 of I.P.C.

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

On the intervening night of 07/08.06.2012 some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of L.w.1-Chengalasetty

Satish Babu, situated at Gaddalaguntapalem of Ongole Town and committed theft of one Gold Chain (gopi chain) with Saibaba dollar,

Gold Ring and Gold ear studs, weighing about 3 ½ sovereigns, which were kept in the hand bag of his wife L.w.2-Naga Rekha and decamped with booty. Noticing the same, on the next day morning at about 11.00 a.m. L.w.1 went to police station and lodged report about 2 the occurrence. L.w.9-Syed Mastan Vali, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Ongole I-Town P.S. registered the same as Cr.No.145/2012 u/s.380 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, L.w.9 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence.

It is further alleged that on 08.09.2012 in between 11-00 a.m.

01-00 p.m. some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of L.w.3-Rayella Venkateswarlu, situated at Gaddalaguntapalem of

Ongole Town, in the absence of inmates by break opening the locks of the door with an iron rod and committed theft of two Gold Rings, weighing about 12 grams, which were kept in the iron safe and decamped with booty. Noticing the same, on the same day at about 05-00 p.m. L.w.3 went to police station and lodged report about the occurrence. L.w.10-P.Sulthan, the then A.S.I. of Police, Ongole I-

Town P.S. registered the same as Cr.No.224/2012 u/s.380 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, L.w.10 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence.

It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 06.01.2013 during night time while L.w.5-Kothapalli Lakshmi Rajyam was sleeping in her house without locking the doors, situated at Sitharamapuram,

Ongole, at about 02-00 midnight some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house and committed theft of one Gold Bracelet,

Four Gold Rings, weighing about 24 grams and on hearing sounds she woke up and raised cries, then the offenders thrown her away and decamped with booty. On 06.01.2013 at 05-00 p.m. L.w.5 reported the matter to the police, in turn L.w.11-P.Narayana Reddy, the then

A.S.I. of Police registered the same as Cr.No.224/2012 u/s.380 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, L.w.11 3 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence.

It is further alleged that while the investigation is in progress, on 10.01.2013 at 20-00 hours on receipt of credible information about the offenders, L.w.12-K.Prakasa Rao, Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators L.w.7-Bonthu Sudhakar and L.w.8-Sri Ram

Ajay Kumar, proceeded to near Gold Shops situated at Gandhi Road,

Ongole, there they found the accused in suspicious condition and on search he found to be in possession stolen property in all the above three crimes, and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed the three offences, then L.w.12 seized the stolen properties from the possession of accused under the cover of mediators report duly attested by L.w.7 and L.w.8 and brought the accused to the police station and after completion of all legal formalities accused was produced before the Court for remand. After completion of investigation, L.w.12 laid charge sheet against the accused by clubbing the three crimes. Hence, the charges.

3.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/s.457, 454, 380 of IPC or alternatively u/s.411 of IPC against accused. After appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C and accused was examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. and charges u/s.457, 454, 380 of IPC or alternatively u/s.411 of IPC has been framed, read over over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.w.1 to

P.w.8 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O.1 to

M.O.6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.w.2-Chengalasetty Naga Rekha, L.w.4-Rayella Hasini, L.w.6-

Manjuluri Sambamurthy, as they are hearsay witnesses. This Court 4 closed the evidence of L.w.7-Bonthu Sudhakar, as police failed to serve summons in spite of giving number of adjournments and granting sufficient time. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

5.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, and he denied the incriminating evidence available against him and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence side evidence is closed.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of accused for the offences u/s.457, 454, 380 of IPC or

alternatively u/s.411 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point :

8.The case of the prosecution is that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments in the dwelling houses of P.w.1,

P.w.2 and P.w.3 on 07/08.06.2012, 08.09.2012 and 06.01.2013 respectively during night time in the absence of inmates and decamped with booty. During the course of investigation, on 10.01.2013 at 08-00 p.m. P.w.8 Investigation officer arrested the accused at Gandhiroad, Ongole and recovered the above said stolen property from his possession in the presence of mediators L.w.7-

Bonthu Sudhakar and P.w.5-Sri Ram Ajay Kumar.

