Sri K.anurag

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 1 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.620 of 2025 (Old S.T.C. No.440 of 2024 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam) ) on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Now VI Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Railways Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 18.11.2023

2. Date of report: 18.01.2024

3. Date of arrest of accused: --

4. Date of release on bail : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 19.02.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 05.08.2025

7. Date of judgment: 18.08.2025

8. Complainant: Anakapalli Dharma Rao, S/o Yerraiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/at D.No.55-40-299, Simhadripuram, H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam.

9. Accused : Kancharana Laxmana Rao, S/o Mukunda Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/at D.No.6-187/76, Thotagaravu, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam

10. Offence : Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty

13. Sentence or order : Accused is found guilty for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Act and accordingly, he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and is directed to pay a fine of 7,10,000/-₹. In default of

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 2 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount, a sum of 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only)₹ shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the appeal period. As there is no remand period in this case, the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. is not applicable.

14. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 20.03.2024

Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. Copies of all documents were furnished to him Under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code and on 12.02.2025 accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of complainant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to

Ex.P5. After complainant’s evidence was closed, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and he reported no defense evidence. On 31.07.2025 heard arguments of learned counsel for complainant and on 05.08.2025 heard arguments of learned counsel for defense. On 18.08.2025 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment.

Hence the delay.

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// TRUE COPY//

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 3 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

IN THE COURT OF VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

NOW VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS :: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI ANURAG KOMMADDI

VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, this the 18th day of August, 2025

Calendar Case No.620/2025 ( Old S.T.C. No.440 of 2024 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam)

Between:

Anakapalli Dharma Rao, S/o Yerraiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/at D.No.55-40-299, Simhadripuram, H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam. … Complainant

And

Kancharana Laxmana Rao, S/o Mukunda Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/at D.No.6-187/76, Thotagaravu, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam … Accused

This case is coming on 05.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.R.Murthy learned Advocate for complainant and of Sri D.V.Appala Naidu, learned advocate for the accused upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following :

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

1.The complainant filed this complaint against accused for the offence 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

2.The complainant states that on 10.05.2021, the accused borrowed a sum of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and executed a promissory note₹ on the same day, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Towards part repayment of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 158170 dated 16.11.2023, drawn on State Bank

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 4 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 of India, Seethammadhara Branch, for 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only).₹

The complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, Union Bank of India, on 17.11.2023, but it was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds," as per the return memo dated 18.11.2023. Pursuant to the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice to the accused on 14.12.2023, calling upon him to repay the amount within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt. Despite receipt of the said notice, the accused failed to make payment and did not even respond to the said demand. Therefore, the complainant, having no other recourse, has initiated the present proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking prosecution of the accused for the dishonour of cheque. Hence the complaint.

3.Originally, this complaint was filed before the Court of the I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused after recording the sworn affidavit of the complainant, and the case was numbered as C.C. No. 620 of 2025.

4.Copy of Complaint and documents relied by Complainant are sent to

Accused while sending summons in accordance of Rule 8 of Criminal Rules of

Practice. Later this case was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. District in Dis. No.

800 dated 28.09.2024. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code. The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure

Code and accusation in the complaint was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the complainant, he himself got examined as P.W.1. The scribe of promissory note was examined and P.W.2 and 2nd attestor of the

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 5 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 promissory was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to P5 were marked. After closure of the complainant's evidence the accused was examined Under

Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and explained incriminating material appearing against him for which he denied and stated as false and reported no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides. The respective contentions of either side will be discussed later at the time of appreciating the material available on record.

7.Upon hearing and on perusal of the record I have framed the following points for determination in order to arrive at a definite finding as regards the dispute in the instant case.

8.Now points for consideration are:

I) Whether there is an existing legally enforceable debt (or) liability

between complainant and accused by the time of issuance of Ex.P.1 (or)

not ?

II) Whether accused is able to dispel presumptions available under

sections 118 and 139 of the Act (or) not?

III) Whether Complainant is able to establish guilt of Accused for

alleged offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act beyond all reasonable doubt (or) not?

9. POINT Nos:I to III

1.Before appreciating the evidence placed on record it is just and necessary to reproduce here in the necessary ingredients required to prove the alleged offence under section 138 and 141 of NI Act.

Section 138 of N I Act:

1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 6 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

2. that cheque has been presented to bank within a period of three months(previously six months ) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

3. that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to

honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid

from that account by an agreement made with the bank;

4. the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;

5. the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice .

10.Being cumulative, it is only when allegations aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument

Act.

11.The learned counsel for the accused contended that Ex.P4, the legal notice issued under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was not received by the accused, and that the signature on the acknowledgment card does not belong to him. It was further alleged that the complainant had exerted undue influence over the postal authorities to procure the acknowledgment. However, in reply, the learned counsel for the complainant rightly argued that such allegations are vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to rebut the legal presumption of service. The accused failed to examine the concerned postman or produce any credible evidence to prove that the acknowledgment was manipulated. Furthermore, the accused has not

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 7 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 denied residing at the address to which the notice was dispatched, nor has he contended that the address was incorrect or unrelated to him.

12.On examining the evidence on record, including the testimony of PW1 and Exhibits P1, P2, P4, and P5, it is clear that Ex.P2 and the present complaint bear the same address as the one to which the legal notice was sent. This consistency indicates that the address was indeed that of the accused and in regular use. Under these circumstances, even if the legal notice was received by a family member or someone other than the accused, such service would amount to deemed service as per the presumption under

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. This statutory presumption operates unless rebutted by cogent and credible evidence, which the accused has failed to provide.

(a) Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v.

Palapetty Muhammed and Another, (2007) 6 SCC 55, has categorically held that when the summons in a complaint under Section 138 is received by the accused and he still fails to make the payment within 15 days, the question of non-service of the legal notice loses its relevance. The object of serving the legal notice is to provide the drawer of the cheque with an opportunity to make the payment and avoid prosecution. Therefore, once the complaint is filed and the accused appears in court, he cannot escape liability merely by raising a technical plea that the notice was not served.

(b) In view of the above, the Court finds that the complainant has complied with the statutory mandate under Section 138(b) by duly issuing a legal demand notice to the correct address of the accused. The presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act stands unrebutted, and the defence taken by the accused is unsupported by evidence and fails to dislodge this presumption. Consequently, the requirement under Section 138(c) of the Act is also fulfilled, and a valid cause of action arises for the initiation of prosecution.

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 8 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

13.Coming to the material aspect of the case, the evidence of PW.1 reveals that the accused borrowed an amount of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs₹ only) from him on 10.05.2021, and in consideration of the said loan, executed a promissory note marked as Ex.P1. Subsequently, towards part repayment of the liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.158170 dated 16.11.2023, drawn on State Bank of India, Seethammadhara Branch, for ₹5,00,000/-, which is marked as Ex.P2. Upon presentation through PW.1’s banker, the cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement “Insufficient

Funds” as evidenced by Ex.P3. To demand payment, PW.1 issued a legal notice (Ex.P4) through registered post, which was duly received by the accused, as evidenced by the acknowledgment marked as Ex.P5. Despite service of the statutory notice, the accused failed to repay the amount or respond, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

14.To corroborate his version, PW.1 examined two other witnesses. PW.2 is an attesting witness to Ex.P1, and PW.3 is the scribe of the said document.

Their evidence clearly establishes that the promissory note was executed by the accused in their presence after receiving the consideration amount of ₹5,00,000/-. Their testimony remained consistent and was not seriously discredited during cross-examination.