9.To prove its case prosecution examined P.w.1 to P.w.8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. Among them P.w.1 to

P.w.3 are the defacto complainants in Cr.No.224/2012, 03/2012 and 145/2012 respectively, P.w.5 is the alleged mediator for the arrest of accused as well as for the seizure of property, P.w.4, P.w.6 and P.w.7 are the police officials who registered the crimes basing on the reports given by P.w.1 to P.w.3, and P.w.8 is the investigation officer.

5

10.P.w.1 to P.w.3 who are defacto complainants in Cr.No.224/2012, 03/2012 and 145/2012 respectively, stated in their evidence that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments in their dwelling houses in the absence of inmates during intervening nights of 06.01.2013, 07.06.2012 and 08.09.2012 respectively and decamped with booty. P.w.1 to P.w.3 further deposed that the incident police called them and informed that the stolen property was recovered, on that they went to P.V.R. High School, Ongole and identified their stolen ornaments M.O.1 to M.O.6.

11.P.w.4, P.w.6 and P.w.7 who are police officials categorically stated that on the reports given by P.w.1, P.w.3 and P.w.2 that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments in their houses, they registered the same as Cr.Nos.224/2012, 145/2012 and 03/2013 respectively and investigated into the case. They also deposed about their visiting the scene of offences in the respective crimes, examining the witnesses and recording their statements.

12.Therefore, from the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.4, P.w.6 and P.w.7 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.3 reports, it is clear that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments from the dwelling houses of P.w.1 to P.w.3 on the intervening nights of 08.09.2012, 06.01.2013 and 07.06.2012, respectively and decamped with booty.

13.In this case there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident.

The case is based on the alleged confession made by accused before

P.w.8 investigation officer. It is the evidence of investigation officer

P.w.8 that on 10.01.2013 he received credible information about the movements of accused, immediately he secured mediators L.w.7-

Bonthu Sudhakar and P.w.5, and proceeded to towards Gandhi road,

Ongole, there on seeing the police jeep the accused tried to escape 6 from the said place, then he caught hold the accused with the help of his staff and on enquiry the accused voluntarily confessed that he committed theft of gold ornaments in all the three crimes and on search of his pockets, the accused found in possession of M.O.1 to

M.O.6. Then P.w.8 seized M.O.1 to M.O.6 gold ornaments from his possession and arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P.11 mediatornama by incorporating the confession statement of accused, duly attested by P.w.5 and L.w.7-Bonthu Sudhakar.

14.Coming to the evidence of mediator who is examined as P.w.5, he stated in his evidence that on 11.01.2013 at 11-15 a.m. Ongole I- town constable called him and requested to act as mediator for property identification parade, on that he went to police station, there the S.I. and C.I. handed over two rings namely PEL and PRE and requested them to conduct property identification parade, accordingly they conducted property identification parade at PVR High School and in the said parade the complainant identified his property, then they drafted property identification mahazar under Ex.P.6. He further categorically deposed that at time of recovery of property he was not present. Though the prosecution cited P.w.5 as one of the mediators at the time of arrest of accused and recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused and so also for property identification mahazar, he failed to state anything against the accused that in his presence P.w.8 arrested the accused and recovered the stolen property from the possession of accused and that the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt in the three crimes. The alleged mediator for the arrest of accused and seizure of the property not supported the case of the prosecution. Further the prosecution failed to examine L.w.7-Bonthu Sudhakar, the other alleged mediator for the reasons best known to the prosecution. When there is no evidence of 7 alleged mediators that in their presence police arrested the accused and recovered the stolen property from the possession of accused and accused voluntarily confessed his guilt in the three crimes, basing on the sole testimony of P.w.8 investigating officer, it is not at all safe to convict the accused. Further it is an admitted fact that confession

before police officer is inadmissible in evidence u/s.25 of Indian

Evidence Act. Absolutely, there is no substantial material on record to come to the conclusion that accused committed theft of Gold ornaments from the houses of P.w.1 to P.w.3 and he found to be in possession of stolen property in this case. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s.457, 454, 380 of IPC or alternatively u/s.411 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.457, 454, 380 of IPC or alternatively u/s.411 of IPC; accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property M.O.1-Gold Ring with letters

PVR, M.O.2-Gold Ring with Name PVL, which were given to P.w.1 for interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over. The case property M.O.3-Gold Bracelet and M.O.4-Gold Rings (4 in number) which were given to P.w.2 for interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over. The case property M.O.5- Gold Chain and M.O.6-

Gold Ring, which were given to P.w.3 for interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 16th day of April, 2015.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar.