15.The main defence set up by the accused is that the promissory note

Ex.P1 is forged and fabricated. However, despite raising this serious allegation, the accused failed to take any concrete steps to substantiate the plea of forgery. No application was filed to refer Ex.P1 to a handwriting expert to determine whether the signature on it is genuine. In cases where forgery is alleged, expert opinion is the most reliable and relevant form of evidence. The failure to seek expert examination, when the opportunity was available, justifies drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian

Evidence Act, as the accused withheld the best possible evidence within his reach.

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 9 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

16.Additionally, the accused has taken inconsistent and self-contradictory defences regarding the origin of the transaction. On one hand, he claims that he had no financial dealings with the complainant and that the actual transaction was with one Ms. Sandhya. On the other hand, he claims that the cheque in question was handed over to Mr. Naidu in relation to a financial transaction, and that Mr. Naidu, being a relative of Ms. Sandhya, later passed the cheque to her. He further claims that Ms. Sandhya filed a police complaint against the complainant for allegedly retaining the cheque. However, no details of the said report have been placed on record such as the crime number, date of complaint, or any official acknowledgment. This vague and unsubstantiated claim weakens the defence further. The contradictory versions regarding the alleged transaction first involving Ms. Sandhya and then Mr. Naidu undermine the credibility of the defence case. These inconsistencies indicate an afterthought and a desperate attempt to create doubt about the complainant’s version without any supporting evidence.

Moreover, neither Ms. Sandhya nor Mr. Naidu have been examined as witnesses to support the accused’s contentions.

In the citation reported in AIR 2010 SC 1858 In between Rangappa Vs

Sri Mohan

The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that "the presumption mandated by section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act does indeed includes legally enforceable liability or debt.

In the citation reported in 2015 SC 2240 In between T.Vasanth Kumar

Vs T.Vijaya Kumari The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that "once the cheque as well as signature has been accepted by accused the presumption

U/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act would operate.

17.In the light of the principles enunciated in the above citations the presumption U/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut the presumption by raising probable defence.

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 10 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

18.Another line of defence is that the accused, being a person of means and owning several properties, had no necessity to borrow 5,00,000/-. While₹ it is not disputed that the accused possesses immovable property, such ownership does not conclusively rule out the possibility of a financial requirement. It is not uncommon for individuals with assets to seek liquid cash for various personal or business purposes. Hence, this argument, by itself, is insufficient to dislodge the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

19.It is also contended that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance such a loan, and that no documentary proof of his income or bank statements were produced. However, the accused did not challenge the fact that the complainant is engaged in a woodwork business, and nothing was elicited during cross-examination to conclusively establish that the complainant lacked the means to lend 5,00,000/-. Mere absence of financial₹ documents is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption, especially when the overall version of the complainant is consistent and supported by corroborative evidence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant,

Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2022, decided on 7th March, 2022, examined the issue of financial capacity of the complainant in cases arising under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that at the

stage when the complainant steps into the witness box to give evidence,

unless a specific defence is taken in the reply notice to the statutory

demand notice that the complainant lacked the financial capacity, it

cannot be expected of the complainant to proactively lead evidence to

prove his financial means. The Court further clarified that while the accused has the right to challenge the complainant’s financial capacity, such a defence must be substantiated through independent material—either by examining witnesses, producing documents, or effectively cross-examining the complainant's witnesses to elicit inconsistencies. Ultimately, it is for the Court

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 11 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 to assess the totality of evidence to determine whether the accused has established a probable defence.

Applying the ratio of the above judgment to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the accused did not raise any objection regarding the complainant’s financial capacity in response to the statutory legal notice

Ex.P4. At no point did the accused issue a reply notice questioning the ability of the complainant to advance 5,00,000/-. Consequently, in line with the₹ decision, there was no initial obligation on the part of the complainant to produce documentary proof of his financial means. Moreover, during trial, the accused failed to produce any independent evidence such as documents or testimony to establish that the complainant lacked financial capacity. While a general suggestion was made during cross-examination, no material was brought on record to support such a plea. Importantly, the complainant’s engagement in the woodwork business was not denied, nor was any contrary evidence elicited to show that he was incapable of advancing the loan in question. In view of the settled position of law and the factual matrix of this case, the Court finds that the accused has not discharged the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, nor has he established a credible or probable defence regarding the complainant’s financial capacity.

20.For rebuttal of the presumptions of law, mere existence of doubts in the case of the complainant is not sufficient and the doubts have to be reasonable in nature. The above discussed facts do not render the defence of the accused as plausible and on the other the case of the complainant and the presumption raised therein have remained intact and hence are entitled to be believed. It is proved that the cheque in question was presented for encashment within a prescribed period and the statutory requirement for the legal notice was also complied within the prescribed time. The due service has already been discussed hereinabove.

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 12 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

21.To conclude, all the mandatory requirement as postulated under section 138 of the NI Act are found to be proved on behalf of the complainant. In view of the entire discussion, here in above, the facts and the circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that, complainant established that Ex-P1 debt is in existence by the time of issuance of Ex-P2 contra, the Accused failed to rebut the presumptions available under sections 118 and 139 of the Act and the case of the complainant has been proved beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt.

22.In the result, Accused is found guilty for alleged offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 255 (2) CR.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade -II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

The accused was questioned regarding the sentence that may be awarded to him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru- ments Act. In response, he submitted that he has a wife and children who are dependent on him, and he therefore requested the Court to take a lenient view.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of the

Probation of Offenders Act.

In this regard, reference is made to the decision in Criminal Revision

No. 583 of 2012 (Meel Bai v. Rameshwara Prasad Chouhan), wherein the

Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court, after considering judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, held that "the punishment awarded under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to ensure the payment of money, and

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/2024 ) 13 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 the threat of imprisonment is primarily to secure recovery. Therefore, the imposition of a jail sentence is not mandatory."

Further, in R. Vijayan v. Baby & Another, reported in 2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 803 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that "the apparent intention is not only to punish the offender but also to ensure that the complainant receives the cheque amount by way of compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

In Somnath Sarka v. Utpal Basu Mallick & Another, reported in 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 145 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court further clarified that "the amount to be paid as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is not separate or different from the fine imposed under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act." Therefore, compensation to the complainant is to be paid out of the fine amount.

Considering the cheque amount under Ex.P2 and the nature of the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ₹7,10,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand only) would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and is directed to pay a fine of 7,10,000/-₹. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount, a sum of 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only)₹ shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the appeal period. As there is no remand period in this case, the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. is not applicable.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade -II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.620/2025(Old S.T.C. No.440/24 ) 14 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant : For Accused:

P.W.1 : A.Dharma Rao -None- P.W.2 : A.Venkata Rao P.W.3 : J.Appala Naidu

Documents Marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P.1 :Promissory note executed by the accused in favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- dt.10.05.2021

Ex.P.2:Original cheque bearing No.158170 dated 16.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

Ex.P.3 :Cheque return memo issued by Union Bank of India, Seethammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam dt.18.11.2024

Ex.P.4: Office copy of legal notice got issued to the accused through the learned counsel for the complainant dated 14.12.2023

Ex.P.5:Postal acknowledgment

For Defense

Nil

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

// TRUE COPY//

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 1 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.396 of 2025 on the file of VI Metropolitan

Magistrate for Railways, Now VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Railways Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 27.09.2024

2. Date of report: 27.09.2024

3. Date of arrest of accused: ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial: 02.06.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 13.08.2025

7. Date of judgment: 18.08.2025

8. Complainant : Asst.Sub Inspector, RPF Post, Palasa

9. Accused : A-1: Vankala Someswara Rao, S/o Late V.Tammayya, aged about 39 years, R/o 2-378, B.P.Colony, Kanchili PS, Srikakulam District. A-2: Gara Mani Babu, S/o G.Hema Sundara Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o Jakkara, Kanchili PS, Srikakulam District.

10. Offence :Under Sections 147 and 174(c) of The Railway Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty for the ffence U/secs.147 and 174(c) of The Railway Act

13. Sentence or order : Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence Under Sections 147 & 174(c) of The Railway Act and accordingly, they are convicted Under Section 278 (2) of B.N.S.S.

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 2 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Accordingly, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand Only) each, for the offence Under Section 174(c) of The Railway Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and they further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under section 147 of The Raiwlay Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Total fine amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) each. The accused

Nos.1 and 2 are informed about their right to appeal against this Judgment

before the Hon’ble Sessions Court. The crime vehicle i.e., JCB bearing

registration No.AP 35 AB 7950 which was returned to it’s owner towards inerim custody as per the orders in Crl.MP.No.1948/2024 dated 01.10.2024 and the same was made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 05.03.2025

Under Sections 147 and 174(c) of The Railway Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2. On 17.03.2025copies of all documents were furnished to them Under

Section 230 of B.N.S.S, Code and on the same day the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined Under Section 274 of B.N.S.S. for the alleged offence, the accused have pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P16 were marked. On 13.08.2025 the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined Under

Section 351 of B.N.S.S, they denied the incriminating material against them and reported no defence evidence and on the same day heard arguments of both sides. On 18.08.2025 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment.

Hence the delay

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 3 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

NOW VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS :: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI ANURAG KOMMADDI

VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, this the 18th day of August, 2025

Calendar Case No.396/2025

Between: State : Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post, Palasa … Complainant

And

A-1: Vankala Someswara Rao, S/o Late V.Tammayya, aged about 39 years, R/o 2-378, B.P.Colony, Kanchili PS, Srikakulam District. A-2: Gara Mani Babu, S/o G.Hema Sundara Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o Jakkara, Kanchili PS, Srikakulam District. … Accused

This case is coming on 13.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Public Prosecutor, Railway Protection Force, learned Advocate

for complainant and Sri V.V.Someswara Rao learned advocate for the

accused Nos.1 & 2 upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following :

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

1. The Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Palasa Post, filed complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under

Sections 147 and 174(c) of The Railway Act in Crime number C3C 236/2024 of RPF Post, Palasa.

2.The gist of prosecution case is as follows : On 26.09.2024, at about 5:30 P.M., LW1 M. Malyadri received information from LW2 Prabhakar Sahu,

SSE/Signal, regarding a signal failure on Line No.1 and Line No.4 at Sompeta

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 4 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Railway Station. LW1 identified the location of the cable cut at Kilometer No.

644/22. He immediately proceeded to the spot with his team and, with the assistance of LW2 P.K. Sahu, conducted a joint inspection. During the inspection, they observed JCB marks at the scene. Upon making inquiries near the place of occurrence, it was found that the Goddess Kanchamma

Thalli Temple is located nearby. The temple in-charge had engaged a JCB for cleaning work and hired the JCB operator-cum-owner for the task. The temple in-charge was identified as Accused No.1, and the JCB operator was identified as Accused No.2. Accused No.1 admitted that he had failed to provide the boundary details between the temple premises and railway land, and Accused

No.2 had carried out the task negligently, which led to the damage of signal cables, resulting in the obstruction of two trains. Upon further questioning, both Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 admitted their involvement and expressed regret for their actions. LW1/M. Malyadri registered a case under

Crime No. C3C 129/2024 for offences under Sections 147 and 174(c) of the

Railway Act. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were released on station bail. Later the case was endorsed to LW6 S.Biswas and on completing necessary inquiries, LW6

S.Biswas filed complaint against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the

Complaint.

3. This case was taken cognizance of the offence Under Sections 147 and 174(c) of The Railway Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2. On 17.03.2025 copies of all documents were furnished to them Under Section 230 of B.N.S.S. and the accused were examined Under Section 274 of

B.N.S.S., for the alleged offence, the accused have pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined, got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.16. The evidence of P.Anil was given up by learned Public

Prosecutoron 06.05.2025 under Section 330 of B.N.S.S. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined Under

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 5 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Section 351 of B.N.S.S., they denied the incriminating material found against them and reported no defense evidence.

5. Heard the arguments of both sides.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, in conjunction with Exhibits P.1 to P.16, establishes the prosecution's case.

It is contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be punished. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor has prayed that the Court punish the accused in accordance with the law.

7.On the other hand, the learned defence counsels for accused Nos. 1 and 2 argued that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and no independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case. He further contended that, aside from the confession of the accused, there is no other material evidence linking the accused to the crime. While the confession made

before RPF personnel is admissible in evidence, he argued it requires

corroboration by independent witnesses, which is absent in this case. The defence emphasized that the lack of such corroboration is detrimental to the prosecution’s case. On these grounds, the defence counsel prayed for the acquittal of the accused, asserting that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

8.Heard arguments.

9. Point for consideration:

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused

Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 174(c) of

The Railways Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. Point:

The prosecution's case is that on 26.09.2024, at about 5:00 P.M.,

Accused No.1, the in-charge of the Goddess Kanchamma Thalli Temple, hired

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 6 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Accused No.2 for soil excavation work. During the execution of this work,

Accused No.2, while operating the excavator, trespassed into railway land. In the process, the excavator's bucket came into contact with underground railway cables, causing damage. The accused had slightly encroached upon the railway area, where signal cables were laid beneath the surface. This act resulted in damage to the cables, leading to a signal failure and subsequent disruption of the railway signaling system, thereby constituting an offence under Section 174(c) of the Railways Act. Furthermore, the unauthorized entry into railway property amounts to an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Railways Act. Therefore, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are held to have committed offences punishable under Sections 147 and 174(c) of the

Railways Act.

11. To establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5. P.W.1 is independent witness as a mediator during the arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2.

P.W.2 who obtained the telephonic message from signal department regarding the signal failure. P.W.3, the Senior Section Engineer, Signal, Berahampur, who conducted joint observation report. P.W.4 is the inquiry officer, apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2. P.W.5 is the enquiry officer who filed the complaint.

12.To substantiate the prosecution’s case, PW4, the Sub-Inspector, stated that on 26.09.2024, at about 5:30 P.M., upon receiving information regarding the signal failure on Line No.1 and Line No.4 at Sompeta Railway Station, he identified the location of the cable cut at Kilometer No. 644/22 and immediately proceeded to the spot with his team. By the time they arrived,

PW3 was already present at the location with his staff. With the assistance of

PW3, the scene was inspected and a joint observation report was prepared, as in Ex.P.5. During the inspection, they observed JCB tire marks at the scene. Upon inquiry, PW4 was informed that near the place of occurrence, the

Goddess Kanchamma Thalli Temple is located, and that the temple in-charge,

Accused No.1, had hired Accused No.2 who is both the operator and owner of

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 7 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

the JCB for road cleaning work in preparation for the upcoming Dasara celebrations. It was during the execution of this work that the damage to the underground railway cables occurred. Upon further questioning, both accused admitted their involvement and apologized. PW4 further stated that as a result of the incident, two trains were detained. He registered the case and later released the accused on station bail. The evidence of PW4 is corroborated by

PW1, an independent witness, who testified about his presence during the inquiry of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. He also confirmed that the confessions made by the accused were voluntary.

13.The evidence of PW3 corroborates the fact that he was present during the drafting of the Joint Observation Repor as Ex.P1, by PW4. Furthermore, the testimony of the inquiry officer, PW5, reveals that he conducted additional inquiries in the case. The ownership particulars of the JCB, Ex.P14, establish that Accused No.2 is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the offence. All prosecution witnesses, PWs 1 to 5, were cross-examined by the learned defence counsel; however, nothing substantial was brought out in cross- examination to discredit their testimonies.