II Addl. Judl Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

8

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: Rayella Venkateswarlu, - NIL - P.W.2: Kothapalli Lakshmi Rajyam, P.W.3: Chengalasetty Satish Babu, P.W.4: P.Sulthan, ASI, P.W.5: Sri Ram Ajay Kumar, P.W.6: Syed Mastan Vali, S.I. P.W.7: P.Narayana Reddy, ASI, P.W.8: K.Prakasa Rao, Inspector of Police.

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report given by P.w.1 to the police. Ex.P2: Report given by P.w.2 to the police. Ex.P3: Report given by P.w.3 to the police. Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No.224/2012 of Ongole I-Town P.S. Ex.P5: Rough sketch in Cr.No.224/2012 of Ongole I-Town P.S. Ex.P6: Property identification mahazar in Cr.No.145/2012. Ex.P7: FIR in Cr.No.145/2012 of Ongole I-Town P.S. Ex.P8: Rough sketch in Cr.No.145/2012 of Ongole I-Town P.S. Ex.P9: FIR in Cr.No.03/2012 of Ongole I-Town P.S. Ex.P10: Rough sketch in Cr.No.03/2012 of Ongole I-Town P.S. Ex.P11: Mediatornama dt.10.01.2013. Ex.P12: Property identification mahazar in Cr.No.224/2012. Ex.P13: Property identification mahazar in Cr.No.03/2013.

For Defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : Gold Ring with letters PVR. M.O.2 : Gold Ring with letters PVL. M.O.3 : Gold Bracelet. M.O.4 : Gold Rings (4 in number) M.O.5 : Gold Chain with dollar. M.O.6 : Gold Ring.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar.

II Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class,

Ongole.

9

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 234 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

ONGOLE

01.Date of offences: 07.06.12, 08.09.12 & 06.01.13.

02.Date of report/complaint: 08.06.12, 08.09.12 & 06.01.13.

03.Date of appearance of accused: 11.01.2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: 07.03.2013

05.Date of commencement of trial: 03.06.2014

06.Date of close of trial: 13.04.2015

07.Date of Judgment: 16-04-2015

08.Complainant:- State Inspector of Police, Ongole I-Town P.S. (Cr.Nos.145/12, 224/12, 03/12)

09.Description of Accused: Gokathoti Naresh s/o Kotaiah, 26 years, Mala by caste, Mamidipalem, Ongole, Prakasam District.

10.Offence: U/s.457, 454, 380 or 411 of IPC.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilt

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.457, 454, 380 of IPC or alternatively u/s.411 of IPC; accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property M.O.1-Gold Ring with letters PVR, M.O.2-Gold Ring with Name PVL, which were given to P.w.1 for interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over. The case property M.O.3-Gold Bracelet and M.O.4-Gold Rings (4 in number) which were given to P.w.2 for interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over. The case property M.O.5- Gold Chain and M.O.6-Gold Ring, which were given to P.w.3 for interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over.

14.Fine amount:-- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 17.05.2013. On 06.06.2013. copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 02.07.2013 accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and the charge u/s.457, 454, 380 or 411 of IPC has been read over and explained to him in Telugu and as accused denied the same and claimed to be tried, the case is posted for trial. On 03.06.2014 the trial was commenced by examining L.w.3 and L.w.5 as P.w.1 and P.w.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 and M.O.1 to M.O.4; on 24.06.2014 L.w.1 examined as P.w.3 and got marked Ex.P.3 and M.O.5 and M.O.6. On 30.06.2014 P.w.4 examined and Ex.P.4 and P.5 marked. On 15.07.2014 P.w.5 examined and Ex.P.6 marked. On 16.02.2015 P.w.6 examined and Ex.P.9 and P.10 marked. On 03.02.2015 P.w.6 examined and Exs.P.7 and P.8 marked; On 13.04.2015 P.w.7 and P.w.8 examined and Exs.P.9 to P.13 marked and prosecution side evidence was closed and on the same day accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence, and heard arguments on both sides and posted the matter for Judgment. On 16.04.2015 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- J.Sravan Kumar.

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

ONGOLE. Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.