14.On perusal of entire evidence on record, it is clear that accused Nos.1 and 2 were hired to work by villagers for cleaning the road in view of Dasara celbrations. The evidence of PW.s 1 to 5 categorically establishes the fact that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have trespassed into railway land and cleaning the road, the bucket of excavator touched the under surface railway cables resulting in signal failure that lead of obstruction to the passage of two trains.

Further the evidence of PW.1 the independent witness who is none other co- villager of accused stated that accused had voluntarily admitted their guilt. So being the villager he is not excepted to speak ill or false about the accused.

The only defence took by the learned defence counsel is that due to mistake of railway to cover up their lacunas and to account the crime the accused falsely in this case and observed above P.W.4 is a public servant and he has

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 8 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

no animosity against the accused to depose falsely and this court does not find any reason to P.W.4 to implicate the accused in a false case.

15.Additionally, Exs.P9 and Ex.P10 are the statements of the accused, which contain admissions concerning the alleged incident. These statements are admissible in evidence, as PW4, the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Sub-

Inspector, is not considered a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This legal position is supported by the decision in

Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1981), wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that an officer of the RPF conducting an inquiry under

Section 8(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1966, does not possess the full powers of a police officer as outlined in Chapter XIV of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Specifically, such an officer is not empowered to initiate prosecution by filing a charge sheet before a Magistrate under Section 173 of the CrPC an essential characteristic of a police officer. Accordingly, a

Railway Protection Force officer is not treated as a "police officer" for the purposes of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him during an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the RPF Act is not rendered inadmissible under that section. Consequently,

Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, being voluntary statements recorded during such an inquiry, are admissible in evidence. When read in conjunction with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence cogently establishes that Accused No.1 hired Accused No.2 to carry out soil excavation work on land situated adjacent to railway property. While executing the said work,

Accused No.2 trespassed into railway land and negligently carried out the excavation, which led to the damage of underground railway signal cables, resulting in a signal failure.

16.Considering the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, particularly the depositions of PWs 1 to 5 and the exhibits marked Exs. P1 to P16, this court of opnion that the prosecution has

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 9 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

established the guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 147 and 174(c) of the Railways Act.

17. In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences

U/secs. 147 and 174(c) of The Railway Act and accordingly, they are convicted Under Section 278 (2) of B.N.S.S.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded mercy of court and accused No.1 submitted that he is working as an assistant under Civil Contractor. His family depends on his sole earnings.

Accused No.2 submitted that he is working as agricultural labourer and earns meager income and his family depending on his sole earnings.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case to invoke the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. As the accused Nos.1 and 2 are poor persons compensation is not awarded Under Section 395 of

B.N.S.S In view of the facts and circumstance of the case and submission made by the accused Nos.1 and 2, this court is of considered opinion to take lenient view while sentencing the accused Nos.1 and 2 by imposing fine, which meets the ends of Justice.

Accordingly, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand Only) each, for the offence Under Section 174(c) of The Railway Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and they further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under section 147 of The Raiwlay Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Total

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 10 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

fine amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) each. The accused

Nos.1 and 2 are informed about their right to appeal against this Judgment

before the Hon’ble Sessions Court. The crime vehicle i.e., JCB bearing

registration No.AP 35 AB 7950 which was returned to it’s owner towards inerim custody as per the orders in Crl.MP.No.1948/2024 dated 01.10.2024 and the same was made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant : For Defense:

P.W.1 : L.Sagar None P.W.2 : Prabhakar Pradhan P.W.3 : Prabhakar Sahu P.W.4 : M.Malyadri P.W.5 : S.Biswas Documents Marked

For Complainant

Ex.P.1 :Statement of PW1

Ex.P.2 :Extract of diary

Ex.P.3 :Certificate of loss of punctuality

Ex.P.4 :Statement of PW2

Ex.P.5 :Joint observation report

Ex.P.6:Statement of PW3

Ex.P.7:Rough sketch

Ex.P.8 :Photographs of the scene of offence

Ex.P.9:Confessional statement of accused No.1

Ex.P.10:Confessional statement of accused No.2

Ex.P.11:Seizure list

Ex.P.12:Statement of PW4

C.C. No.396/2025 Dt.18.08.2025 11 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Ex.P.13:Requisition to MVI, Palasa to furnish the ownership particulars of crime vehicle and to give report

Ex.P.14:Ownership particulars of crime vehicle

Ex.P.15:MVI report

Ex.P.16:Statement of P.Anil

For Defense NIL

Material Object: NIL

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

// TRUE COPY //

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.681/2025 1 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.681 of 2025 on the file of VI Metropolitan

Magistrate for Railways, Now VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Railways Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 28.09.2024

2. Date of report: 28.09.2024

3. Date of arrest of accused: ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial: 19.05.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 06.08.2025

7. Date of judgment: 18.08.2025

8. Complainant : State: Sub Inspector, RPF Post, Marripalem

9. Accused : Kona Venkatesh, S/o late K.Srinivas Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o D.No.36-96-281, Babuji Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

10. Offence : Under Section 3(a) Railway Protection (Unlawful Protection) Act, 1966.

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty

13. Sentence or order : Accused is found guilty of the offence Under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act and accordingly, they are convicted Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees

Seven thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under

C.C. No.681/2025 2 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

Section 304 of Criminal Procedure Code through Hon’ble Chairman, District

Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam. M.O.1 hall be returned to the concerned Railway Authorities under proper acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. As the accused is poor person compensation is not awarded under section 357

Cr.P.C.

14. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 15.04.2025

Under Section 3 (a) of Railway Protection (Unlawful Protection) Act against the accused. On 23.04.2025 copies of all documents were furnished to accused Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 31.07.2025 the accused was examined Under Section 246(1) of Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty, charge was framed Under Section 3(a) of Railway Protection (Unlawful Protection) Act against him, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5, Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.18 apart from M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On 31.07.2025 the accused was examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he reported no defense evidence. On 06.08.2025 heard arguments of both sides. On 18.08.2025 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.681/2025 3 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

IN THE COURT OF VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

NOW VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI ANURAG KOMMADDI

VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Calendar Case No.681/2025

Between: Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Marripalem. … Complainant

And

Kona Venkatesh, S/o late K.Srinivas Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o D.No.36-96-281, Babuji Nagar, Visakhapatnam. … Accused

This case is coming on 06.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Public Prosecutor, Railway Protection Force, learned Advocate

for complainant and of Sri G.S.V.S.Damodara Rao, learned advocate for the

accused and upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Marripalem filed complaint against the accused for the offence Section 3(a) of Railway

Protection (Unlawful Protection) Act, 1966 in Crime number 13/2024 of RPF

Post, Marripalem.

2.Gist of the Prosecution’s Case: On 01.06.2024, SI Suraj Kumar/LW1 received a written memo from the SSE, Visakhapatnam, reporting the theft of four copper cables from stabled AC coach No. ECOR 07142/C. LW1, along with his team and LW6 K.S. Sista, conducted a joint inspection and confirmed the theft. A case was registered under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act against unknown individuals. Subsequently, during incognito surveillance at the scene of offence, on 23.01.2025 at about 2:30

C.C. No.681/2025 4 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

PM, the accused was found near Route No. 1, in the bushes beneath the subway underpass bridge, in possession of the stolen items. Upon questioning, he failed to justify possession and confessed to the theft, revealing that he had hidden the items in nearby bushes. His voluntary confession was recorded, confirming his involvement. The case was subsequently endorsed to LW10 P.K.Roul for further inquiry. After completion of of all necessary inquires, LW.10/P.K.Roul field the complaint against accused.

3.The court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, and proceedings have been initiated against the accused accordingly. On 23.04.2025 Copies were furnished to accused U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and he was examined Under Section 246(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable offence U/sec.3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act after dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.267 of Cr.P.C., on the memo filed by the learned public prosecutor as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against them for the alleged offence U/sec.3(a) of Railway

Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, a charge Under 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act was framed against the accused , read over and explained the same to him in Vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5,

Ex.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. The evidence of P.G.Naidu,

Vikash Puri, B.Seshaiah, S.Appala Raju, B.Konza were given up by Learned

Public Prosecutor on 17.07.2025.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused.

C.C. No.681/2025 5 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

6. Point:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt or not?”.

To make out an offence under Sec.3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the prosecution has got to prove 1) That the property seized from the accused is railway property (2) that the accused has been in possession of the railway property (3) that the said railway property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

7.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution cited L.W.1 to L.W.10 as witnesses. Out of these, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5.

Documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P18 and material objects M.Os.1 and 2 were exhibited. P.W.1 is the preliminary inquiry officer who received information regarding the occurrence, inspected the scene, registered the crime, apprehended the accused, and seized M.Os.1 and 2. P.W.2 is Senior

Section Engineer/AC, NCC, Visakhapatnam who issued theft memo and who assisted PW1 for conducting joint verification of the scene of offence. P.W.3 is the inquiry officer who filed the present complaint after completing the necessary inquiries. P.W.4 is the Senior Section Engineer, AC/NCC,

Visakhapatnam who issued Y-form and who certified that M.O.1 is railway property. P.W.5 is the seizure witness who witnessed the apprehension of the accused and the seizure of the property.

8.To establish the allegations against the accused under Section 3(a) of the RP (UP) Act, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that M.O.1 is the property of Indian Railways. In this regard, the prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.4, who deposed that he personally inspected M.O.1 at the office of the RPF Post, Marripalem, and issued an expert opinion under

Ex.P11, certifying that M.O.1 is a power cable exclusively used in AC coaches and it belongs to Indian Railways. He further stated that these cables ar specially designed according to the specifications of the Research Designs and Standards Organization (RDSO) for exclusive use in AC coaches of

C.C. No.681/2025 6 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 trains. The evidence of P.W.4 was subjected to cross-examination, during which it was elicited that M.O.1 does not bear any specific railway markings or monograms directly identifying it as railway property. However, this omission does not materially weaken the prosecution’s case. The expert opinion of

P.W.4 clearly establishes that the signal cables in question are not available for sale in the open market and are manufactured exclusively for Indian

Railways in accordance with RDSO specifications. This strongly supports the conclusion that M.O.1 belongs to Indian Railways. Significantly, the accused was found within the restricted premises of the railway station in unauthorized possession of M.O.1 an area where he had no lawful reason to be. He failed to offer any plausible or satisfactory explanation for either his presence at the location or his possession of the item. If the defence seeks to dispute the ownership of M.O.1, the burden lies on it to produce credible evidence showing lawful ownership, lawful possession, or that the materials belong to a different entity. However, the defence has not produced any such evidence and has limited itself to vague and unsubstantiated suggestions.

9.Furthermore, the issuance of the Y-Form under Ex.P17 by P.W.4, Senior

Section Engineer, AC/NCC, substantiates the fact that the seven pieces of cable were indeed stolen. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the testimony of P.W.4, supported by documentary and circumstantial evidence, sufficiently establishes that M.O.1 is the property of Indian Railways.

10. With regard to the apprehension of the accused, the recording of his confessional statement, and the seizure of M.O.1, the prosecution relies on the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 5.

11.P.W.1, the Preliminary Inquiry Officer, deposed that he received a written memo from P.W.2 regarding the theft of four copper cables from stabled AC coach No. ECOR 071424/C. He, along with his staff and LW9 B.

Konza, proceeded to the location and conducted a joint inspection of the scene with the assistance of P.W.2, as recorded in Ex.P2. During the inspection, it was confirmed that the cables had been severed and stolen. He

C.C. No.681/2025 7 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 then registered a case and obtained a Y-Form under Ex.P17. P.W.1 further stated that on 23.01.2025, he conducted an incognito watch at the classification yard, and at about 2:30 P.M., the accused was found under suspicious circumstances and was immediately apprehended. In the presence of an independent witness, P.W.5, a search was conducted, which led to the recovery of five black cables and two white cables (M.O.1), as well as one hacksaw blade (M.O.2). Upon questioning, the accused failed to provide any valid explanation for possessing these items. He then voluntarily confessed that he had been collecting scrap from the railway area, and in the last week of May 2024, he visited Marripalem railway station and then proceeded to the classification yard with the intention of stealing iron materials. There, he noticed stabled coaches and cables inside one of them. On the following day, he again visited the classification yard with a hacksaw blade, severed the cables using the blade, and cut them into smaller pieces. He concealed some pieces in nearby bushes and sold some to an unknown purchaser. He further confessed that he revisited the location on multiple occasions to retrieve the hidden cables and had returned on the day of his arrest for the same purpose.

This confession was recorded in Ex.P3, and the recovered items were seized, as documented in the seizure list Ex.P5.

12.The testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2, particularly regarding the issuance of the written memo under Ex.P1 and the drafting of the Joint

Observation Report Ex.P1 by PW.1 Additionally, P.W.5 corroborated the evidence concerning the apprehension of the accused and the seizure of

M.Os.1 and 2. He described in detail the circumstances of the arrest, the recovery of the material objects, and the voluntary confession made by the accused. Both witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their testimony or weaken the prosecution’s case.

13.On an overall review of the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the accused committed the theft of 4 numbers of copper cables from stabled AC coach No.ECOR 071424/C. The accused was found in unauthorized

C.C. No.681/2025 8 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 possession of two pieces of 7 numbers of pieces of cables of different length

M.O.1. He failed to produce any credible evidence to establish lawful ownership or possession of M.Os.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, the presumption under Section 119(a) of the Bharaatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is rightly attracted, as the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the possession of what has been proved to be stolen railway property.

Furthermore, the confessional statement made by the accused is admissible in evidence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra, an RPF officer conducting an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act does not fall within the definition of a “police officer” under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, confessions made to such officers are admissible.

14.In view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established that M.O.1 is the property of Indian Railways, that the accused was in unauthorized possession of the same, and that the seizure and recovery were lawfully conducted and supported by admissible evidence.

Accordingly, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(a) of the

RP (UP) Act stand fully proved.

15.In view of said discussion this court holds that, Prosecution established guilt of Accused person for charged offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result accused is found guilty of the offence Under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act and accordingly, he is convicted Under Section 271(2) of B.N.S.S.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Accused is questioned on sentence, accused pleaded mercy of court and submitted that he works a dialy wage labour and earning meager income.

C.C. No.681/2025 9 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

He is married and has 2 years baby girl and his family depends on his sole earnings.

Upon recording the plea of accused person and on taking note of nature of property involved in this case, this court is not inclined to invoke either section 3 or 4 of Probation of offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C., as there are no such warranting circumstances in this case.

However, by taking note of plea of accused person, his family condition and his antecedents as there is no previous criminal history to him in order to afford an opportunity to reform himself considering as a first mistake.

Accordingly, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees

Seven thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under

Section 304 of Criminal Procedure Code through Hon’ble Chairman, District

Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam. M.O.1 hall be returned to the concerned Railway Authorities under proper acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. As the accused is poor person compensation is not awarded under section 357

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant : For Defence:

P.W.1 : Suraj Kumar -Nil- P.W.2 : K.S.Sista P.W.3 : P.K.Roul

P.W.4 : V.Ramalingeswara Rao

C.C. No.681/2025 10 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

P.W.5 : K.Lakshmana Rao Documents Marked

For Complainant

Ex.P1 :Written memo

Ex.P2 :Joint observation report

Ex.P3 :Confessional statement of accused

Ex.P4 :Seizure list

Ex.P5 :Rough sketch of the scene

Ex.P6 :Statement of PW1

Ex.P7:Statement of PW2

Ex.P.8:Statement of P.G.Naidu

Ex.P9:Statement of Vikas Puri

Ex.P10: Requisition to the office of SSE, NCC, Visakhapatnam to examine M.O.1 and to give expert opinion

Ex.P11Expert opinion

Ex.P12: Statement of B.Sheshayya

Ex.P13: Statement of S.Appala Raju

Ex.P14: Statement of B.Konza

Ex.P15: Statement of K.Lakshmana Rao

Ex.P16: Requisition for issuance of Y-Form

Ex.P17: Y-Form

Ex.P18: Statement of PW4

Material Objects

M.O.1:7 numbers of pieces of cables of different length

M.O.2:Hacksaw blade

For Defense:

-Nil-

Sd/- Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.799/2025 1VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.799 of 2025 on the file of VI Metropolitan

Magistrate for Railways, Now VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Railways Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 28.10.2024

2. Date of report: 28.10.2024

3. Date of arrest of accused : ---

4. Date of release on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : 30.06.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 05.08.2025

7. Date of judgment : 18.08.2025

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector, RPF Post, Srikakulam Road

9. Accused : Mudidana Naveen, S/o M.Balaraju, aged about 23 years, R/o Deepavali Village, Tekkali PS & Mandal, VTC Ayodhyapuram, Srikakulam District.

10. Offence :Under Section143 (1) of The Railway Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty

13. Sentence or order : Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

Under Section 143 (1) of The Railway Act, 1989 and he is convicted under

Section 271 (2) of B.N.S.S.

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousands Only), for the offence Under Section 143 (1) of

The Railway Act, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple impris- onment for a period of three months. The accused is informed about his right

C.C. No.799/2025 2VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under Section 341 of BNSS through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Visakhapatnam. M.Os.1 is Xiaomi mobile which was returned to the accused towards interim custody as per the orders in Crl.MP.No.1942/2025 dated 31.07.2025 and the same was made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

M.O.2 is SP solid state drive shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on cognizance for the offence Under Section 143(1) of The Railways Act against the accused on 31.05.2025. On 26.05.2025 the accused was present, copies of all documents were furnished to him Under Section 230 of B.N.S.S. On 16.06.2025 the accused was examined Under Section 269 (1) of B.N.S.S, he pleaded not guilty, charge was framed Under Section 143 (1) of The Railways Act against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined

Exs.P.1 to P.29 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On 31.07.2025 the accused was examined Under Section 351 of B.N.S.S, he denied the incriminating material against him and reported no defence evidence. On 05.08.2025 heard arguments on both sides. On 18.08.2025 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy Submitted to : The Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// TRUE COPY //

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.799/2025 3VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

IN THE COURT OF VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI ANURAG KOMMADDI

VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, this the 18th day of August, 2025

Calendar Case No.799 of 2025

Between: State : Sub Inspector Railway Protection Force Post Srikakulam Road …. Complainant

And

Mudidana Naveen, S/o M.Balaraju, aged about 23 years, R/o Deepavali Village, Tekkali PS & Mandal, VTC Ayodhyapuram, Srikakulam District. … Accused

This case was coming on 05.08.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor, Railway Protection Force, for the complainant and Sri G.S.V.S.Damodara Rao, Learned Advocate for Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Srikakulam

Road field a complaint in Crime No. C3C/1321/2024 for the offence under

Section 143 (1) Railway Act.

2.On 28-10-2024, acting upon credible information received,

L.W.1/Tapan Kumar Nayak along with his team and the independent witness

L.W.5/P. Srikanth and LW4 M.Balaji, raided the shop of the accused, operating under the name and style of "Sri Beby Online Services," located at

Ambedkar Junction, Tekkali. The accused was found conducting business at the premises. Upon examination of the accused’s desktop computer, access

C.C. No.799/2025 4VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 to the IRCTC portal using 6 faker personal user IDs was discovered. A total of 11 future railway e-tickets and 38 numbers of past railway e-tickets were recovered. The accused admitted to creating 6 fake personal user IDs, which were used to book railway tickets. He confessed to charging Rs. 100/- per

Tatkal ticket and Rs. 50/- per general reservation ticket. L.W.13 seized the mobile phone, SP solid state drive, printed copies of the e-tickets, and recorded the accused’s confession. L.W.1/Tapan Kumar Nayak handed over the case to L.W.13 T.Nikhil Kumar on Special Report. A case registered as

Crime No. C3C/1321/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Railways Act. After completing all necessary inquiries, L.W.13 filed the present complaint against the accused.

3.Cognizance was taken of the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Railways Act against the accused. Upon his appearance before the Court, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

4.The accused was examined Under Section 269(1) of B.N.S.S. for the offence punishable offence under section 143 (1) of the Railways Act after dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.267 of B.N.S.S., on the memo filed by the learned public prosecutor as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against him for the alleged offence U/sec.143 (1) of the

Railways Act. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, a charge Under Section 143 (1) of Railways Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.29 and M.Os.1 & 2. The evidence of

M.Balakrishna, Rai Janaki Rao, M.Balaji, S.Susmitha, M.Ravi Kumar,

K.V.V.Jagannadha Rao, B.Venkata Ramana, I.Dharmarao, S.Sreepathi were given up by the learned Public Prosecutor on 18.07.2025 under Section 330 of B.N.S.S. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of B.N.S.S, explaining the incriminating material

C.C. No.799/2025 5VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 in the evidence of prosecution he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused.

7.Point:

Whether Prosecution established the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under section 143 of Railway Act (or) not ?

8.Point :

According to the prosecution, the accused was illegally engaged in selling railway reservation tickets from his shop, charging commissions ranging from 100 to 50 per ticket based on demand, without possessing₹₹ any valid license or authorization to carry out such activity.

9.To establish the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4. P.W.1 is the independent mediator who accompanied the raiding team during the operation. P.W.2 is the inquiry officer who, upon completing the necessary inquires, filed the present complaint, P.W.3 is the preliminary inquiry officer who conducted the raid at the accused’s shop and

P.W.4 is the passenger who purchased a railway ticket from the accused.

10.The evidence of P.W.3 reveals that on 28.10.2024 at about 1.00 P.M, he along with his staff and independent witness P.W.1 and LW4 M.Balaji, proceeded to the shop of the accused, where the accused was found engaged in business activities. Upon inquiry, the accused voluntarily confessed to creating 6 fake personal user ID. He admitted to generating railway tickets using these IDs and selling them on a commission basis, charging between 100 and 50 per ticket, depending on demand. He further₹₹ disclosed that he used the following IRCTC user IDs to book tickets:

1) naveenmudidana, 2) mudidananaveen, 3) Chandu8881, 4) mudidanannaveen, 5) Uppadasai and 6) naveenmudidana2. All transactions were carried out through his own bank account. Based on this confession,

P.W.3 retrieved and printed previously booked tickets generated through the above user IDs. These tickets were marked as Ex.P.23 and P.24. The seized documents were recorded under the seizure list marked as Ex. P25. The

C.C. No.799/2025 6VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 accused’s voluntary confession was documented as Ex.P26. The testimony of

P.W.3 is corroborated by P.W.4, the independent mediator present during the raid and seizure. P.W.1 confirmed the procedure followed during the search and seizure and affirmed that the confession made by the accused was voluntary. During cross-examination, the defense questioned the credibility of

P.W.3, raising concerns about the procedure followed in securing mediators and the manner of the seizure. It was also alleged that the accused’s signatures on Exs. P23 to P26 were obtained under duress. However, P.W.3 categorically denied these allegations. Similarly, during the cross-examination of P.W.1, attempts were made to challenge his credibility, but nothing substantial emerged to discredit his version of events.

11.Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by the testimonies of P.W.4, a passenger who have booked a railway ticket through the accused.

P.W.4 fully supported P.W.3’s version, stating that the have paid a commission of 327 to the accused for the booking. Although their testimonies were₹ subjected to cross-examination by the defense, nothing substantial was brought out to discredit or undermine their version. P.W.2, the inquiry officer who conducted further inquiry, also deposed in detail about the inquiries he carried out. He too was cross-examined, but no material was elicited to cast doubt on his testimony.

12.In this case, the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4, along with documentary evidence marked as Exs. P23 to P26 and the Prabal data report Ex.P8, form the core of the prosecution’s case. Despite detailed cross-examination,

P.W.2’s testimony remained consistent and credible. The documents clearly show that the accused generated railway tickets using 6 personal IRCTC user

IDs. P.W.4, a passengers, corroborated this by confirming that they paid 327₹ to the accused for a ticket. Ex.P8 further substantiates the charge by confirming that the accused lacked any valid license or authorization to book tickets on a commission basis. The defense argued that P.W.3 obtained the accused’s signatures on Exs. P23 to P26 under coercion, but failed to provide

C.C. No.799/2025 7VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 any convincing evidence. To counter this claim, the prosecution relied on the testimony of P.W.1, an independent witness who confirmed his presence during the raid, the seizure of the mobile phone, and the voluntary confession made by the accused. His evidence also remained firm during cross- examination. Given that the accused is literate and raised no protest at the time, the claim of coercion is unconvincing. The prosecution’s case is further supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001 (2) SCC 205), which holds that a voluntary and credible extra-judicial confession, corroborated by circumstances, can be the basis for conviction.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ocular and documentary evidence presented clearly establishes that the accused was involved in the unauthorized procurement and sale of railway reservation tickets. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, duly corroborated by the material documents, remains unrebutted and inspires confidence. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proven the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable under

Section 143 of the Railways Act, beyond a reasonable doubt.

14.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence under section 143(1) of the Railways Act, 1989 and he is convicted Under Section 271(2) of

B.N.S.S.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Accused pleaded mercy of court and submitted that that he works as a helper in a mobile store and his parents are depending on his sole earnings.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case to invoke the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. As the accused herein indigent person, compensation is not awarded Under Section 395 of B.N.S.S.

In view of the facts and circumstance of the case and submission made by

C.C. No.799/2025 8VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 the accused, this court is of considered opinion to take lenient view while sentencing the accused by imposing fine, which meets the ends of Justice.

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousands Only), for the offence Under Section 143 (1) of

The Railway Act, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about the right to get Legal Aid as contemplated under Section 341 of BNSS through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Visakhapatnam. M.Os.1 is Xiaomi mobile which was returned to the accused towards interim custody as per the orders in Crl.MP.No.1942/2025 dated 31.07.2025 and the same was made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

M.O.2 is SP solid state drive shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant : For Defense:

P.W.1 : P.Srikanth None P.W.2 : T.Nikhil Kumar P.W.3 : T.K.Nayak P.W.4 : B.Ramakrishna Documents Marked

For complainant :

Ex.P.1 :Statement of PW1

Ex.P.2 : Special report

Ex.P.3 :Requisition to Chief Reservation Supervisor, Naupada to block the 11 future tickets

Ex.P.4 :Endorsement of Chief Reservation Supervisor to block the tickets

Ex.P.5 :Requisition to Cyber Cell, Phone Pay to furnish the transaction for the provided phone number 9652310462

C.C. No.799/2025 9VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025

Ex.P.6: CD

Ex.P.7:Requisition to Cyber Cell, Visakhapatnam to furnish the prabal data report

Ex.P.8:Prabal data report dated 21.11.2024

Ex.P9:Requisition to Cyber Cell, Visakhapatnam to examine the data of Xiaomi mobile and SP hard disk

Ex.P.10 :Report

Ex.P.11 :Requisition to Manager, SBI, Tekkali to furnish the account statement of accused

Ex.P.12:Soft copy of account statement of accused and it is transmitted in CD

Ex.P.13:Requisition to Panchayat Secretary, Tekkali to furnish the ownership particulars of shop of accused

Ex.P.14:Ownership particulars of shop owner by name Ramana

Ex.P.15:Statement of Ramana

Ex.P.16:Statement of PW2

Ex.P.17:Statement of Balakrishna

Ex.P.18:Statement of R.Janaki Rao

Ex.P.19:Statement of M.Balaji

Ex.P.20:Statement of I.Dharma Rao

Ex.P.21:Statement of PW4

Ex.P.22:Statement of S.Sripathi

Ex.P.23:Booked history of 11 numbers of future tickets

Ex.P.24:Booked history of 38 past railway e-tickets

Ex.P.25:Seizure list dated 28.10.2024

Ex.P.26:Confessional statement of accused

Ex.P.27: Electricity bill pertaining to month of August, 2024

Ex.P.28:Zimmanama

Ex.P.29:Rough sketch

Material Objects

M.O.1:Xiaomi mobile

M.O.2:SP solid state drive For Defense NIL

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.799/2025 10VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 18.08.2025 // TRUE COPY //

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.941/2025 1 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.941 of 2025 on the file of VI Metropolitan

Magistrate for Railways, Now VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Railways Visakhapatnam

1. Date of Offence: 21.04.2025

2. Date of report: 21.04.2025

3. Date of arrest of accused: --

4. Date of release on bail : --

5. Date of commencement of trial : 22.07.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 18.08.2025

7. Date of judgment: 20.08.2025

8. Complainant : State: Asst.Sub Inspector, RPF Post, Vizianagaram

9. Accused : Chandaka Ramulu, S/o Late Ch.Rama Swamy, aged about 70 years, R/o 2-90, Mangala Street, Ramathirdhalu, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram District. Presently R/at Sativada Village, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram District.

10. Offence : Under Sections 147 & 154 of The Railway Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found guilty

13. Sentence or order : Accused is found guilty for the offence Under

Sections 147 and 154 of The Railway Act and accordingly, he is convicted

Under Section 278 (2) of B.N.S.S.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 3,000/- (Rupees₹

Three Thousand only) for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act,

C.C. No.941/2025 2 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025 and 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence under Section 147₹ of the Railways Act. In default of payment of the total fine amounting to ₹4,000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

14. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 25.06.2025

Under Sections 147 & 154 of The Railway Act against the accused. On 07.07.2025 copies of all documents were furnished to the accused Under

Section 230 of B.N.S.s and the accused was examined under section 274 of

B.N.S.S. for the alleged offence, the accused has pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P17 were marked. On 18.08.2025 the accused was examined Under Section 351 of B.N.S.S., he denied the incriminating material against him and reported no defence evidence and on the same day heard arguments of both sides. On 20.08.2025 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

//True Copy//

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

C.C. No.941/2025 3 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025

IN THE COURT OF VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI ANURAG KOMMADDI

VI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, NOW

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Wednesday, this the 20th day of August, 2025

Calendar Case No.941/2025

Between:

State :Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post, Vizianagaram … Complainant

And

Chandaka Ramulu, S/o Late Ch.Rama Swamy, aged about 70 years, R/o 2-90, Mangala Street, Ramathirdhalu, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram District. Presently R/at Sativada Village, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram District. … Accused

This case is coming on 18.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Public Prosecutor, Railway Protection Force, learned Advocate

for complainant and of Sri.V.V.Someswara Rao, learned advocate for the

accused upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following :

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

1. The Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post,

Vizianagaram filed complaint against the accused for the offence under

Sections 147 & 154 of The Railway Act in Crime number C3C 1414/2025 of

RPF Post, Vizianagaram.

2.The gist of the prosecution's case is that on 21.04.2025, at about 12:40

P.M., L.W.10 P. Ravi Kishore, acting upon telephonic information received from the Station Master at Vizianagaram regarding a bike bearing registration

C.C. No.941/2025 4 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025

No. AP 40 BU 7701 being hit by train No. 12863 Howrah–Yeswanthpur

Express on a railway track resulting in the detention of the train proceeded to the spot and found the vehicle in a scattered condition on the track. He, along with his staff, seized the said vehicle under the cover of a seizure list and registered a case in Crime No. C3C 1414/2025 under Sections 147, 153, and 174(b) of the Railways Act. During the course of the enquiry, the rider of the vehicle, i.e., the accused, surrendered and voluntarily admitted his guilt, stating that upon seeing the approaching train, he became petrified, abandoned the bike on the track, and fled from the spot. His confessional statement was recorded, and he was linked to the crime.After completion of necessary enquires, LW.10 filed complaint against the accused.

3. This case was taken cognizance of the offence Under Sections 147 and 154 of The Railway Act against the accused. On 07.07.2025 copies of all documents were furnished to the accused Under Section 230 of BNSS and the accused was examined Under Section 274 of BNSS for the alleged offence, the accused has pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.17. The evidence of V.Srinivasa Rao, Hanumanthu Visveswara

Rao, M.Bala Krishna, N.A.Naidu, S.V.V.Prasad, M.Murali Krishna and M.Latha were given up by learned Public Prosecutoron 05.08.2025 under Section

Section 330 of B.N.S.S. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under Section 351 of B.N.S.S he denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence.

5. Heard the arguments of both sides.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, in conjunction with Exhibits P.1 to P.17, establishes the prosecution's case. It is contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, accused is liable to be

C.C. No.941/2025 5 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025 punished. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor has prayed that the Court punish the accused in accordance with the law.

7.On the other hand, the learned defence counsels for accused argued that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and no independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case. He further contended that, aside from the confession of the accused, there is no other material evidence linking the accused to the crime. While the confession made before RPF personnel is admissible in evidence, he argued it requires corroboration by independent witnesses, which is absent in this case. The defence emphasized that the lack of such corroboration is detrimental to the prosecution’s case. On these grounds, the defence counsel prayed for the acquittal of the accused, asserting that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

8. Point for consideration:

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused

for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 154 of The Railways

Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.04.2025, at about 12:40 P.M., the accused, i.e., the rider of a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 40 BU 7701, unlawfully trespassed onto the railway track at Kilometer No. 811/5-7, between Nellimarla and Vizianagaram railway stations, and attempted to cross it. Upon seeing an approaching train, he became frightened, abandoned the motorcycle on the track, and fled from the spot. As a result, the motorcycle was completely damaged, and the incident caused an obstruction to the passage of Train No. 12863 Howrah–Yeswanthpur Express, which was forced to halt for a period of five minutes. The unlawful act of the accused not only amounted to trespass but also endangered the safety of the passengers traveling on Train No. 12863.

C.C. No.941/2025 6 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025

10. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW1, the Sub-Inspector and complainant, deposed in line with the contents of the complaint. His chief examination is essentially a replica of the complaint, wherein he stated that on 21.04.2025 at about 12:40 P.M., upon receiving information that a motorcycle had been abandoned on the railway track by an unknown person and was subsequently hit by Train No. 12863, resulting in complete damage to the vehicle, he immediately proceeded to the spot along with his team. By the time they arrived, the rider of the vehicle had fled the scene, leaving the vehicle behind. PW1 seized the said vehicle under the cover of a seizure list marked as Ex.P3. During the course of enquiry, PW3 voluntarily approached the police and stated that the motorcycle belonged to the accused, who had likely come to the area that day to visit the Sub-Registrar’s office. Based on this information, a case was registered as Crime No. 1414/2025 for the offences under Sections 147 and 154 of the Railways Act. Later, the accused voluntarily surrendered and confessed to the incident, as recorded in Ex.P4.

PW1 also procured ownership documents confirming that the accused was the registered owner of the motorcycle involved. Coming to the evidence of

PW3, an independent witness, he identified the crime vehicle and confirmed that it belonged to the accused. He further stated that he brought the accused to the RPF post the following day. His testimony corroborates the confession made by the accused and supports the voluntariness of that statement.

11. Furthermore, the testimony of PW.1 is corroborated by that of PW.2, an independent witness who was present during the enquiry of the accused.

PW.2 affirmed both the confessional statement made by the accused and the voluntariness with which it was given. PWs 1 to 3 were cross-examined at length but nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their testimonies.

12.This Court has carefully examined the entire evidence on record, as well as the arguments advanced by both sides. During cross-examination, apart from formal denials, nothing substantial was elicited to disprove the prosecution’s version of events. PWs 1 to 3 have categorically deposed

C.C. No.941/2025 7 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025 regarding the incident, and their testimonies collectively establish the occurrence of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The defence contended that the accused was falsely implicated by the railway authorities to cover up their own lapses and to account for the incident. However, PW.1, a public servant, has no motive or animosity against the accused to depose falsely. This Court finds no reason to doubt her credibility or believe she would falsely implicate the accused. Her testimony is clear, convincing, and reliable.

Furthermore, her evidence is corroborated by PW.2, an independent witness, who categorically confirmed the confessional statement made by the accused and the voluntary nature of that statement. PW.3, a relative of the accused, also supported the prosecution’s case. Given his relationship, he cannot be expected to falsely depose against the accused without reason, which further strengthens the prosecution’s case. Thus, based on the evidence on record, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused illegally trespassed into the railway premises by riding his bike across the railway track and abandoned the vehicle upon noticing an approaching train. This act endangered the safety of passengers on the train and within the railway area.

13. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences Under Sections 154 & 147 of The Railway Act, accordingly he is convicted Under Section 278 (2) of B.N.S.S.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Upon being questioned regarding the sentence, the accused submitted that he is suffering from paralysis, is completely bedridden, and is dependent on his family members for attending to his daily needs. He therefore re- quested that these facts be considered while imposing the sentence.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not considered a fit case for invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders

C.C. No.941/2025 8 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025

Act. As the accused is a person of limited means, no compensation is awarded under Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Considering the nature of the offences, the health condition of the accused, his financial situation, and the overall circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a compassionate approach may be adopted while sentencing, and that the imposition of a fine would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 3,000/- (Ru₹- pees Three Thousand only) for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways

Act, and 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence under Section₹ 147 of the Railways Act. In default of payment of the total fine amounting to ₹4,000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant : For Defense:

P.W.1 : P.Ravi Kishor None P.W.2 : U.Venkatesh P.W.3 : G.Ramunaidu

Documents Marked

For Complainant

Ex.P.1 :Rough sketch

Ex.P.2 :Photos 9 in number accompanied certificate under section 63 of BSA

Ex.P.3 :Seizure list

Ex.P.4 :Confessional statement of accused

Ex.P.5 :Seizure list-II

Ex.P.6:Statement of PW3

Ex.P.7:Requisition to RTO, Vizianagaram to furnish the ownership particulars of crime vehicle

C.C. No.941/2025 9 VI A.J.M.F. FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM Dt. 20.08.2025

Ex.P.8:Ownership particulars of crime vehicle

Ex.P.9:Requisition to Station Superintendent, Vizianagaram to issue detention certificate

Ex.P.10:Detention certificate

Ex.P.11:Statement of N.A.Naidu

Ex.P.12:Statement of K.Venkatesh

Ex.P.13:Statement of S.V.B.Prasad

Ex.P.14:Statement of V.Srinivasa Rao

Ex.P.15:Statement of M.Balakrishna

Ex.P.16:Abstract of station diary

Ex.P.17:Statement of H.Visveswara Rao

For Defense : NIL

Material Object: NIL

Sd/-Anurag Kommaddi

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.

//True Copy//

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam.